BK. 5137 »sC37 1835 
 Cary, Henry, 1804-1870. 
 
 Testimonies of the fathers 
 of the first four centurie 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ce Hb wi ¥, 0 one am | 
 
 hae ae ries it wens aut th i ar 
 
 | , 
 . f _ Ma). oe 
 
 
 
 ae r A oe oe eg ve 4 
 . i, ite fy 
 
 | re aangeee rouge 1 iH 
 
 We ae ng Yi 3 | 
 ue #) eatin vag 
 
 el 
 

 
TESTIMONIES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 FATHERS OF THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES 
 
 TO THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE 
 OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 
 AS SET FORTH IN THE 
 
 THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 
 
 BY TH 
 REV. HENRY CARY, M. A. 
 
 OF WORCESTER COLL, OXFORD, 
 
 
 
 OXFORD: D. A. TALBOYS, 
 
 M DCCC XxXxV, 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https ://archive.org/details/testimoniesoffat0Ocary © 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 A principle which especially characterises the 
 Church of England, and distinguishes her from 
 every other reformed communion, is her marked 
 and avowed adherence to the Catholic faith as re- 
 ceived in the primitive and purest ages of Chris- 
 tianity. She has acted on this universally ac- 
 knowledged truth, that whatsoever is new in the 
 fundamentals of religion, must be false. On this 
 ground, and believing that in the earliest ages the 
 great truths of Christianity were known to, and 
 plainly professed by the Church, she (as is said by 
 alate most eminent and pious prelate) “in the first 
 instance, and as her grand foundation, derives all 
 obligatory matter of faith, that is, to use her own 
 expression, all ‘that is to be believed for necessity 
 of salvation,’ from the Scripture alone: and herein 
 she differs from the Church of Rome. But she 
 systematically resorts to the concurrent sense of 
 the Church Catholic, both for assistance in the in- 
 terpretation of the sacred text, and for guidance in 
 those matters of religion, which the text has left at 
 large: and herein she differs from every reformed 
 communion *.” 
 
 This peculiarity of our Church, though known 
 
 4 Dr. Jess, Bishop of Limerick. Peculiar character of the 
 Church of England. 
 
 b 
 
il PREFACE. 
 
 to, and in more than one instance commended by 
 
 learned foreign divines, not members of our com- 
 munion, has unfortunately, of late years, been 
 little regarded by the generality of our own 
 clergy. 
 
 It is more with a view to invite them to these 
 storehouses of divine knowledge, than for the pur- 
 pose of controversy, that this volume is offered to 
 the public. The many varieties of opinion that 
 unhappily exist among ourselves, as to the proper 
 interpretation of particular passages of Scripture, 
 could not be otherwise than very much diminished, 
 if not entirely removed, would we but follow that 
 path so plainly pointed out to us by the authorita- 
 tive records of our own Church; viz. would we 
 yield our own private interpretations to the sense 
 of the Church Catholic, wherever that can be 
 ascertained. 
 
 We should not still have to learn that “ no pro- 
 phecy of the Scripture is of any private interpreta- 
 tion. For the prophecy came not in old time by 
 the will of man: but holy men of God spake as 
 they were moved by the Holy Ghost”:” an in- 
 spired rule, which, though in its first intention ap- 
 plicable to the prophets and apostles, yet when 
 connected with our Lord’s promise to be with his 
 Church “alway, even unto the end of the world,” 
 may well be applied to the Church, in those times 
 particularly when the presence of the Holy Spirit 
 was most manifest. 
 
 b 2 Pet. i. 20, 21. 
 
PREFACE. li 
 
 With a view, therefore, to shew the use and 
 authority of the Fathers, it may be desirable, first 
 of all to enquire how far we, the clergy, are bound 
 by our ordination vows to search into and uphold 
 the primitive faith: and secondly, to justify and 
 explain the obligation imposed upon us. The first 
 subject of enquiry is short and simple, and cannot 
 be gainsayed by any amongst ourselves. The second 
 is rather addressed to those who maintain the in- 
 terpretation of Scripture by Scripture only, to those 
 who would fathom the depths by the same plummet 
 that sounds the shallows. 
 
 For the first point then; “ Let preachers take 
 heed that they never teach any thing from the 
 pulpit, to be religiously held and believed by the 
 people, except what is agreeable to the doctrine of 
 the Old or New Testament, and which the 
 Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected 
 out of the same doctrine °.” 
 
 To this nothing need be added except the ob- 
 servation, that the same rule which is thus laid 
 down for our guidance as to matters of faith, has 
 been observed by our Church in matters of practice 
 and ceremonial observances. Thus the preface to 
 the Book -of Common Prayer, ‘“‘ Concerning the 
 Service of the Church,” begins by directing us to 
 search out by the ancient Fathers, for the original 
 
 © Imprimis vero videbunt [Concionatores] ne quid unquam 
 doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiose teneri et credi 
 velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrine Veteris aut Novi 
 Testamenti, quodque ex illa ipsa doctrina Catholici Patres et 
 veteres Episcopi collegerint. Coll. Canon. Lond. 1691. p. 238. 
 
 b 2 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 and ground of divine service; saying, “ There was 
 never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, 
 or so sure established, which in continuance of 
 time hath not been corrupted: As among other 
 things it may plainly appear by the Common 
 Prayers in the Church, commonly called Divine 
 Service. The first original and ground whereof, if 
 a man would search out by the ancient Fathers, he 
 shall find, that the same was not ordained but for 
 a good purpose, and for a great advancement of 
 godliness.” 
 
 Again, in the next paragraph of the same 
 Preface, we are told, that the “ godly and decent 
 order of the Fathers hath been altered, broken, 
 and neglected :” and presently we read concerning 
 the Book of Common Prayer itself, “here you 
 have an order for Prayer, and for the reading of 
 the Holy Scripture, much agreeable to the mind 
 and purpose of the old Fathers *.” 
 
 Such then being the rule for the interpretation 
 of Scripture, which our Church has imposed upon 
 her clergy, and she, in the ordering of her Public 
 Services, having followed the pattern of the primi- 
 tive Churches, so far as the difference of circum- 
 stances, times, and manners would admit; it is 
 worth while to enquire, Secondly, into the grounds 
 of her having shewn such deference to antiquity. 
 
 And here, were I to begin by asserting the 
 authority of the Church, and to insist on that 
 
 4 In proof of this I must again refer, as I have elsewhere: 
 done, to the Rey. W. Patmer’s Antiquities of the English 
 Ritual. 
 
PREFACE, Mi 
 
 principle, that the Church is the proper interpreter 
 of Holy Writ,—a principle, which until the Refor- 
 mation was never questioned, though in practice, 
 and from the corruptions which for some centuries 
 before had been creeping into the Church, it had 
 been utterly perverted—were I to insist on this 
 principle, the truth would come in a shape so ob- 
 jectionable to many amongst us, that, in the heat of 
 opposition, even that credit, which cannot reason- 
 ably be denied to the Fathers by the most deter- 
 mined latitudinarian, would be withheld from them. 
 
 If then we waive, for the present, the question 
 of authority, and consider the Fathers only in the 
 light of witnesses, we cannot but admit that they 
 are the best witnesses of the doctrines taught, and 
 the discipline introduced by the Apostles. 
 
 The credibility of their testimony will depend on 
 their “ability and integrity; their ability in the 
 knowledge of that which they deliver and assert : 
 their integrity in delivering and asserting according 
 to their knowledge °.” 
 
 First, then, as to their ad:lity. 
 
 It must be admitted that the immediate succes- 
 sors of the Apostles, and those who constantly 
 conversed with them, and were by them set over 
 the Churches which they established, must have 
 known all that was necessary to be believed unto 
 salvation: and conversely that whatsoever was not 
 known to them, cannot be necessary to be known 
 or believed. It cannot be doubted that the Apos- 
 tles explained by word of mouth to the early 
 
 © Pearson, on the Creed, Art, i. 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 bishops, the whole scheme of salvation through 
 Christ, otherwise they could not have been fit per- 
 sons to establish and set in order the Churches ; 
 for when St Paul writes to Timothy, “the things 
 that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, 
 the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall 
 be able to teach others also,” the Scriptures of the 
 New Testament had not all been written; not that 
 they taught any doctrines which are not now to be 
 found in Scripture ; but they must have taught all 
 necessary doctrine and explained it too. 
 
 If, therefore, we could certainly ascertain all that 
 the Apostolic Fathers did believe, we should as 
 certainly come to the knowledge of all necessary 
 truth. And though thus far confining ourselves to 
 the remains of the Apostolic Fathers, that have 
 come down to our times, we shall not have their 
 sense of the whole of Scripture, yet as far as their 
 teaching extends, we have their faith, and conse- 
 quently the true faith, which they, under the imme- 
 diate teaching of the Apostles themselves, derived 
 from the sacred oracles. 
 
 Though in the Apostolic age doubts had not yet 
 been raised on all those points which now divide 
 and distract the Church of Christ, yet they must 
 have known, whether the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost are three persons, and one God; whether 
 they are to be equally worshipped ; whether faith 
 without a holy life would lead to salvation ; whe- 
 ther works are in themselves meritorious ; whether 
 we can do good works acceptable to God without 
 the assistance of the Holy Spirit; whether the Holy 
 
PREFACE. Vil 
 
 Spirit will guide us without our own endeavours; 
 whether the sacraments are necessary, and what are 
 their effects; whether baptism is an empty sign of 
 that which does not exist, or whether it confers 
 any inward graces; whether the elements in the 
 Lord’s Supper are bread and wine, or literal flesh 
 and blood : all these subjects must have been known 
 to the cotemporaries and appointed successors of 
 the Apostles, and on all these some one or other 
 of them have left something which will shew us what 
 their faith was. 
 
 Again, they could not be ignorant of what was 
 the discipline established by the Apostles; almost 
 all those, whose writings we now have, were either 
 bishops or presbyters in the Church ; the earliest 
 of them were appointed to the ministry by the 
 Apostles themselves ; and we may reasonably con- 
 clude that the same instructions and the same dis- 
 cretionary power, which we find St. Paul gave to 
 Timothy and to Titus, were also given to others, 
 who were set over other Churches. The principal 
 point, on which the question of Church discipline 
 must depend, is, whether or not the Apostles be- 
 lieved that our Saviour instituted a peculiar order 
 of men for performing the offices of the priesthood; 
 whether the Apostles themselves did set in order 
 the Churches in obedience to such institution; and 
 if so, what orders they, under the guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit, did establish? It is said that the 
 Scriptures are not so clear on this point, as to bind 
 the Church to a particular course of succession and 
 definite gradations: but the bishops, whom the 
 
vill PREFACE. 
 Apostles themselves set over the Churches, could 
 not but have known what power was entrusted to 
 themselves; whether the offices of bishop and 
 presbyter differed only in name; or whether the 
 former only had the power and were commanded 
 to choose and ordain others to the inferior orders. 
 If they did know these things, which cannot surely 
 be denied, then one of them, at least, has left us suf- 
 ficient to shew, where we are to look for the true mi- 
 nisters of the Church, and what their constitution 
 must be; this one is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, 
 (and I would add a second, Clemens, bishop of 
 Rome,) the prominent subject of whose several 
 Epistles is the necessity of union and communion, of 
 obedience to the bishop, and the due subordination 
 of the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons. 
 With the Apostles for their teachers they must 
 have known better than we at this day can, what 
 was the meaning of the Scriptures ; what doctrines 
 the Apostles taught, and what rules they laid 
 down. And if we find that the same ecclesiastical 
 discipline was observed for many successive cen- 
 turies, we cannot doubt that such was in accord- 
 ance with the Apostolic institution. If the Scrip- 
 tures do not distinctly lay down any particular 
 system of Church government, where but to the 
 earliest writers are we to look for the framework 
 of the Apostolic Churches? It is answered, that 
 the silence of Scripture shews it not to be essential. 
 But it is essential, if the avoiding of divisions and 
 schism is so. And the Apostles must have so con- 
 sidered it, or we should not find such uniformity 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 in the Apostolic Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, 
 Jerusalem, Corinth, and Rome. 
 
 The very objection moreover, above alluded to, 
 that the Scriptures do not impose any necessary 
 form of Church government, so far from giving a 
 license to every man’s private fancy, makes it 
 more incumbent on us to enquire in what way the 
 Apostles constituted the Churches; what rites and 
 customs they established. It is impossible that 
 they should have left the Church in that state, 
 that it should be necessary, wherever the Gospel 
 should be received, for each congregation to devise 
 a scheme of Church government, and to provide 
 for the performance of the public services, and the 
 celebration of the divine mysteries. Had such 
 been the case, we should find a difference in these 
 particulars suited to the difference of national ha- 
 bits and customs in various parts of the world: 
 but so far is this from being the case, that we find 
 an exact uniformity in all essential matters, in 
 every Church established for several subsequent 
 centuries, whether in Europe, Asia, or Africa. 
 
 Having thus shewn the ability, or means of 
 knowledge, possessed by the early Fathers I must 
 in the next place, say a few words on their in- 
 tegrity. 
 
 How can that be questioned? or why should 
 not the same degree of credit be given to them, 
 that there is to other historians? Even this in- 
 dulgence would be conclusive: but when it is 
 added that many of them evinced their earnestness 
 in the cause, their devotion to the truth, by 
 
x PREFACE, 
 
 patiently bearing with the most severe persecutions, 
 and submitting to the most cruel deaths, the sin- 
 cerity of their faith, and consequently the unim- 
 peachableness of their testimony, stands on higher 
 ground than that of ordinary writers. This argu- 
 ment, which has been ably used for the purpose of 
 establishing the truth of Christianity itself, may 
 certainly be adduced to shew that the early martyrs 
 believed what they taught, that they did not know- 
 ingly teach what was false. And if this be added 
 to what has been just insisted on, that they did, in 
 fact, know the whole truth, we have all that can be 
 required in human testimony, the ability and in- 
 tegrity of the witnesses established. 
 
 But if we view the Fathers in the lowest possible 
 light, they are surely valuable as cotemporary 
 writers: there are many allusions in the New Tes- 
 tament to rites and customs peculiar to those times, 
 with which the Fathers must have been familiar ; 
 these it is impossible to understand without apply- 
 ing to external sources of information: and may 
 we not use the Fathers in the interpretation of 
 such passages of Scripture, in the same way, and 
 to the same extent, that we constantly use co- 
 temporary writers to illustrate heathen rites, or to 
 interpret ancient laws? And, if we may do this, 
 what becomes of the dogma, that Scripture is to 
 be interpreted only by Scripture? How should 
 we interpret that verse in the Revelations, xv. 3., 
 where we are told that the saints “ sing the song 
 of Moses, the servant of God?” The song referred 
 to is evidently that in Exodus xy. ; but when it is 
 
PREFACE. xi 
 
 shewn from other sources that the Jews in those 
 times, and long before, were accustomed to sing 
 that song in their Sabbath evening service, the 
 allusion is full and complete ; for now we learn 
 why the saints shall sing it, viz. because they are 
 now come to their everlasting Sabbath, having 
 gotten the victory over the beast, and over his 
 image, and over his mark, and over the number 
 of his name, and having the harps of God in their 
 hands‘. 
 
 Having got thus far, the step is natural and easy 
 to the interpretation of those words of St. Paul to 
 Timothy, “I put thee in remembrance that thou 
 stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the 
 putting on of my hands :*” and of that other, before 
 quoted, “the same commit thou to faithful men.” 
 And then will follow that which was before insisted 
 on, that the early Fathers knew what was the form 
 of Church government established by the Apostles. 
 
 Thus far my remarks have been confined to the 
 Apostolic Fathers. I shall presently shew that 
 their successors are equally deserving of credit: 
 but in the mean time must avail myself of their as- 
 sistance to prove that the Church is a witness and 
 keeper of holy writ. 
 
 It is the constant doctrine of the Fathers, that 
 the Apostles appoimted those, as their successors, 
 who were suggested to them by the Holy Ghost; 
 that to them was committed the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture, the Catholic faith, and Apostolical discipline. 
 
 £ See Ligutroor’s Temple Service, c. vii. p. 59. 
 
 & 2 Tim. i, 6. 
 
xil PREFACE. 
 
 Clemens of Rome mentions that the Apostles 
 appointed those to be bishops and deacons, who 
 were “ proved by the Holy Ghost ;” and in a sub- 
 sequent page he says, that they “gave directions 
 for the future, how, when they should die, other 
 approved men might succeed to their ministry *.” 
 
 To the passages from Ignatius, which will be 
 found under the twenty-third Article, may be added 
 that from his Epistle to the Church at Philadelphia, 
 in which he says that the blood of Christ is our 
 eternal and abiding joy, “especially if we be in 
 unity with the bishop and his fellow-presbyters, 
 and deacons, appointed after the mind of Christ, 
 whom he hath according to his own will established 
 in all confidence, by his Holy Spirit.” 
 
 Irenzus, as I have elsewhere observed *, gives 
 the succession of bishops in the see of Rome, from 
 the time of the Apostles: and in the same chapter 
 he says: “ We are able to reckon up those who 
 were appointed bishops in the Churches by the 
 Apostles, and their successors to our times, who 
 neither taught, nor knew, any such thing as these 
 [heretics] madly prate about. For if the Apostles 
 had known any hidden mysteries, which they taught 
 to the perfect separately and secretly from the rest, 
 they would have delivered such things to those 
 
 5 Both the passages here alluded to will be found under Arti- 
 cle xxiii. p. 280. f 
 
 1 Tenat. ad Philad. init. Mdacra éay ev éh dow civ tT ?Eme- 
 KOn@, Kal Toig chy adt@ IperBureposrs kai Asraxdvoss, arodedesypevors ev 
 yrbun Inoot Xpicrod, ots kata to idsov OerAnua eoryoiber ev PeBaswovry 
 T@ “Ayig adrod Tvevpars, 
 
 k Art. xxiii. p. 281. 
 
PREFACE. xii 
 
 especially, to whom they committed the Churches 
 themselves. For they wished that those should be 
 by all means perfect and blameless, whom they left 
 as their successors, and to whom they delivered 
 their own place in the government of the Church'.” 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria also says, that the Apos- 
 tles appointed those to the ministry, ‘who were 
 signified to them by the Holy Ghost ”™.” 
 
 Tertullian in many places mentions the succes- 
 sion of bishops, that to the Church was entrusted 
 the Catholic faith, and the ecclesiastical discipline™.” 
 
 To the Churches, thus established by the Apos- 
 tles, was committed the Canon of Scripture, not 
 indeed by the Apostles who founded them, for at 
 the period of their foundation all the books of the 
 New Testament were not written, but copies of 
 the several Epistles were from time to time trans- 
 mitted from one Church to the others, and the 
 latter had the same means of ascertaining their 
 genuineness and authenticity, that we should now 
 have of any public document, coming from a foreign 
 country : besides which, the bishops having been 
 instructed by the Apostles themselves, as was be- 
 
 ' Trenazi adv. Heres. |, iii. c. 3.8.1. Habemus annumerare 
 eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, et suc- 
 cessores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cog- 
 noverunt, quale ab his deliratur. Etenim si recondita mysteria 
 scissent Apostoli, que seorsim et latenter ab reliquis perfectos 
 docebant, his vel maximeé traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Eccle- 
 sias committebant. Valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in 
 omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant suum 
 ipsorum locum magisterii tradentes. 
 
 m See Art. xxiii. p. 282. 
 
 Bey passages from Tertullian under Articles vi., xxiii:, and 
 i. 
 
Xiv PREFACE. 
 
 fore observed, were thoroughly conversant in all 
 necessary doctrine, though they had not yet the 
 whole of Scripture. Without supposing this inter- 
 change of the sacred writings, it is impossible to 
 account for the general agreement amongst all the 
 Churches in the formation of the sacred Canon°. 
 
 The Churches however had not only the custody 
 and guardianship of Scripture, they were always 
 deemed to be its proper interpreters; this was the 
 only check, and a very necessary one too, on the 
 license of private interpretation; and at the same 
 time also particular Churches were by the same 
 means prevented from promulgating “ erroneous 
 and strange doctrines,” for each must take not its 
 own private sense, but that of the Church Catholic 
 throughout the world. 
 
 Accordingly, the ordinary method of confuting 
 the many heresies that arose in those times, was 
 by appeal to the doctrines maintained in the Apos- 
 tolic Churches. Such is the line of argument 
 adopted by Ireneus throughout his five books 
 against Heresies; and of Tertullian against Mar- 
 cion, and Praxeas, and in his book concerning Pre- 
 scriptions. 
 
 The same course was observed in matters of dis- 
 cipline; for while the utmost liberty was allowed, 
 not indeed to private individuals, but to the 
 Bishops and governing body of each Church, in 
 
 ° I would observe here, what, for the sake of avoiding being 
 tedious, I have forborne to enlarge upon, that, to answer the 
 question, What is Scripture? all who call themselves Christians 
 must have recourse to the Fathers. 
 
PREFACE, XV 
 
 things that were not essential, in all that concerned 
 the substance of public worship and the celebration 
 of the sacraments the most entire agreement was 
 observed. But particularly the utmost pains were 
 taken to preserve inviolate the Apostolical success- 
 sion of bishops, and other ministers in the Church, 
 so that in instances where persons procured them- 
 selves to be improperly chosen and ordained, the 
 neighbouring Churches invariably refused to com- 
 municate with them, or to acknowledge them as 
 rightful bishops. 
 
 As well to enforce the foregoing arguments, as 
 in addition to them, it should be borne in mind, 
 that during the first three centuries, at least, the 
 divine author of our religion thought fit to continue 
 in considerable measure in his Church, for the pro- 
 pagation of his Gospel, the extraordinary aids of 
 the Holy Spirit. The Apostles chose their succes- 
 sors under the direction of the Holy Ghost; some 
 of those who were so chosen, and also some of those 
 who followed them, manifested these extraordinary 
 gifts; so that.we seem driven to the alternative 
 either of admitting the truth, in general, of the 
 doctrines such men taught, or of denying the fact 
 of their possessing such gifts. But if we attempt 
 the latter, we must at once deny all credit to the 
 histories of those times; we must not regard them 
 as Christians, but as impostors—a course which 
 none but an infidel would dare to venture upon. 
 It is remarkable, moreover, that we have no ac- 
 count that any of the early heretics disputed this 
 position ; they never denied the continuance of 
 
xvi PREFACE. 
 
 miraculous powers in the Church; they never 
 denied Apostolical traditions as the interpreters of 
 Scripture: so far from it, they pretended that 
 their’s was the Apostolical tradition, and were 
 refuted only by an appeal to those Churches, 
 which were planted by the Apostles themselves. 
 And the schismatics followed the same course in 
 claiming to themselves the Apostolical succession. 
 
 The question may now be proposed, whether 
 what was deemed essential then, has ceased to be 
 so now? 
 
 Having shewn that the early successors of the 
 Apostles had better means, than we have, of 
 learning what the true faith is; that to them was 
 committed the sacred volume; that they were 
 commissioned by the Apostles themselves to set in 
 order the Churches, and to establish its internal 
 discipline: we must admit, (unless it be denied 
 that they had the true faith,) that those who, in 
 the present day, differ from them, cannot have that 
 faith which is in Jesus, for we know that there is 
 but “ one Lord, one faith, one baptism?.” When 
 we see, as the fact now is, that the same passages 
 of Scripture which involve the fundamental doc- 
 trines of Christianity, receive very different and 
 opposite interpretations from different persons and 
 sects, can we do otherwise than appeal to those 
 times, which all must admit to have been more 
 pure and scriptural in faith and practice? As the 
 faith is one, so must the Catholic Church be one, 
 
 P Eph. iv. 5. 
 
PREFACE. XVil 
 
 not one to-day and another to-morrow, but always 
 the same, flowing from one fountain, and though 
 divided into many streams, yet all running into the 
 boundless ocean of eternity. 
 
 It may now be objected, that, if the above ar- 
 guments are admitted to their utmost extent, the 
 authority claimed for the early writers of the 
 Church must be limited to the Apostolic age; and 
 that all subsequent testimony must be derivative, 
 and therefore be placed on the footing of hearsay 
 evidence. But, though in the proof of an isolated 
 fact, the testimony of twenty, who have only heard 
 it from one, resolves itself into the testimony of 
 that one, yet it is otherwise in the matters of which 
 we are now treating ; for every succeeding witness 
 gives strength to the evidence of the first. For 
 here we have the faith expressed in a certain form 
 of words, the books from which this form is 
 deduced, the various ceremonies observed in the 
 performance of religious rites, all maintained by a 
 succession of men, one after another filling the 
 same offices, and appealing to the faith and prac- 
 tice of those who preceded them, which could not 
 but be known to a great many of those who were 
 cotemporaries of both. And not only this, we 
 have Churches established in different and distant 
 parts of the world, at the very beginning of the 
 foundation of Christianity, and in the second, third, 
 and fourth centuries, we find these Churches 
 rapidly multiplying to a vast extent, and yet all 
 referring to the same authority, of Scripture in- 
 deed, but as interpreted by their predecessors, and 
 
 Cc 
 
XViil PREFACE. 
 
 all moreover agreeing in the same interpreta- 
 tion. 
 
 To this point then, as Tertullian says, I would 
 direct prescription—wherever the Church agrees 
 in the interpretation, there should the interpreta- 
 tion be received as true. This agreement may be 
 shewn either from General Councils, universally 
 approved, or from Catholic writers, of whose faith 
 question was never made in times when heretical 
 tenets were no sooner published than condemned. 
 Of the former, but little use has been made in this 
 work, for, in the first place, they would have taken 
 me into a field which it was not my design to 
 tread ; and in the next, to some persons whatever 
 comes in the shape of authority is therefore object- 
 ionable. Of the latter, the Catholic writers, it 
 must be admitted that their authority consists in 
 their agreement ; they were all subject to error, 
 but as witnesses, shewing what was the faith of the 
 Catholic Church, in those its purest ages, their 
 testimony is invaluable: we look to them not for 
 their individual opinions, but for the sense of the 
 whole Church of which they were distinguished 
 ornaments. 
 
 It remains that I should add a few words on the 
 contents of this volume. It does not profess to be 
 a full collection of authorities on any point: the 
 strongest passages have been selected, and in very 
 many instances those which have been adduced by 
 other writers for the same purpose: for I did not 
 think any the worse of a quotation because another 
 had used it before me, nor did I desire, by an af- 
 
PREFACE. Xix 
 
 fectation of novelty, to get credit for more research 
 than the occasion required. Accordingly, I have 
 borrowed largely from the labours of Cranmer, 
 Bishops Beveridge, and Tomline, Wall, Bingham, 
 and Welchman, though in all cases the original 
 works have been consulted, and search made in 
 them for other passages. 
 
 A separate acknowledgment is due to Dr. Bur- 
 ton, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, for 
 his having kindly permitted me to avail myself of 
 his labours. Almost all the extracts in the first 
 five Articles of this work, are taken from his two 
 volumes of ‘‘ Testimonies.” 
 
 To the Rev. W. Palmer, author of the Origines 
 Liturgice, I am indebted for many valuable sug- 
 gestions, especially on those points where I found 
 most difficulty. 
 
 For the use of those who are not much ac- 
 quainted with the lives and writings of the Fathers, 
 a brief notice is subjoined of the authors whose 
 testimony is made use of in this work. 
 
 APOSTOLIC FATHERS, 
 
 BarnaBas, the earliest of the Apostolical Fathers, is the same 
 that is so frequently mentioned in the Acts and St. Paul’s 
 Epistles. He was a Levite and a native of the isle of Cyprus. 
 The epistle which we have of his, is frequently quoted by Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus and Origen. Some of the Fathers placed it 
 
 (oh 
 
xx APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
 
 among the apocryphal books of the New Testament. But several 
 modern writers have considered it spurious. 
 
 Cremens Romanus, whom St. Paul mentions as one of his 
 ‘* fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life,” was 
 bishop of Rome in the first century. At what precise date he 
 was appointed to that see has been much questioned: some have 
 placed it as early as A. D. 61; others as late as 93. Irenzeus* 
 tells us he was the third bishop, Linus and Anencletus having 
 preceded him. Several works have been falsely attributed to 
 him. His Epistle to the Corinthians, however, is undoubtedly 
 genuine; it is quoted by many of the Fathers, and particularly 
 Trenzus describes it so exactly as to leave no doubt that it is the 
 same which we now have. 
 
 Hermas. St. Paul, in Rom. xvi. 14. makes mention of a 
 Christian of this name, and ancient authors always attributed the 
 book entitled ‘The Shepherd,’ to him. But several modern 
 critics have rejected it as spurious, and have considered it to be 
 the production of Hermes, brother to Pius, bishop of Rome in the 
 second century. But the objection, if it arises only from the 
 difference of name, is entirely futile; for in the very same verse 
 where St. Paul mentions Hermas, he also speaks of another by 
 the name of Hermes. To my mind the testimony of Jerome is 
 conclusive, where he says that the book is almost unknown to 
 the Latins; whereas it is not at all probable that a Latin, as 
 Hermes, the brother of Pius, was, would have written in Greek, 
 nor that the work of a Latin, which was so well known to the 
 Greek writers, would have been so little known to the Latins. 
 The work is quoted with respect by Irenzeus, Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome. 
 
 Ienatius, surnamed Theophorus, succeeded Euodius in the 
 see of Antioch, about the year of our Lord 70. He was ap- 
 pointed by one of the apostles, either St. Peter or St. Paul; and, 
 in the reign of Trajan, having presided over that Church for 
 about forty years, was condemned to be exposed to wild beasts 
 
 2 Lib. ii. c. ii. sect. 3. 
 
APOSTOLIC FATHERS. XXi 
 
 in the amphitheatre at Rome. Seven epistles of his have reached 
 our times; they were all written while he was being carried 
 prisoner from Antioch to Rome, and consequently not long be- 
 fore his martyrdom. They are addressed to the Churches of 
 Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna ; 
 and to his fellow-martyr Polycarp. Bishop Pearson” has un- 
 answerably removed all doubts as to the genuineness of these 
 epistles. 
 
 Porycarp was born about the year of our Lord 70, and while 
 he was yet a boy became the disciple of St. John, who, after his 
 return from Patmos, (consequently before A. D. 101,) ordained 
 him bishop of Smyrna. After having devoted a long life to the 
 service of the Church, he suffered martyrdom, with the utmost 
 cheerfulness and constancy, in the seventh year of the emperor 
 Marcus Aurelius, A. D. 167. JIrenzeus® mentions that he him- 
 self had seen Polycarp in his early youth, and that he was made 
 bishop of Smyrna by the apostles; he says of him, that “ he 
 always taught those things which he had learnt from the apostles, 
 which also the Church delivers, and which alone are true.” He 
 mentions particularly his Epistle to the Philippians, which we 
 now have, ‘“‘ from which,” he adds, ‘‘ those who please, and who 
 have a regard to their own salvation, may learn the character of 
 his faith, and the preaching of the true doctrine‘.” He also 
 refers to several other epistles, which were written either to 
 neighbouring Churches, or to some of his brethren. 
 
 SECOND CENTURY. 
 
 Justin Martyr was a native of Flavia Neapolis, anciently 
 called Sychem, in Samaria. He was of Grecian origin, and men- 
 tions himself, that having studied the philosophy of the heathens, 
 he at length was made a convert to Christianity ; this is supposed 
 
 > Vindicie Epistolarum 8, Ignatii. 
 © Adv. Heres. lib. ili. c. iii, sect. 4. 
 4 Tdem ibid. 
 
XXil FATHERS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. 
 
 to have taken place about A. D. 133, when he was about forty- 
 three years of age. Being at Rome during the persecution in the 
 reign of Antoninus Pius, he wrote his first Apology for the Chris- 
 tians ; he says that it was then about 150 years from the birth of 
 Christ. His second Apology was written some considerable time 
 after the first: the exact period is not known, but probably not 
 long before his martyrdom. After the first and before the second 
 Apology, he went from Rome, and in Asia held his celebrated 
 disputation with Trypho the Jew. The above are undoubtedly 
 the works of Justin, many others have been wrongly attributed 
 to him. The epistle to Diognetus, which I have once quoted, is 
 by many persons supposed not to have been his; Eusebius does 
 not mention it, but does those before named ; its antiquity, how- 
 ever, is generally admitted. Justin suffered martyrdom in the 
 reign of Marcus Antoninus, about A. D. 164, or as others say, 
 166, or 168. 
 
 TaTIAN was a native of Assyria, and, as Irenzeus tells us, a 
 disciple of Justin Martyr: after the death of his master he fell 
 into heresy, and became one of the founders of a new sect, called 
 the Encratites. We learn from Eusebius that he was the author 
 of many works, of which, however, only one survives, the ‘ Oratio 
 contra Grecos.’ 
 
 AtHENAGORAS flourished in the times of Hadrian and Antoni- 
 nus Pius: but very little is known about him; Eusebius does 
 not mention him, but Epiphanius does. He wrote an Apology 
 for the Christians, which was presented either to M. Aurel. An- 
 toninus and L. Aurel. Commodus, or to M. Antoninus and L. 
 Verus ; the latter opinion seems most probable, which places this 
 author about A. D. 178. There is another treatise attributed to 
 him, ‘ Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead.’ 
 
 TueEopuitus was the sixth bishop of Antioch, as Eusebius in- 
 forms us, having been ordained to that see about A. D. 168 or 
 170. He died about A. D. 181. The only works of his, which 
 we now have, are three books addressed to his friend Autolychus, 
 whom he endeavours to instruct in, and bring over to, the Chris- 
 
FATHERS OF THE SECOND CENTURY. XXiil 
 
 tian faith. We learn from Eusebius and Jerome that he wrote a 
 book against Marcion, and another against the heresy of Hermo- 
 genes, besides other short treatises. 
 
 Me 70, bishop of Sardes in Asia, about A. D. 170, seems to 
 have written very considerably on the doctrine and discipline of 
 the Church ®; only a few fragments of his works, however, have 
 reached our times; they are collected in Dr. Routh’s Reliquiz 
 Sacre. 
 
 IrEN«£us, a Greek, probably of Asia, seems to have been 
 brought up from childhood in the Christian faith ; in a letter to 
 Florinus, cited by Eusebius‘, he mentions his having been with 
 Polycarp in Asia, when he was yet but a child; and we learn 
 the same fact from his third book against Heretics, c. iii.. The 
 period of his birth is usually placed about A. D. 140. From 
 Asia he went to Gaul, and there became a presbyter under Po- 
 thinus, bishop of Lyons, whether ordained by him or not is un- 
 certain : and in the year 177, on the martyrdom of Pothinus, he 
 was chosen to succeed him. Gregory of Tours® is the only an- 
 cient writer who relates that Irenzeus suffered martyrdom ; but 
 there does not seem to be sufficient reason for crediting his ac- 
 count in opposition to the general silence of antiquity. His five 
 books against heresies are all that remain of his writings; and 
 ~ these are chiefly preserved in a very bad Latin translation. The 
 portions of the Greek that still survive serve to shew, with the 
 ignorance of the translator, his general accuracy. 
 
 THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 Cremens ALEXANDRINUS, (whose proper name was Titus Fla- 
 vius Clemens,) was a presbyter of Alexandria, and a disciple of 
 Pantznus, whom he succeeded as president of the catechetical 
 
 e The titles of them are in Euseb. lib. iv. c. 26. 
 ! Lib. v. c. 20. 
 & Hist. c. 27. 
 
XXIV FATHERS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 school of Alexandria, about A. D. 190. His works which we 
 now have are, an Exhortation to the Gentiles, three books called 
 the Pzdagogue, eight books of Stromata, and a treatise entitled, 
 ‘What rich man can be saved?’ Eusebius and Jerome mention 
 some others which are now lost. 
 
 TERTULLIAN. Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, was a 
 native of Carthage, and son of a centurion serving under the pro- 
 consul of Africa. He was at first a heathen, but the period of 
 his conversion to Christianity is not known. He was afterwards 
 ordained a presbyter, as would seem about A. D. 192. Jerome 
 relates that he was said to have lived to an extreme old age. 
 Some time before his death, he unhappily fell into the heresy of 
 Montanus, who fancied himself to be the Paraclete. The writings 
 of Tertullian are very numerous, and some of them were com- 
 posed after he became a Montanist, but the opinions of that sect 
 do not seem to affect the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. 
 
 Minucius Fetrx flourished at the beginning of the third cen- 
 tury ; Jerome places him after Tertullian, but the precise time 
 in which he lived is not known. He was a lawyer of distinction 
 at Rome, and became a convert to Christianity. We have re- 
 maining a Dialogue of his, entitled Octavius, in which Cecilius 
 Natalis, a heathen, and Octavius Januarius, a Christian, discuss 
 the truth of the Christian religion; Minucius sits as judge, and it 
 ends in the conviction of Ceecilius. 
 
 Hirpotytvs was certainly a bishop, but of what see cannot 
 be clearly ascertained; he is called Portuensis, and is therefore 
 supposed to have been bishop either of Portus Romanus, now 
 called Aden in Arabia, or of Portus near the mouth of the 
 Tiber ; the former seems most probable, for Jerome in his Cata- 
 logue, says that he was a bishop, though he does not know of 
 what city ; and in another place he says that Origen was his pupil. 
 He is universally said to have suffered martyrdom, though nei- 
 ther is the period of his death certainly known; it is supposed to 
 have been either in the persecution under Maximus, A. D. 235, 
 or in the Decian persecution in 250. His writings were nume- 
 
FATHERS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. XXV 
 
 rous, but we have only left. some short treatises, and valuable 
 fragments preserved in other writers. 
 
 OrtcEn, called Adamantius, was born at Alexandria in Egypt, 
 about the year 185: his father Leonides was a Christian, and 
 suffered martyrdom before his son had reached his seventeenth 
 year. Origen was ascholar of Clemens Alexandrinus, and a hearer 
 of Hippolytus: when Clemens in the persecution at Alexandria 
 under Severus fled, Origen, though only eighteen years of age, 
 was chosen to preside in the Catechetical school. In the year 
 228 he was ordained to the priesthood. Having gone through 
 many sufferings from enemies within and without the Church, he 
 died at Tyre, A. D. 255. He was the most extensive writer in 
 the Church of those times, not many of his works have come 
 down to us in their original language; we have some translated 
 into Latin by Rufinus, but the accuracy of his translation is not 
 to be depended on; others were translated by Jerome, and as is 
 generally acknowledged, faithfully. 
 
 Cyprian, by birth an African, and of heathen parents, was con- 
 verted to Christianity A. D. 246, in the following year he was 
 ordained a presbyter, and in 248, so great was his reputation, he 
 was chosen and ordained bishop of Carthage. In the Decian 
 persecution, A. D. 249, he retired from Carthage, but suffered 
 martyrdom in 258. His remains are of the highest interest and 
 value, especially on matters of Church discipline ; they consist of 
 letters chiefly addressed to bishops and ministers of the Church, 
 and of some short treatises on various subjects. 
 
 NovaTIAN, was a presbyter of the Church of Rome, in the 
 middle of the third century. On the occasion of Cornelius being 
 chosen to succeed Fabianus as bishop of Rome, A. D. 250, he, 
 partly being moved by ambition, and partly differing with Cor- 
 nelius on some points of discipline, brought some charges against 
 the new bishop, and being excommunicated by a council held at 
 Rome, procured himself to be elected, and by three country bi- 
 shops ordained, to that see, in opposition to Cornelius. Hence 
 he became a leader of a schism, and gave a name to the sect called 
 
XXV1 FATHERS OF THE THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 Novatians, which continued till the fifth century. His orthodoxy 
 however was never questioned. The treatise concerning the 
 Trinity, which on the authority of Jerome is now attributed to 
 Novatian, was for some time given to Tertullian, and printed at 
 the end of his works. 
 
 Dionysius ALEXANDRINUS, a native of Alexandria, and -a con- 
 vert from heathenism to Christianity, succeeded Heraclas, the 
 friend and successor of Origen, in the presidency of the Cateche- 
 tical school at Alexandria, about A. D. 232, and in the see of 
 Alexandria in 248. Some time afterwards, in his anxiety to con- 
 fute the heresy of Sabellius, he exposed himself to the charge of 
 Arianism ; but amply cleared himself in a work consisting of four 
 books, entitled his ‘ Refutation and Defence.’ The work is now 
 lost, with the exception of a few fragments, which are preserved 
 in a work by Athanasius, written for the purpose of shewing that 
 Dionysius was not an Arian. He subsequently wrote against 
 the heresy of Paul of Samosata, but neither are these or any 
 others of his works, (the catalogue of which is given by Jerome,) 
 now extant, except some fragments to be found in Eusebius and 
 Athanasius. 
 
 Dionysius Romanus: little is known of this Father, except 
 that he was bishop of Rome from the year 259 to 269. He 
 wrote to his namesake of Alexandria on the subject of the Sabellian 
 heresy, and on the charge of Arianism brought against the latter ; 
 the fragments that now remain of his writings are collected from 
 Athanasius in Dr. Routh’s Reliquiz Sacrze, tom. iii. 
 
 Meruopivs, also called Eubulius, was bishop of Olympus in 
 Syria, and afterwards of Tyre in Palestine, and suffered 
 martyrdom at Chalcis about A. D. 311. The only entire work 
 of his which has reached our times is ‘The Banquet of Ten 
 Virgins.’ Jerome mentions several other writings of his, but 
 only a few fragments are now remaining. 
 
 Arwnosius. The precise period when this writer flourished is 
 not known: he tells us however in his work ‘ Against the 
 
FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. XXVil 
 
 Gentiles,’ that it was about 300 years since the Christians began 
 to appear in the world. He was at first a heathen, and a 
 professor of rhetoric at Sicca, a city of Numidia, in Africa. 
 
 Lacrantius. Lucius Ccelius (or Ceecilius) Firmianus Lactan- 
 tius, was a pupil of Arnobius, and afterwards himself a teacher of 
 rhetoric. In addition to his seven books of ‘ Divine Institu- 
 tions,’ several others are, though questionably, attributed to 
 him. I have only quoted the above mentioned. 
 
 FOURTH CENTURY. 
 
 Evsepius, surnamed Pamphilus, was ordained bishop of 
 Cesarea in Palestine about the year 314. He was much 
 engaged in the Arian controversy; and though he agreed in 
 the condemnation of Arius, yet he was afterwards an active op- 
 ponent of Athanasius, and himself became one of the first propa- 
 gators of the Semi-Arian heresy. For this reason I have only 
 used him in this work as an historian, and not supported any 
 doctrine from his writings. He died about the year 338. 
 
 ATHANASIUS, was born at Alexandria in Egypt, and when he was 
 about twenty-seven years of age attended his diocesan Alexander 
 to the council of Nice, being then adeacon. From that time to his 
 death (having in the following year succeeded Alexander in the 
 see of Alexandria) he was the great champion of the Catholic 
 cause, throughout the relentless persecutions of the Arian party. 
 At length he died peaceably A. D. 373, leaving behind him a 
 name not surpassed by any of those, who suffered that martyrdom, 
 which he was so ready to have undergone. His works are too 
 numerous to be further noticed in this place, 
 
 Hirary, a native of Poictiers in Gaul, was afterwards bishop 
 of that city. Little is known of his early life, except that he was 
 a convert from heathenism. He was banished from his see by 
 Constantius, for having espoused the Catholic cause against the 
 Arians ; but no bishop being appointed to succeed him, he con- 
 
XXVlil FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 
 
 tinued to govern his Church in his exile. He died about the 
 year 367. 
 
 Cyriz, of Jerusalem, succeeded Maximus as bishop of Jerusa- 
 lem. He unfortunately connected himself with the Semi-Arian 
 party, but m his Catechetical discourses, his creed seems perfectly 
 orthodox ; and he has left no other work to shew any change of 
 opinion. Jerome tells us these discourses were composed in his 
 youth. He died A. D. 386. 
 
 Basix, was born of Christian parents, at Caesarea in Cappa- 
 docia, about the year 328. He was ordained to the priesthood 
 by Eusebius, bishop of that see, whom he succeeded about 
 A. D. 369. He must not be confounded with his Semi-Arian 
 namesake of Ancyra. Our Basil died in the year 379. 
 
 Grecory Naztanzen}, was born at Arianzum, a small village 
 near Nazianzus. His father, also called Gregory, was a convert 
 from heathenism, and baptized about the year 325, and shortly 
 afterwards ordained bishop of Nazianzus. There is much doubt 
 as to the time his son Gregory was born*. The latter was or- 
 dained a priest by his father, whom in his old age he assisted in 
 the government of his Church. Our Gregory afterwards was 
 made bishop of Constantinople, but being deposed by a faction 
 retired to Nazianzus, where he died, A. D. 389. 
 
 AmsrosE, was the son of Symmachus, preetorian praefect of 
 Gaul, he is supposed to have been born about the year 340. 
 Ambrose, himself, was afterwards governor of some provinces of 
 
 i | have passed over Gregory Nyssen, who-would follow this his name- 
 sake. The greater part of this work was compiled in Warwickshire, at a 
 distance from any public library, and not being able to meet with a copy 
 of the works of Gregory Nyssen, I thought it better to omit them than to 
 be altogether indebted to the researches of others. 
 
 k In Wall, on Infant Baptism, the doubts are stated, but not cleared 
 up; the point is only important as shewing whether in those times a 
 bishop would refrain from baptizing his child in infancy ; if he was born 
 some years before his father’s conversion, the objection vanishes. 
 
FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. XX1X 
 
 Gallia Cisalpina under the emperor Valentinian: while he was 
 holding that office Auxentius, bishop of Milan, died, and there 
 happening.a great disturbance in the church between the Arian 
 and orthodox parties, as to the choice of a new bishop, Ambrose 
 entered the church to quell the tumult, and addressed the assembled 
 people with so much effect, that they with one accord declared that 
 he should be their bishop. The neighbouring bishops agreeing in 
 the people’s choice, and the emperor giving his consent, Am- 
 brose, with much reluctance, accepted the honour conferred upon 
 him. But, which is the most extraordinary part of the story, he 
 had not yet been baptized, and was therefore baptized by Simpli- 
 clanus, and within eight days was ordained bishop, A. D. 374. 
 He died in 396. 
 
 EpirpHANius, was born at a village in Palestine, near the city 
 of Eleutheropolis, about the year 332. He seems to have been 
 of Christian parentage, for he was educated amongst some 
 monks of Palestine. In 366 he was ordained bishop of Salamis, 
 in the isle of Cyprus, and died about the year 402. 
 
 Curysostom. Some difference of opinion has been entertained 
 as to whether the parents of Chrysostom were Christians or 
 heathens. Their names were Secundus and Anthusa. I have 
 no doubt that they were both heathens, and that his father died 
 an heathen, his death having occurred when this his second child, 
 and only son, was very young. He was born about the year 
 347, and was brought up by his mother, for whose tenderness 
 and care he seems ever to have retained a most affectionate re- 
 membrance. In early youth he was a hearer of Libanius, a 
 celebrated heathen master of rhetoric, and a keen opposer of the 
 Christian religion. Though this is not the only proof of his 
 being born of heathen parents, yet it is highly improbable that a 
 Christian mother should send her only son to such a master; and 
 Sozomen " tells us, that when some of the friends of Libanius 
 asked him who he thought fit to be his successor, he answered, 
 John, (meaning our author,) had not the Christians robbed us 
 
 hWEists le.viliy@ 2s 
 
XXX FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 
 
 of him.” When about eighteen years old Chrysostom became a 
 Catechumen, and after three years was baptized by Miletius, 
 bishop of Antioch. Miletius made him a reader in the Church, 
 and about the year 380, ordained him a deacon, he having with 
 difficulty been persuaded by his friends to take upon himself any 
 sacred office. Flavianus, who succeeded Miletius in the see of 
 Antioch, ordained him to the priesthood, and in that Church he 
 delivered some of the most powerful of his Homilies. In 398 he 
 was chosen and ordained to succeed Nectarius as archbishop of 
 Constantinople. The last three years of his life were spent in 
 banishment, and he died at the age of sixty at Pityus, a town on 
 the Euxine sea, whither the malicious influence of his enemies 
 had persuaded the emperor Arcadius to remove him. 
 
 JEROME, was born at Strigonium, on the borders of Pannonia 
 and Dalmatia, about the year 340. He completed his education 
 at Rome under Donatus; and afterwards went into the East, de- 
 signing to spend his life in retirement and study ; but about the 
 year 375 was ordained priest at Antioch by Paulinus. He does 
 not seem to have ever been actively engaged in the duties of his 
 sacred office ; but persevered in his former resolution to devote 
 his time to sacred literature; and accordingly he became the 
 most distinguished man in his time for learning, and a know- 
 ledge of the Scriptures. He died about A. D. 420. 
 
 AvcusTINE, was born at Tagasta, a city of Numidia, A. D. 354. 
 His mother Monica took care that he should be early instructed 
 in the Christian religion, but in his youth he unfortunately suf- 
 fered himself to be led away by the Manichean heretics. He 
 afterwards went to Milan to be rhetoric professor, and there Am- 
 brose became the instrument of his conversion to the Catholic 
 faith. Augustine returned to Africa in 388, and was ordained a 
 presbyter by Valerius, bishop of Hippo, in 391. Valerius, seeing 
 the estimation in which he was universally held, and fearing to 
 lose him out of his diocese, procured him to be ordained his co- 
 adjutor in the see of Hippo: this act was in direct contravention 
 of a canon of the council of Nice, but Augustine was not at 
 the time aware of its being so. He died in the year of our 
 Lord 430, being then seventy-six years of age. 
 
FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. XXXI 
 
 Such is the list of the Fathers, whom I have 
 quoted as authorities in this volume ; some few 
 others, but not prior to the end of the fourth cen- 
 tury, are occasionally cited, amongst them are the 
 historians Socrates and Theodoret, who relate 
 matters that occurred within the period to which 
 I have limited my researches. 
 
 Wuire WattuHam, 
 June 6th, 1835. 
 ? 
 
‘ ; 
 
 ) 
 7 
 a 
 
 ‘i 
 
 
 
 Pei. 
 
 relen : hae 
 ses Wg i 
 
 a Ti, 
 
 uv 
 i ¥, 
 ‘* ry ’ j 
 , 
 fo 
 ® 
 , 
 ; 
 a = 
 ppt vipa 
 
 
 
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES 
 
 ILLUSTRATED 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 ARTICLE If. 
 
 Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. 
 ‘* THERE is but one living and true God, everlasting, 
 *‘ without body, parts, or passions, of infinite power, 
 *‘ wisdom, and goodness, the maker and preserver of all 
 ‘things both visible and invisible; and in the unity of 
 ‘“‘ this Godhead there be three persons of one substance, 
 
 “power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the 
 ** Holy Ghost.” 
 
 This Article begins with that which is the foun- 
 dation of all religion, the Being and Attributes of 
 God; but its more important object, as the pri- 
 mary article of a Christian’s faith, is the assertion 
 of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 
 
 It seems scarcely necessary in the present work 
 to adduce any passages from the Fathers, in which 
 they proved the Being of God from mere reason. 
 
 B 
 
2 Article First. 
 
 Discussions of natural religion do not properly be- 
 long to articles of faith extracted and deduced from 
 Scripture. It will be of use, however, to shew 
 their belief, that there is but One God, and also 
 their conception of the attributes of God; as by 
 the former their assertions as to the Trinity in 
 Unity will be confirmed and explained, and by the 
 latter their notion of the word “ God.” 
 
 First, then, the article asserts, that “ there is but 
 one living and true God.” 
 
 We may begin with a passage from the “ Shep- 
 herd of Hermas :’— 
 
 « First of all believe that there is one God, who 
 created and established all things, and made all 
 things out of nothing to have being. He compre- 
 hends all things, and is only immense. Who can 
 neither be defined by any words, nor conceived by 
 the mind. Therefore believe in him, and fear him ; 
 and, fearing him, abstain from all evil. Keep these 
 things, and cast all things far from thee; and put 
 on the virtue of righteousness, and thou shalt live 
 to God, if thou shalt keep this commandment ?.” 
 
 The following passages from Athenagoras, Ter- 
 tullian, and Cyprian, are all equally express. 
 
 « But our discourse declares that there is one 
 God, the maker of the universe, who himself not 
 being made, (for that which is, is not made, but 
 
 a2 Herm# Pastor, 1. ii. mavit, et ex nihilo omnia fecit. 
 Mand. i. Primum omnium, Ipse capax universorum, solus 
 credere quod unus est Deus, immensus est. 
 qui omnia creavit, et consum- 
 
Article First. 3 
 
 that which is not,) created all things by his 
 WWond, >) 
 
 The following quotations from Tertullian are 
 important, not only as shewing that the Fathers 
 believed in one God, but also that they did not 
 apply the term God in any other than its one 
 intention ; and therefore, whenever they call Christ 
 or the Holy Ghost “God,” they attribute to them 
 divinity in its highest sense. 
 
 “God is the name of the very substance, that 
 is, of divinity: but Lord is not the name of the 
 substance, but shews that the substance of power 
 always existed together with his own name, which 
 is God, and afterwards Lord °.” 
 
 “ But the Christian truth expressly declares ; 
 God, if he be not one, is none; for whatsoever is 
 not as it ought to be, we believe it more fitting 
 that it be not at all. But that you may know that 
 God should be but one, enquire what God is, and 
 you will find that it cannot be otherwise. As far 
 as the human capacity can define any thing of 
 God, I define that, which every man’s conscience 
 also acknowledges, that God is the highest and 
 chief Being, existing in eternity, unborn, unmade, 
 without beginning, without end *.” 
 
 b AruENAG. Leg. pro Christ. 
 c, 4. Emel 8€ 6 Adyos nya eva 
 Ociy ciyer, Tov Tovde Tov TayTos 
 TOMNTNY, K. T. As 
 
 © TertTuLu: adv, Hermog. 
 e. 3. Deus substantiz ipsius 
 nomen, id est, divinitatis; Do- 
 minus vero non substantiz, sed 
 potestatis substantiam semper 
 
 fuisse cum suo nomine, quod 
 est Deus, postea Dominus. 
 
 4 Tdem adv. Marcion, |. i. c. 
 3. Sed veritas Christiana de- 
 stricteé pronunciavit, Deus, si 
 non unus est, non est—Deum 
 autem ut scias unum esse de- 
 bere, quere quid sit Deus, et 
 non aliter invenies—. 
 
 B 2 
 
4. Article First. 
 
 And a little after, “ Therefore he must needs be 
 one only, because he is the chiefest, not having an 
 equal, lest he should not be the chiefest °.” 
 
 “IT am commanded not to call any one else 
 God; not to make any other God even in speech; 
 not by my tongue any more than by my hand; not 
 to worship any other, or pay any kind of homage, 
 except to that only God, who thus commands ‘.” 
 
 “Therefore there is one God, Lord of all; for 
 his sublime greatness cannot admit an equal, seeing 
 himself alone possesseth all power®.” And shortly 
 afterwards, “‘ Neither do thou wonder at this so 
 much concerning man, since in this all nature 
 agrees. The bees have one king, the flocks one 
 leader, and the herds one captain; much more 
 hath the world one Governor, who by his Word 
 commandeth all things whatsoever ; by his Wisdom 
 dispenseth, by his power perfecteth. He cannot 
 be seen, he is more clear than sight ; nor compre- 
 hended, he is more pure ‘than touch; nor valued, 
 he is beyond calculation; and therefore we so 
 worthily esteem of God, when we say he is in- 
 estimable .” 
 
 & Cyprrant de Idolorum 
 Vanitate, c. 5. Unus igitur 
 
 € TertTuuu. adv. Marcion, 
 ].i. c. 3. Ergo unicum sit ne- 
 
 cesse est, quod fuerit summum 
 magnum ; par non habendo, ne 
 non sit summum magnum. 
 
 f Idem Scorp. c. 4. Pre- 
 scribitur mihi, ne quem alium 
 Deum dicam, ne vel dicendo 
 non minus lingua quam manu 
 Deum fingam, neque alium 
 adorem, aut quomodo venerer, 
 preter unicum illum, qui ita 
 mandat. 
 
 omnium Dominus est Deus; 
 neque enim illa sublimitas po- 
 test habere consortem, cum sola 
 omnem teneat potestatem. 
 
 4 Tdem, ibid. Multd magis 
 mundi unus est rector, qui uni- 
 versa quecunque sunt, verbo 
 jubet, ratione dispensat, virtute 
 consummat. 
 
or 
 
 Article First. 
 
 Secondly, “ Everlasting.” 
 
 “« There is no time in eternity ; for it is itself all 
 time. That which is the cause of all being, cannot 
 itself be caused: that never grows old, which 
 cannot be born. God, if he is old, will some 
 time or other not be; if young, there must have 
 been a time when he was not. Newness testifies 
 a beginning; age threatens an end. But God is 
 as much a stranger to beginning and ending, as 
 to time, the arbiter and measurer of beginning and 
 ending '.” | 
 
 “ Dost thou believe that the supreme power in 
 heaven is divided? that the whole power of that 
 true and divine government is cleft? when it is 
 manifest that God, the Parent of all things, has 
 neither beginning nor ending; who bestows nati- 
 vity on all things, perpetuity upon himself; who, 
 before the world was, was a world unto himself*.” 
 
 Thirdly, “ Without body, parts, or passions.” 
 
 Thus Athenagoras, shewing that the idols of the 
 heathens were not Gods, says, “ But if they should 
 say that they are constituted only of flesh, and 
 have blood, and seed, and are subject to the pas- 
 sions of anger and desire; then also we must ac- 
 count such words as trifles, and ridiculous; for 
 
 i Tertuuu. adv. Marcion, |. * Minor. Fel. Octav, p. 18. 
 i.c. 8. Deus autem tam alienus —Cum palam sit parentem om- 
 ab initio et fine est, quam a nium Deum, nec principium 
 tempore, arbitro et metatore habere nec terminum.— 
 initii et finis. 
 
6 Article First. 
 
 there is neither anger, nor lust, nor desire, nor 
 prolific seed in God *.” 
 
 So Theophylus, Novatian, and Origen; “ The 
 form or shape of God is ineffable and inexpress- 
 ible, and cannot be seen with bodily eyes. For he 
 is infinite in glory, incomprehensible in greatness, 
 inconceivable in height, superexcellent in power, 
 incomparable in wisdom, inimitable in goodness, 
 unspeakable in beneficence ™.” 
 
 “ For that (divine) substance is simple, and 
 neither compounded of any members, nor joints, 
 or affections; but whatsoever is done by the di- 
 vine power, that men might understand it, is either 
 expressed by the appellation of human members, 
 or declared by common and known affections. 
 And in this manner God is said either to be angry, 
 or to hear, or to speak *.” 
 
 “ Neither are members, or the offices of mem- 
 bers needful to God, to whose very silent will all 
 things are subservient and present. For why 
 should he require eyes, who is light itself? or why 
 should he desire feet, who is every where? or why 
 should he wish to go in any where, seeing there is 
 no where that he can go out of himself? or why 
 should he be in need of hands, whose very silent 
 will is able to effect all things? Neither does he 
 
 1 Aruenac. Leg. proChris- — capxixass épabjvas" Baby yap éore 
 
 tianis, c. 21. —Oire yao Goyn, ayepyres, K. T- A 
 cite émibupia Kas Goebss, aioe Tas= 2 OrRIGEN. in Genes. Hom. 
 Sororsy oxégua ev TO Ged. iii. s. 2. Simplex namque est 
 
 m Turopuyt. ad Auto- _ illa substantia, et neque mem- 
 lycum. 1. i. c. 3. Ts wer, efdo¢, ris ullis, neque compaginibus, 
 
 rot @ect, Apinroy Kal avéxgpac-  affectibusque composita. 
 Tov, Kai py Ovyduevey spParusic 
 
Article First. 7 
 
 want ears, who knoweth the very silent nfotions 
 of the heart °.” 
 
 Fourthly, “ Of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.” 
 
 “God being perfectly good, is eternally doing 
 good ?.” 
 
 Tertullian calls God goodness itself. “ Good- 
 ness said, ‘ Let us make man in our image, after 
 our likeness*;’ Goodness formed man of the dust 
 of the earth*.” 
 
 “ They do not know God aright, who. do not 
 think that he can do what they do not think *.” 
 
 “ Nothing is difficult to God. Who is igno- 
 rant of this? And who knows not ‘that things 
 that are impossible with beings of this world, are 
 possible with God‘? And ‘ God hath chosen the 
 foolish things of this world to confound the wise"; 
 all these things do we read*.” And shortly after- 
 wards, 
 
 “ Of a truth nothing is difficult to God. But 
 if in our presumptions we use this assertion so 
 
 abruptly, we may feign any thing of God, as if he 
 
 hath done it, because he can do it. 
 
 ° Novar. de Trinitate. c. 6. 
 Neque sunt ei aut membra, 
 aut membrorum officia neces- 
 saria, ad cujus solum etiam ta- 
 citum arbitrium et serviunt et 
 adsunt omnia. 
 
 P Arnenaa. Leg. pro Chris- 
 tianis, c. 26. ‘O d€ Ocds TeAciws 
 ayabes dv, aidlos dyabomaas eotiy, 
 
 4 Gen. i. 26. 
 
 ® Trerruw. adv. Marcion, |. 
 ii. c. 4. Faciamus hominem ad 
 
 But because 
 
 imaginem et similitudinem nos- 
 tram, bonitas dixit; bonitas 
 finxit hominem de limo. 
 
 8 TreRTULL. de Resur. Car- 
 nis, c. 38. Male Deum norunt, 
 qui non putant illum posse, 
 quod non putant. 
 
 t Matt. xix. 26. 
 
 ui) Cor: 1.27; 
 
 x TertTuuu. adv. Prax. ec. 
 10. Sed nihil Deo difficile. 
 Quis hoe nesciat ?-— 
 
8 Article First. 
 
 he can do all things, we are not therefore to be- 
 lieve that he has done that also which he has not 
 done. But we must enquire whether he has done 
 at7.” 
 
 * According to us God is able to do all things, 
 the ability to do which is not inconsistent with his 
 being God, and his being good, and his being 
 wise *.” 
 
 Fifthly, “ The Maker and Preserver of all things.” 
 
 “« Having, therefore, this hope, let our souls be 
 bound to him, who is faithful in his promises, and 
 righteous in his judgments; who having com- 
 manded us not to lie, much more will not himself 
 lie. For nothing is impossible with God, but to lie. 
 Let his faith, then, be stirred up in us; and let us 
 consider that all things are nigh unto him. By the 
 word of his power he made all things, and by the 
 same word he is able to destroy them. ‘ Who shall 
 say unto him, what dost thou? or who shall resist 
 the power of his strength*?’ When, and as he 
 pleased, he made all things; and nothing shall pass 
 away of all that has been determined by him. All 
 things are open before him; and nothing is hid 
 from his counsel. ‘ The heavens declare the glory 
 of the Lord, and the firmament sheweth his handy 
 work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night 
 unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no 
 
 ¥ Idem ibid. Plane nihil ames duvdueres, ToD Oets €ivat, Ka} 
 Deo difficile — zob ayabes civas, al copes civas, 
 Orie. c. Cels.1. iti. c. 70. otk ébieraras. 
 Adyarasb€ xaf ypaie savra t Qctc, 4a Wisdom, xii. 12. 
 
Article First. 7) 
 speech nor tampuages where their voice is not 
 heard.” 
 
 Irenzeus says, “‘ The rule of truth is, that there 
 is one God Almighty, who created all things by 
 his word, and fitted them, and made them of that 
 which was not, so that all things should be as the 
 Scripture says; ‘ By the word of the Lord were 
 the heavens made, and all the host of them by the 
 breath of his mouth’? And again, ‘ All things 
 were made by him, and without him was not any 
 thing made that was made®.’ But from all things 
 nothing is excluded; but the Father by himself 
 made all things, whether visible or invisible, whe- 
 ther endowed with feeling or with understanding ; 
 whether temporal, for some purpose of his, or 
 eternal '.” 
 
 And in another place, having observed on the 
 absurd opinions of those who entertained very 
 false notions of God, he says, “‘ There is only one 
 God, the maker of all things, who is over every 
 principality, and power, and denomination, and 
 virtue; he is the Father, he is God, he is the 
 Creator, he is the Maker, he is the Worker, who 
 made those things by himself; that is, by his Word 
 
 PAPsalm: xixe: 1 
 
 © Curem. Rom. Ep. ad Co- 
 rinth. s. 27. —-Ey doyw rigs 
 peyakwotyys avToy cuverTaTaTo 
 Th Tata, Kai ev Myw Otvaras 
 auTe Karat ean 
 
 4 Psalm xxxiii. 6. 
 
 Sy Johnyi. 3. 
 
 * TRENzE 1. i. c. 22. 8. 1. 
 —quia sit unus Deus omnipo- 
 
 
 
 tens, qui omnia condidit per 
 Verbum suum, et aptavit, et 
 fecit ex eo quod non erat.—Ex 
 omnibus autem nihil subtrac- 
 tum est; sed omnia per ipsum 
 fecit Pater, sive visibilia, sive 
 invisibilia, sive sensibilia, sive 
 intelligibilia, sive temporalia 
 propter quandam dispositionem, 
 sive sempiterna. 
 
10 Article First. 
 
 and by his Wisdom, the heaven and the earth, and 
 the sea, and all things that are therein: he is just, 
 he is good; he it is who formed man, who planted 
 paradise, who made the world, who brought the 
 deluge, who saved Noah; he is the God of Abra- 
 ham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, 
 the God of the living, whom also the law declares, 
 whom the Prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, 
 whom the Apostles deliver, whom the Church be- 
 lieves §.” 
 
 “It behoves those who believe God to be the 
 Creator of the universe, to attribute to his wisdom 
 and justice the custody and providence over all 
 things that are made; if at least they will abide 
 by their own principles; and thinking thus of these 
 things, they must be persuaded, that there is no- 
 thing of things in earth, nor of things in heaven, 
 destitute of his care and providence; but must 
 know, that the care of their Creator is over every 
 thing, the invisible alike and the visible, little and 
 great: for all things that are, have need of the care 
 of their Creator, and every one individually accord- 
 ing to its own nature, and the end for which it was 
 created *.” 
 
 &€ IrenzI 1. ii. c. 30. s. 
 ult, Solus unus Deus fabri- 
 cator, hic est, qui super om- 
 nem principalitatem, et potesta- 
 tem, et dominationem, et vir- 
 tutem: hic Pater, hic Deus, 
 hic conditor, hic factor, hic fa- 
 bricator, qui fecit ea per semet- 
 ipsum, hoc est, per Verbum et 
 per Sapientiam suam, ccelum et 
 
 terram, et mare, et ompia que 
 in eis sunt. 
 
 h ArHENAG. de Resur, 
 Mort. c. 18. Aci robs mosgriy 
 toy Ocay Tovde TOD TayTEs rapadel 
 anevoug, TH TovTov cogin Kal oi- 
 Kasotyy Thy TOY Yyevonevov andy= 
 tev ayariOevars pudaxiy te Kal 
 Bpovoray’ K, T. A. 
 
Article First. 11 
 
 “The doctrine that is according to Christ, both 
 acknowledgeth the Creator, and that Providence 
 reacheth even unto particular things '.” 
 
 «The object of our worship is one God, who, to 
 the glory of his majesty, brought forth out of no- 
 thing, the whole frame of this universe, furnished 
 with all the elements, and bodies, and spirits, by 
 his Word by which he commanded; by his Wis- 
 dom by which he disposed it; by his Power by 
 which he. was able to do it; whence also the 
 Greeks denominated the world by a word, which 
 implies order and beauty*. God is invisible, al- 
 though plainly seen; incomprehensible by touch, 
 although represented to us by his gracious revela- 
 tion ; inappreciable, although our senses bear testi- 
 mony to his existence. Hence he is the true God, 
 since he is immensely great. But that which can 
 be seen by the ordinary senses, or touched or de- 
 fined, is less than the eyes by which it is discerned, 
 and the hands by the contact of which it is defiled, 
 and the senses by which it is discovered. But that 
 which is immense in known to itself alone. This 
 it is which causes God to become intelligible, al- 
 though he cannot be fully understood. The im- 
 mensity of his being presents him to our minds, as 
 at once known and unknown',” 
 
 i Cirem. AuEx. Strom.1.i.c. Quod colimus, Deus unus est ; 
 
 ll. ‘H yao dKsrovbos XpiorG O:=  quitotam molem istam cum om- 
 Sarkahin, Kal Tov Oqusoupysy exber= ni instrumento elementorum, 
 ager, Kah Thy mpdvoay wexps Tov corporum,spirituum, verbo, quo 
 Kare eps HyEL. jussit, ratione, qua disposuit, 
 
 K Kdopos, virtute, qua potuit, de nihilo 
 
 'Tertuty. Apol. c. 17.  expressit. 
 
12 Article Forst. 
 
 “The rule of truth requires, that first of all we 
 believe in God the Father and Lord Almighty, that 
 is, the most perfect Creator of all things, who 
 hanged the heavens on high, founded the earth 
 below, diffused the seas, and adorned and replen- 
 ished all these things with their proper and con- 
 dign instruments ™.” 
 
 “Is there any religion more true, more availing, 
 more powerful, more just, than to know God to be 
 the chief, and to know to supplicate God the chief, 
 who alone is the head and fountain of all good 
 things, alike the Founder and Creator of perpetual 
 things, by whom all terrestrial and all celestial 
 things are animated, and irrigated by vital motion; 
 and who if he was not, there could be nothing truly, 
 that could bear any name or substance” ?” 
 
 Lastly, “ In Unity of this Godhead there be three 
 persons, of one substance, power, and eternity.” 
 
 In coming to the last thing which this Article 
 asserts, it will be necessary to say a few words on 
 the two great heresies that arose in the third and 
 fourth centuries, and which are here, by implica- 
 tion, declared to be false and unscriptural. 
 
 m Novat. de Trinit. Init. 
 
 Regula exigit veritatis, ut pri- 
 mo omnium credamus in Deum 
 
 priis et condignis instrumentis 
 et ornata et plena digesserit. 
 n ARNOB. c. Gentes, 1. ii. p. 
 
 Patrem et dominum omnipo- 
 tentem, id est, rerum omnium 
 perfectissimum — Conditorem, 
 qui coelum alta sublimitate sus- 
 penderit, terram dejecta mole 
 solidaverit, maria soluto liquore 
 diffuderit, et hee omnia pro- 
 
 init. Qui bonorum omnium 
 solus caput et fons est, perpetu- 
 arum pariter Fundator et Con- 
 ditor rerum, a quo omnia ter- 
 rena cunctaque ccelestia ani- 
 mantur, motu irriganturque 
 vitali. 
 
Article First. 13 
 
 Sabellius, a Bishop or Presbyter in Pentapolis, a 
 district of Cyrenaica, about the middle of the third 
 century, broached a doctrine which was somewhat 
 similar to, though not precisely the same as, that 
 which his master Noetus, had held immediately 
 before him. Noetus had maintained the unity of 
 God, in one person, under three names or offices, 
 and hence was accused of being a Patripassian. 
 Sabellius, his disciple, not choosing to admit that 
 the Deity had suffered, maintained that a certain 
 emanation or energy, proceeding from the Godhead, 
 and which he called the Son of God, was united to 
 the man Jesus: so he considered the Holy Ghost 
 to be an emanation from the Supreme and Ever- 
 lasting Father: thereby altogether denying the 
 distinction of persons in the Divine Nature. His 
 tenets in a short time spread very widely in the 
 Eastern Church, and made some way in the West- 
 ern ; but were immediately condemned, and repu- 
 diated by those who then, and through all subse- 
 quentages, have beendeemed the orthodox believers. 
 
 The Arian Heresy first came to light in opposi- 
 tion to the Sabellian. Alexander had been ad- 
 vanced to the primacy of the Egyptian Church, to 
 which Arius had at the same time aspired; and in 
 a public meeting of the clergy of Alexandria had 
 been insisting on the orthodox doctrine, maintain- 
 ing “that the Son of God was co-eternal, co-essen- 
 tial, and co-equal with the Father.” Arius who was 
 then one of the public preachers of Alexandria, 
 and, as some suppose, master of the Catechetical 
 School, immediately accused his diocesan of Sabel- 
 
14 Article First. 
 
 lianism, arguing that his doctrine was inconsistent 
 and impossible, since the Father who begat, must 
 of necessity be before the Son who was begotten, 
 and that consequently the latter could not be abso- 
 lutely eternal. That Alexander was not a Sabel- 
 lian will be seen by the extracts from his “ Defence,” 
 given in their proper place. 
 
 More need not now be said of these two heresies, 
 but it must be borne in mind in reading the follow- 
 ing extracts that the Sabellians denied the dis- 
 tinction of persons in the Godhead; the Arians 
 the co-eternity and co-equality of the Father and 
 the Son. 
 
 I shall have occasion under the following and 
 the fifth Articles to make mention of other sects 
 that have denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and 
 therefore need now allude only to the two chief 
 heresies that were promulgated prior to the Coun- 
 cil of Nice, in the year 325. 
 
 Ignatius, exhorting the Magnesians to unity, says, 
 “As the Lord did nothing, either by himself or 
 the Apostles, without the Father, being united with 
 him, so neither do ye any thing without the bishop 
 and elders’.” Much stress, perhaps, cannot be 
 laid on this passage as proving Ignatius’s belief in 
 the unity of the Father and the Son; but it is 
 noted in this place as introductory to an expression 
 used by the same author at the conclusion of the 
 same chapter “ All of you therefore come together 
 
 ° Ienat. ad Magnes, s. 7. 0 adrot, cre Bie tay amorrdAwy' 
 eo 3 c , y ~ 
 Qatep ov 6 Kupios avev tov Wa- xk, Tt. A, 
 
 ARES SINN GE al 7 « / By ” 
 Tg oVdEY Emolnee, NYMrevOs WY, OUTE 
 
Article First. 15 
 
 to one temple of God, to one altar, to one Jesus 
 Christ, who proceeded from one Father, and in 
 that one exists and is contained®.”. Words can 
 hardly express the doctrine of our Church more 
 distinctly than these do, but they fall far short of 
 the original in expressing that oneness of Being, 
 and mutual indwelling which our author seems to 
 have intended. 
 
 Immediately after the martyrdom of Polycarp 
 the church of Smyrna wrote a circular Epistle to 
 the other churches giving a most interesting ac- 
 count of his last moments. The concluding words 
 of the prayer offered up by this holy man when 
 fastened to the stake, and immediately before his 
 death, and which is preserved in the above-men- 
 tioned Epistle, are applicable to the point now 
 under consideration. The whole prayer however is 
 given, on account of its extreme beauty and the 
 strain of heavenly piety that breathes throughout. 
 
 “O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy well- 
 beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we 
 have received knowledge of thee, the God of An- 
 gels and Powers, and of every creature; and of 
 the whole race of just men who live in thy sight. 
 I give thee hearty thanks, that thou hast vouch- 
 safed to bring me to this day, and to this hour; 
 that I should have a part in the number of thy 
 martyrs, in the cross of thy Christ, to the resur- 
 rection of eternal life, both of soul and body in 
 
 eB ~ 
 P Ienat. ad Magnes, s. 7. &¢ én &va Iqooty Xpioroy roy ag 
 Tlayre ie f Sey. \ / «NX ‘ 64 A 3) 
 § OU Ws Elo Eva vaoyavyTpex-  évog Ilarpas mpoeAOovTa, Kal Eig Eva 
 ~ a 
 eve Oeod, Ho ent ev Guowmorypiuv, tra Kal xwpyoayta, 
 
iG Article First. 
 
 the incorruption of the Holy Ghost, Among 
 which may I be accepted this day before thee as a 
 fat and acceptable sacrifice ; as thou the true God, 
 with whom is no falsehood, hast both before or- 
 dained and manifested unto me, and also hast now 
 fulfilled it. Wherefore even for all things else I 
 praise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, together 
 with the eternal and heavenly Jesus Christ, thy 
 beloved Son, with whom, to thee, and the Holy 
 Ghost, be glory, both now and for evermore. 
 Amen ‘.” 
 
 If these are the words of Polycarp there cannot 
 be a doubt that he ascribed equal glory to all the 
 three persons of the Godhead: but it must not be 
 concealed that Eusebius has given a different ver- 
 sion of the conclusion of this prayer: “I glorify 
 thee through the eternal High Priest Jesus Christ 
 thy beloved Son ; through whom be glory to thee 
 together with him in the Holy Ghost, both now 
 and for evermore. Amen*.” 
 
 This form of doxology has been made use of by 
 Arian writers in support of their peculiar tenets, on 
 the ground that equal glory is not ascribed to all 
 the three persons, but that the Father is placed 
 above the two others. Without reference to the 
 discussions that afterwards arose out of the various 
 
 4 Epist. Eccl. Smyrn. de 
 Martyrio Polycarpi,s. 14. Arc 
 TOUTS Kal Tepl TavTwY aivo ce, Ev- 
 roy ce, dobalw ce, oly TH ainvi 
 kal eroveavin “Inood Xpiorp, aya- 
 myt® cov madh, wel? ov oor Kab 
 Tyevuats ‘Aylin 4 ddEa, Kad viv Kat 
 elg Tvs mMeAAovT EAS aldvas, “Apuny, 
 
 r Euses. Hist. 1. iv. c. 15. 
 p- 169. Ardé rot alwvion dpyse- 
 péws "Iycod Xpiorod rod ayaryrov 
 cou maidsc’ OF ob car ody auTe ev 
 Tvetpars ‘Aviv deka, cal viv kat 
 cig TOG MEAACYTAS aiavas. 
 
Article First. i'7/ 
 
 forms of the doxologies, it may be remarked that 
 if the above from Eusebius be taken as the original 
 and orthodox form, it does not give the least sup- 
 port to Arianism.—For the words, “ be glory to thee 
 (the Father) together with him” (the Son,) surely at- 
 tribute the same glory to the Son that is attributed 
 to the Father; nor will the circumstance, that the 
 words “ through whom” are prefixed, help the op- 
 posite argument; for we are directed to approach® 
 the Father through the Son, so that the expression 
 _“through whom” asserts the distinction of the per- 
 sons, and the glory given “ to the Father, together 
 with the Son,” asserts their equality. 
 
 It is foreign to the purpose of this work to enter 
 into the disputes concerning the form of doxology : 
 the reader, therefore, who shall not be satisfied 
 with the use made of the passages here translated, 
 is requested to consult Bp. Bull‘, and Dr. Burton’s 
 unanswerable “ Testimonies to the Doctrine of the 
 Trinity".” 
 
 The letter of the church of Smyrna, in which 
 the above prayer is contained, concludes with an 
 expression which, if it be not admitted as an ar- 
 gument against the correctness of the version of 
 Eusebius, is at all events an independent authority 
 in support of the doctrine of the ‘Trinity : 
 
 “We wish you all happiness, brethren, by living 
 according to the rule of the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
 
 5 John, xiv. 6. u Pp. 6—13. 
 t Def. Fid. Nic. 
 
18 Article First. 
 
 with whom be glory to God the Father and the Holy 
 Ghost, for the salvation of his chosen saints*.” 
 
 This passage is not quoted by Eusebius, but is 
 added by Valesius in his notes, (p. 171.) with a 
 slight variation in the reading: “ We wish you 
 health, brethren, while you walk according to the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ, with whom be glory to God 
 the Father and the Holy Ghost’.” 
 
 The account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, to 
 the same purpose, says that he lived and died, 
 “By the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, with whom be glory to the Father 
 and the Holy and life-giving Spirit, now and 
 always, and for ever and ever. Amen’.” 
 
 Justin, having answered the charge of atheism 
 that was brought against the Christians, and having 
 shewn that God requires his creatures to worship 
 him in spirit and in faith, and not by sacrifices and 
 incense, proceeds: “ We have learned that he 
 who taught us these things, and for this end was 
 born, Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pon- 
 tius Pilate, the procurator of Judzea in the time of 
 Tiberius Cesar, was the Son of him who is truly 
 God, and we esteem him in the second place; and 
 that we with reason honour the prophetic Spirit 
 
 oToLyovvTac TH KaTa TO EvVayyédoV 
 
 * Epist. Eccl. Smyrn. de 
 Martyrio Polycarpi, s. 22. 
 pel od dd€a rH Oe@p Kai Mazpi 
 Kal “Ayip Wvetpari— 
 
 ¥ Euses. |. iv.c. 15. p. 171. n. 
 ‘EppGcbar ipdc tvydpePa, aded¢oi, 
 
 
 
 oy "Incod Xprorod peO’ ob OdEa rp 
 Oe Kai Tarpi Kai “Ayip Mvedpare. 
 
 2 IenatT. Martyr. s. 27. 
 pe’ ob rq TMarpi dd€a Kai rp 
 “Aylp kai Eworroup Tvebpart 
 
 
 
 
 
Article First. 19 
 
 in the third rank, I shall presently show*.” That 
 Justin did not in this passage intend to express 
 any inequality in the three persons of the Trinity, 
 may be inferred from his calling the Son “ God,” in 
 other places, and also from the consideration of 
 the scope of his argument, which is to prove that 
 the Christians are not atheists, for that they wor- 
 ship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; 
 the mention of the two latter would have been im- 
 pertinent to the occasion, had he not believed in 
 the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 
 And Athenagoras, in answer to the same charge 
 of atheism, furnishes us with a more distinct de- 
 claration of his belief in the unity of the Godhead, 
 and the distinction of the persons: “ That we are 
 not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, un- 
 begotten, and eternal, and invisible, and impassible, 
 not bounded by space, and indivisible, compre- 
 hended in mind and reason only, clothed with 
 ineffable light and beauty, and spirit and power, 
 by whom, through his Word, all things are made, 
 and are kept in order and established, I have suf- 
 ficiently shown. And we also acknowledge the 
 Son of God. And let not any one think this ridi- 
 culous that God should have a Son; for we do not 
 think of God, who is also the Father, or of the 
 Son, as the poets fable, making Gods no better 
 than men; but the Son of God is the Word of 
 
 @ Justin. Apol. i. c. 13.  eyovrest Wvedud re mpopytixiy 
 Toy diddoxadsy te tovtwyyevipevoy ev tplry taker Ors pete Adyou T= 
 mely,—Viov aitot rod tytws Occd pduev, amodelbouer. 
 wabivres, Kat ev devtepe xape 
 
 c2 
 
20 Article First. 
 
 the Father, in idea and energy, for by him and 
 through him all things were made, the Father and 
 the Son being one; the Son being in the Father 
 and the Father in the Son, in unity and power of 
 Spirit: the Son of God is the mind and word of 
 the Father”.” 
 
 And again, “ Who would not be surprised if he 
 heard that we are called atheists, who call the 
 Father God, and the Son God, and the Holy 
 Ghost, shewing, at the same time, their power in 
 unity, and their distinction in order*.” 
 
 And in another place still more plainly :—* But 
 we, who account this present life as worth little or 
 nothing, and are conducted through it only by 
 knowing God and the Word proceeding from him, 
 that is to say by knowing, what is the unity of the 
 Son with the Father, what the communion of the 
 Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is 
 the union of so many persons, and the distinction 
 of them united, the Spirit, the Son, the Father— 
 shall not credit be given to us for being worshippers 
 of God *.” 
 
 > ArHEeNsG. Legat. pro 
 
 Siaiperiy, dkovcas abéovg Karou- 
 Christianis, c. 10. “Eyes 
 
 pevous. 
 
 
 
 ovrog tod Tlatpis Kad tod Tiod" 
 gyros d€ Tod Yiod ey Tlargh, Kat 
 Tlarpos év Vig, evornts kak duvdpes 
 TIvevparas, votg xai Asyog tov 
 Tlarpas, 6 Titc tov Ocod. 
 
 © Idem ibid. 
 anopnTas, Aéyovras Octy aréoa, 
 kal Tisy @eoy, kai Tvedua “Aysov, 
 
 , 3 > 
 Tis oty ovx ay 
 
 Seikyiytas ality Kal tHy ey TH 
 < 4 4 ‘\ ‘ > ~ / F 
 évices Stvapsy, Kal THy ev TH Tab EL 
 
 / 
 4 Idem, c. 12.—¥xd psvov d€ 
 , ~ 
 TApaTEnToneves TU Toy Oecy Kas 
 A > -) ~ ’ , / / « 
 tov map adrod Aoyoy cidévas, tic 7 
 ~ + ‘ ‘\ / ye 
 rov Tlaides apes tov Llarépa évornc, 
 7 c ~ ‘ \ ‘ ev 
 tig 4 tov Tlarpog mpeg tov Ticy 
 Kowovia, Th To Ivedux, tic 1 TOY 
 Torovtay Eywois, Kai OSsaipecis 
 Ilvevparos, rad 
 ~ / 
 Tlasdec, rod Watpoc— 
 
 / ~ 
 évoupevav, Tov 
 
Article First. a} 
 
 Irenzeus, having, in the first chapter of his first 
 book, given a long account of the various heresies 
 which it was his object to expose and explode, 
 begins his second chapter with an epitome of the 
 Christian faith, which, it may be not unreasonable 
 to conjecture, was taken from the creed used in 
 his church : he says, 
 
 “The Church, although dispersed over the 
 whole world, even to the extreme parts of the 
 earth, has received from the Apostles and their 
 disciples, that faith which is in one God the Father 
 Almighty, who made heaven, and earth, and the 
 sea, and all things that are therein; and in one 
 Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was incarnate 
 for our salvation; and in the Holy Ghost, who 
 declared by the Prophets the incarnation®, and the 
 coming, and the generation from the Virgin, and 
 the suffering, and the resurrection from the dead, 
 and the ascension in the flesh into heaven, of the 
 beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming 
 from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up 
 all things, and to raise up all the flesh of all man- 
 kind, that to Christ Jesus our Lord, and God, and 
 Saviour, and King, according to the good pleasure 
 of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things in earth, and things 
 
 the word is of no importance 
 with a view to the question be- 
 fore us. Dr. Burron has 
 
 © That «ikovoufa was con- 
 stantly used in this sense by 
 the Fathers see Buti, Defens. 
 
 iv. 3.12, and Suicrer’s The- 
 saurus. It is not necessary to 
 enter into further explanation 
 here, as the precise meaning of 
 
 translated it in the same way, 
 Test. to the Dwinity of Christ, 
 p: 70. 
 
22 Article First. 
 
 under the earth; and that every tongue should con- 
 fess him‘, and that he should do righteous judg- 
 ment upon all: that he should send the spirits of 
 evil, and angels that have transgressed and become 
 apostate, and the impious, and unrighteous, and 
 wicked, and blasphemers amongst men into ever- 
 lasting fire; but to the righteous, and holy, and 
 that have observed his commandments, and have 
 abided in his love, some from the beginning, and 
 some after repentance, giving life of free grace, he 
 may grant incorruption, and clothe them with ever- 
 lasting glory *.” 
 
 In the above passage Irenzeus says that there is 
 but one God, yet he calls Jesus Christ “ Lord and 
 God ;” he says, also, that the Holy Ghost “de- 
 clared by the Prophets,” those things which the 
 Prophets themselves prophecied by divine inspira- 
 tion, and which none, whether Jews or Christians 
 of any denomination, ever doubted were revealed 
 to them by God. The conclusion is obvious, that 
 if Irenzeus has rightly represented this as the faith 
 of the church dispersed over the whole world, 
 the catholic faith then was, as it now is, that the 
 Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost 
 God, and yet that there is but one God. Their 
 belief, too, in the distinction of persons must ne- 
 cessarily follow from the different expressions ap- 
 
 £ Philip. ii. 10, 11. capkwOévra wrio THC Nperépac 
 
 € IREN#zI 1. i. c. ii. s. 1. cwrnpiac: rai sic Mvetpa"A yor, 7d 
 ‘“H opév éxxAnoia TapadaBovca dua THY TpOdNTaY KEKNPVYXOC ‘iva 
 THY eic Eva Osby Tlarépa zavtokpd- Xpror@ ‘Incov rw Kupip Audyr, cai 
 Fopa miotw* Kai tic eva Xpis- Op, Kat owriot, Kai Baodret 
 Tov Inoovy, roy Ytoyv Tov Oeov, roy may yovu Kap Wy, K.T. r- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article First. 93 
 
 plied to the different persons; ‘“‘ The Holy Ghost 
 declared by the Prophets” not concerning himself, 
 but concerning Christ Jesus; Christ Jesus is to 
 come “in the glory of the Father,” who is at the 
 same time to be “ invisible.” 
 
 After the foregoing extract the reader can hardly 
 fail to discover a belief in the divinity of the second 
 and third persons of the Trinity in the following 
 passages ; “ Thus, therefore, was God manifested ; 
 for by all these means God the Father is revealed, 
 the Spirit operating, the Son ministering, and the 
 Father approving, and man’s salvation being 
 thereby completed’.” And again, “ Man, who 
 was created and formed, was made after the image 
 and likeness of the uncreated God; the Father 
 approving and commanding; the Son effecting and 
 creating; and the Holy Ghost nourishing and in- 
 creasing’.” And again, still more clearly, ‘ His 
 Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, are 
 always present with God, by whom and with whom 
 he freely and spontaneously made all things, to 
 whom also he speaks, saying, “let us make man 
 in our image, after our likeness*!.” 
 
 That Irenzeus believed in the doctrine of the 
 
 h Trena@r |. iv.c. 20. s. 6.  covros xa} Onsovpyovyroc, tov be 
 
 —Per omnia enim hec Deus 
 Pater ostenditur, Spiritu qui- 
 dem operante, Filio vero minis- 
 
 trante, Patre vero compro- 
 bante. 
 idem. *l.av. ¢. 38. s. 3. 
 
 
 
 ; = 
 Tod pev Warorg evdoxstytoc, 
 ‘ 4 pa \ cn 4 
 Kak Kehevovtos, TOD be Tiod mpac- 
 
 TIvevparos rpépovros Kui avCovroc. 
 
 K Gen. i. 25. 
 
 1 Irena |. iv. ec. 20.8. I. 
 Adest enim eisemper Verbum 
 et Sapientia, Filius et Spiritus, 
 per quos, et in quibus omnia 
 libere et sponte fecit, ad quos 
 et loquitur, dicens, etc. 
 
24. Article First. 
 
 Trinity, is evident from his applying the words of 
 St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, iv. 6. to 
 the Son and the Holy Ghost, as well as to the 
 Father, “ And thus one God the Father is revealed, 
 who is above all, and through all, and in us all. 
 The Father is above all things, and he is the head 
 of Christ ; but the Word is through all things, and 
 he is the head of the Church; but the Spirit is in 
 all of us, and he is the living water, which the 
 Lord supplies to those that believe rightly in him, 
 and love him, and know that ‘there is one Father, 
 who is above all, and through all, and in us 
 alte se 
 
 Bishop Bull quotes the following passage from 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, as “a full and perfect con- 
 fession of the most holy Trinity.” Dr. Burton also 
 justly observes that ‘it is the more remarkable, be- 
 cause there is nothing preceding, which led Cle- 
 ment thus to apostrophise the three persons, or to 
 mention the third person at all.” Having had oc- 
 casion to speak of our Saviour’s being born of a 
 Virgin, he exclaims, ‘“ O mysterious wonder! The 
 universal Father is one; the universal Word is 
 
 ™ Ephes. iv. 6. 
 
 n TRENZI,I.v.c.18.s.2 Et 
 sic unus Deus Pater ostenditur, 
 qui est super omnia, et per 
 omnia, et in omnibus. Super 
 omnia quidem Pater, et ipse est 
 caput Christi: per omnia au- 
 tem Verbum, et ipse est caput 
 
 Ecclesiz; in omnibus autem 
 nobis Spiritus, et ipse est aqua 
 viva, quam prestat Dominus 
 in se recte credentibus, et dili- 
 gentibus se, et scientibus quia, 
 unus Pater, qui est super om- 
 nia, et per omnia, et in omnibus 
 nobis. 
 
Article First. 25 
 
 also one; and the Holy Spirit is one; and this 
 same Spirit is every where °.” 
 
 And the following prayer, though perhaps diffi- 
 cult to be understood, clearly expresses the Unity 
 of the three persons ; “‘ Be merciful, Instructor, to 
 thy children, O Father, thou Director of Israel, 
 Son and Father, both one, Lord, and grant—that 
 giving thanks we may praise, and praising, we may 
 give thanks to the only One, Father and Son, Son 
 and Father, to the Son, Instructor and Teacher, 
 together with the Holy Ghost, in all things one, 
 in whom are all things, through whom all things 
 are one, through whom is eternity ”.” 
 
 Tertullian in his treatise on Baptism, having 
 compared the water used in that sacrament to the 
 pool of Bethesda, carries on the analogy by sup- 
 posing an angel to give to the baptismal water its 
 spiritual efficacy, “The angel, who witnesses the 
 baptism, prepares the way for the Holy Ghost, 
 which is to follow, by the washing away of sins; 
 which washing faith obtains, being sealed in the 
 Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost. For if ‘in three 
 witnesses every word shall be established +, how 
 much more is the number of the divine names suf- 
 ficient for the confidence of our hope, when we 
 have by means of the blessing the same persons as 
 
 ° Cuem. ALEX. Peedag. 1. i. 
 c. 6. p. 123. "OQ Oaiparog puort- 
 Kou" ic péy 6 Tov Owy Tarno' ele dF 
 Kai 0 T@Y bAwWY Adyoc’ Kai 7d Ivetpa 
 To"Ayuy év, kai rd abrd Tayraxyov. 
 
 P Cutem. ALEx. Peedag. 1. 
 lil. c. ult. “IAa@t roic coic, Mat- 
 Saywyt, maior, Mario, nvioxe 'Ia- 
 
 panX, Yt Kai Mari, tv dugw, Kvore, 
 kai Tapacye.-—— Aivovytac eya- 
 piorety, aivety, TH povw Larpi Kat 
 Yi, Yup cai Marpi, wavdaywyp Kat 
 OiWackddky Yiup> oby Kai tw “Ayi 
 
 p Yip vig 
 
 ; “ eae 
 
 Ivedpart, ravrary tye ty @ 7a TWav- 
 ra’ Ou by ra wWayra ev’ Ot by 76 aet. 
 
 4 Matt. xviii. 16. 
 
26 Article First. 
 
 witnesses of our faith, whom we have also as the 
 promisers of our salvation? But when both the 
 witnessing of our faith and the promise of our sal- 
 vation is given under the pledge of three persons, 
 there is necessarily added a mention of the church; 
 for where the three are, that is, the Father, and 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, there is the church, which 
 is the body of the three’.” In this passage Tertul- 
 lian speaks of the three Persons in the Trinity as 
 three witnesses, thereby evidently implying his be- 
 lief in the distinction of the Persons ; but his belief 
 will be seen more clearly in his treatise against 
 Praxeas; indeed the whole of that treatise might 
 be referred to as shewing his belief in the Trinity. 
 It will be sufficient however to extract two or three 
 of the most remarkable passages. 
 
 Be it remembered that this treatise was written 
 expressly against one who confounded the three 
 persons of the Trinity, and maintained that the 
 second and third persons were not distinct, but 
 merely modes and energies of the Father. Here 
 therefore for the first time we find the question 
 brought before us as a subject of controversy ; 
 Tertullian asserts the catholic doctrine, that which 
 had been received without question until his time: 
 we must therefore expect more precision in his lan- 
 
 r TerTuLL. de Baptismo, 
 ce. 6. Angelus baptismi arbiter 
 superventuro Spiritui Sancto 
 vias dirigit ablutione delicto- 
 rum, quam fides impetrat, ob- 
 signata in Patre, et Filio, et 
 Spiritu Sancto——Quum au- 
 
 tem sub tribus et testatio fidei 
 et sponsio salutis pignerentur, 
 necessario adjicitur Ecclesiz 
 mentio; quoniam ubi tres, id 
 est, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus 
 Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia, que trium 
 corpus est. 
 
Article First. if 
 
 guage, than in that of his predecessors. The fol- 
 lowing passage asserts in the plainest terms the 
 trinity of persons, and the unity of the Godhead, 
 each person being God, and yet but one God, of 
 one substance. 
 
 “He thinks that we cannot in any other way 
 believe in one God, than if we say that the very 
 same person is Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost: 
 as if one might not thus also be all, so as all pro- 
 ceed from one, namely, by unity of substance, and 
 still the mystery of the divine economy be pre- 
 served, which divides the unity into a trinity, 
 pointing out three, Father, and Son, and Holy 
 Ghost; three however not in condition but in or- 
 der ; not in substance, but in form; not in power, 
 but in species; but of one substance, and of one 
 condition, and of one power; for there is one 
 God, from whom those orders, and forms, and 
 species are reckoned in the name of Father, and 
 Son, and Holy Ghost*.” 
 
 And in the following section he says, ‘“ These 
 persons assume the number and disposition of 
 the trinity to be a division of the unity ; whereas 
 the unity, from itself deriving a trinity is, not de- 
 
 § TERTULL. adv. Praz. c. 2. 
 Unicum Deum non alias putat 
 
 dirigens, Patrem, et Filium, et 
 Spiritum Sanctum. Tres au- 
 
 credendum, quam siipsum eun- 
 demque, et Patrem et Filium, et 
 Spiritum Sanctum dicat ; quasi 
 non sic quoque unus sit omnia, 
 dum ex uno omnia, per sub- 
 stantiz scilicet unitatem; et 
 nihilominus custodiatur ofkovo- 
 piac sacramentum, que unita- 
 tem in trinitatem disponit, tres 
 
 tem, non statu, sed gradu; nec 
 substantia, sed forma ; nec po- 
 testate, sed specie ; unius au~ 
 tem substantie, et unius status, 
 et unius potestatis ; quia unus 
 Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et 
 forme et species, in nomine 
 Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus 
 Sancti deputantur. 
 
28 Article First. 
 
 stroyed by it, but has its different offices performed, 
 They therefore boast that two and three Gods are 
 preached by us, but they assume themselves to be 
 worshippers of one God; as if the unity, irrationally 
 contracted, did not create heresy; and a trinity, 
 rationally considered, did not constitute truth’” 
 
 In another passage Tertullian uses the word per- 
 sona, in reference to the distinction of the Trinity ; 
 that he uses it in the same sense that we attach to 
 “person,” as expressing distinct individuality, and 
 not in its original and classical sense of “ charac- 
 ter,” I shall not now stop to prove, but refer the 
 reader to the unanswerable remarks of Dr. Bur- 
 ton". Having quoted several passages from Scrip- 
 ture, in which the Father is spoken of as having 
 a Son, he proceeds ; 
 
 “In these few instances therefore the distinction 
 of the Trinity is very plainly shewn. For there is 
 the Spirit who speaks; and the Father to whom 
 he speaks; and the Son of whom he speaks. So 
 also the other words which are spoken, at one time 
 to the Father concerning the Son; or to the Son 
 at another time concerning the Father; or to the 
 Father at another time concerning the Spirit, esta- 
 blish each person in his own individuality *.” 
 
 t TerTULL. adv. Prax. c.3. 
 Numerum et dispositionem tri- 
 nitatis divisionem praesumunt 
 unitatis ; quando unitas, ex se- 
 metipsa derivans trinitatem, 
 non destruatur ab illa, sed ad- 
 ministretur. Itaque duos et 
 tres jam jactitant a nobis pre- 
 dicari; se vero unius Dei cul- 
 tores prasumunt ; quasi non et 
 
 unitas irrationaliter collecta ha- 
 resim faciat, et trinitas rationa- 
 liter expensa, veritatem con- 
 stituat. 
 
 u Testimonies to the Doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, p. 73, 74. 
 
 x TeRTULL. adv. Praz. ec. 
 1]. His itaque paucis tam 
 manifeste distinctio ‘T'rinitatis 
 exponitur. Est enim ipse qui 
 
Article First. 99 
 
 Dr. Burton has extracted nearly twenty passages 
 from Tertullian in which he uses expressions 
 equally clear; I must content myself with one 
 more. ‘Tertullian, as well as all the other Fathers, 
 interpreted several expressions in the Old Testa- 
 ment as relating to the first and second persons of 
 the Trinity, he was consequently accused of preach- 
 ing two Gods and two Lords, this he denies, and 
 says; “ We do indeed distinguish two, the Father 
 and the Son, and moreover three with the Holy 
 Ghost, according to the method of the divine eco- 
 nomy, which composes that number, lest, as your 
 perversions bring it to pass, the Father himself 
 should be believed to have been born, and to have 
 suffered, which may not be believed, because it has 
 not been so delivered to us. We however never 
 with our mouth name two Gods or two Lords; al- 
 though the Father is God, and the Son is God, 
 and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God’.” 
 
 Hippolytus, who follows close upon Tertullian, 
 has also left us a controversial treatise written for 
 the express purpose of asserting the orthodox faith 
 against Noetus, who held doctrines very similar to 
 those of Praxeas, but perhaps more decidedly Pa- 
 
 pronuntiat Spiritus, et Paterad 13. Duos quidem definimus, 
 
 quem pronuntiat, et Filius de 
 quo pronuntiat. Sic et cetera, 
 quz nune ad Patrem de Filio, 
 vel ad Filium, nunc ad Filium 
 de Patre, vel ad Patrem, nunc 
 ad Spiritum pronuntiantur, 
 unamquamque personam in sua 
 proprietate constituunt. 
 
 Y TERTULL. adv. Prax. c. 
 
 Patrem et Filium, et jam tres 
 cum Spiritu Sancto— Duos 
 tamen Deos et duos Dominos 
 nunquam ex ore nostro proferi- 
 mus; non quasi non et Pater 
 Deus, et Filius Deus, et Spi- 
 ritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus 
 unusquisque. 
 
30 Article First. 
 
 tripassian; this must be borne in mind by those 
 who may think that the expressions used by Hip- 
 polytus favour the Sabellian notions of the Son and 
 the Holy Ghost being operations of the Father: 
 
 “ He must of necessity, even against his will, ac- 
 knowledge the Father God Almighty, and Christ 
 Jesus, the Son of God, who is God and became 
 man, to whom the Father subjected all things ex- 
 cept himself and the Holy Ghost, and that these 
 are in this manner three. But if he wishes to 
 learn how God is proved to be one, let him know 
 that his essence is one, and as far as relates to his 
 essence, he is one God: but with respect to the dis- 
 pensation, his manifestation is threefold *.” 
 
 The passage next to be quoted will give occasion 
 to some remarks, which will be equally applicable 
 to an extract from Tertullian in a former page * 
 Noetus, as well as Praxeas, accused the orthodox 
 party of believing in two Gods, they endeavoured 
 to overturn the established doctrine, and put for- 
 ward their own as new but as truly Scriptural ; 
 they did not attack others as heretics for intro- 
 ducing a novel doctrine, but professed to try and 
 explain Scripture by human reason; the obvious 
 conclusion is that a belief in the divinity of the Son 
 and the Holy Ghost was general throughout the 
 
 2 Hrpepotyti c, Noetum, c. ov7we tpia. Ei dé BotAerar pabety, 
 8. "Avayrny ody xa Kai py Gov THC sic Orbe aodEikyuTaL, ywwo- 
 dpodoyeiv Iartpa Osby mavrokpad- kérw Ore pia Cbvapic TovTOV, Kai booy 
 ropa, kai Xptorby ‘Inoovy Yiov Oeod pév Kara THY Odvapur, ele tore Bed" 
 Qcdy dvOpwroy yevopevov, G mdvra baov dé Kard THY oiKovopiay, TpLXNS 
 Tlarijp iztrake wapextoc éavrov cai —- EmrtderEenc. 
 
 Tlvetarog ‘Ayiou, kai robroug Etvac a See above note Y. 
 
Article First. ol 
 Church. It may be objected that this mode of 
 arguing makes as much against, as for, the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, for that as Praxeas, Noetus, and 
 others, only found fault with the belief in two Gods, 
 and not in three, therefore the conclusion must be 
 that the divinity of the Holy Ghost, as a separate 
 person, was not so much as thought of in those 
 days. To which I answer, that prior to the Coun- 
 cil of Nice, the divinity of the Holy Ghost was 
 scarcely questioned, and that moreover in almost 
 all instances where this objection of there being 
 two Gods is answered, the trinity of persons is as- 
 serted: thus in the passage before quoted from 
 Tertullian, (p. 29.) he says in answer to this same 
 objection, “ We do indeed distinguish two, the Fa- 
 ther and the Son, and moreover three with the 
 Holy Ghost ;” so the same remark is forestalled in 
 the following passage from Hippolytus ; 
 
 He had quoted the beginning of St. John’s Gos- 
 pel, and proceeds, “ If then the Word is with God, 
 being himself God, why would any one say that 
 two Gods are spoken of? I never speak of two 
 Gods, but one; yet of two persons, and a third 
 dispensation, the grace of the Holy Ghost. For 
 the Father is one; but there are two persons ;_be- 
 cause there is also the Son; and the third is the 
 Holy Ghost. The Father commands, the Word 
 performs, and the Son is manifested, whereby 
 the Father is believed. A dispensation of agree- 
 ment is comprehended in one God, for God is one. 
 For it is the Father who commands, the Son who 
 obeys, and the Holy Ghost who gives wisdom. 
 
32 Article First. 
 
 The Father is ‘ above all,’ the Son is ‘ through all,’ 
 and the Holy Ghost is ‘in all.’ We cannot in any 
 other way form a conception of one God, unless 
 we really believe in the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost. For the Jews glorified the Father, 
 but did not give thanks, for they did not acknow- 
 ledge the Son. The disciples acknowledged the 
 Son, but not in the Holy Ghost; wherefore they 
 also denied him. The paternal Word therefore 
 knowing the dispensation and the will of the 
 Father, that the Father wished to be glorified in 
 no other way than this, after his resurrection com- 
 manded his disciples, saying, ‘Go, teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; shewing 
 that whoever omits any one of these, does not per- 
 fectly glorify God. For by this Trinity the Father 
 is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son exe- 
 cuted, the Spirit manifested ».” 
 
 The following fanciful interpretation of Psalm 
 cxxii. 2. shews Origen’s belief in the Trinity in 
 Unity; and the more so, that it is quite incidental ; 
 if his persuasion had not been very strong he would 
 not have gone out of his way to find expressions 
 to whieh he attached no meaning: the words are 
 these: “ Even as the eyes of servants look unto 
 the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a 
 
 
 
 b Hippotyti c. Noetum. c.  tpitov7d" Ayov Ive} ppa.— Oixovo- 
 14 = Ave ey atk 08 Oeods pia cvpdwviac ovvayerattictva Osby" 
 GAN } Eva, rodaw7a dé bdo, oixovo- tig yap éaTw 6 Oedc,——Ara yao rij¢ 
 
 z = , Laagaimaays : iosrer 
 
 piay d& rpirny, THY Xap TOU ‘Aytov tpiadog tatrng arn Ookdlerat 
 
 Ivedparoc. Tarjp piv yao sic,  Uary9 yao nOednoev, Yiog Exoinger, 
 ; Sera aes BIR 279 se Wey 
 
 moocwira O& Obo, Ort Kat OYtdc, rd CF  Wyrevpa tdartowcer. 
 
Article First. 33 
 
 maiden unto the hand of her mistress; even so 
 our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until he 
 have mercy upon us.” Origen observes, “ The 
 servants of their masters, the Father and Son, are 
 the spirit and body; and the handmaid of her mis- 
 tress, the Holy Ghost, is the soul; and the three 
 are the Lord our God ; for the three are one. °” 
 
 The following passages from Cyprian are too 
 plain to require comment. 
 
 “ When the Lord after his resurrection sent 
 forth his disciples, he instructed and taught them 
 how they were to baptize, saying, ‘ All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth: go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost*” He implies a Trinity by the mys- 
 tery of which all nations should be baptized °.” 
 
 And again, in the same Epistle, in which it 
 should be observed he is arguing against the va- 
 lidity and efficaciousness of baptism by heretics ; 
 “‘ If a person may be baptized by heretics, he may 
 therefore obtain remission of sins. If he obtains 
 remission of sins, he is also sanctified, and made 
 the temple of God. If he is sanctified and made 
 the temple of God, I ask, of what God? If you 
 say, of the Creator, I say he cannot, because he 
 does not believe in him. If, of Christ, neither can 
 
 © ORIGEN. in Ps. oxxii. 2. © Cypriani Ep. Ixxiii. s. 5. 
 vol. ii. p. 821.—Ta& d¢ tp/a K’- ad Jubaianum.—lInsinuat tri- 
 prog 0 Okbc Hpwy tor" of yap TpEtg ~~ nitatem, cujus sacramento gen- 
 70 ey gio. tes baptizarentur. 
 
 4 Matt. xxviii. 18. 
 
 D 
 
34 Article First. 
 
 he who denies Christ to be God, be made his tem- 
 ple. If of the Holy Ghost, since the three are 
 one, how can the Holy Ghost be reconciled to 
 him, who is at enmity either with the Son or the 
 Father ‘.” 
 
 And again, in the same Epistle, “ When after 
 the resurrection the Apostles are sent by the Lord 
 to all nations, they are commanded to baptize 
 them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost. How then do some say, 
 that a Gentile who is baptized out of the Church, 
 so as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, any 
 where and in any manner, can obtain remission of 
 sins; when Christ himself orders all nations to be 
 baptized in the full and united Trinity *.” 
 
 The title of Novatian’s treatise de Trinitate, 
 would be sufficient proof of his belief in the Tri- 
 nity. He does not however in any place mention 
 the three persons, but confines himself to the ques- 
 tion of the divinity and the distinct individuality of 
 the Son. Any passages that shew that the Father 
 and the Son are two persons, and both together 
 one God, might be adduced in support of the au- 
 thor’s belief in the Trinity: but as I shall have 
 occasion under the second Article to quote from 
 Novatian, it will be sufficient to refer the reader 
 to the extracts there given. 
 
 f£ Idem, ibid. s. 1].—Cum & Idem, ibid. s. 16.—Quando 
 tres unum sint, quomodo Spi- ipse Christus gentes baptizari 
 ritus Sanctus placatus esse ei jubeat in plena et adunata tri- 
 potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii nitate ? 
 inimicus est ? 
 
Article First. 35 
 
 Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, was one of the 
 first to resist the heresy of Sabellius, which began 
 to spread in his time. It must be borne in mind 
 that the tendency of the Sabellian doctrine was to 
 confound the Father and the Son, and to deny 
 the real and separate existence of the latter. Dio- 
 nysius, in his anxiety to overturn this heresy, 
 seems to have subjected himself to the charge of 
 dividing the substance of the three persons, and so 
 falling into that which was afterwards the Arian 
 heresy. Dionysius, bishop of Rome, summoned a 
 council, and requested the Alexandrian bishop to 
 explain his opinions concerning the Trinity. This 
 he did in a work entitled his “ Refutation and De- 
 fence,” with which the orthodox party were satis- 
 fied. Of this work only a few passages have come 
 down to us, which are preserved in a book written 
 by Athanasius for the express purpose of defending 
 him from the charge of Arianism. In the following 
 passage Dionysius defends himself from the accusa- 
 tion of separating the Son from the Father : 
 
 “ Each of the two names mentioned by me is 
 inseparable and indivisible from the other. If I 
 mentioned the Father, I also signified the Son in 
 the Father, even before I introduced the name of 
 the Son. Did I introduce the Son; although I 
 had not spoken of the Father before, He would 
 certainly have had his name anticipated in the Son. 
 If I added the Holy Ghost, I at the same time 
 subjoined both from whence and by whom he 
 came. But these persons are not aware, that the 
 Father, in his relation of Father, is not separated 
 
 D2 
 
36 Article First. 
 
 from the Son; for the name implies union: nor is 
 the Son removed from the Father ; for the appella- 
 tion Father signifies community. In their hands 
 also is the Spirit, which can neither be separated 
 from the person sending, nor from the person con- 
 veying. How then, while I make use of these 
 names, can I conceive that these are divided and 
 altogether distinct from each other * ?” 
 
 Athanasius represents Dionysius as saying shortly 
 afterwards, “‘ Thus we expand the Unity into the 
 indivisible Trinity ; and again we sum up the un- 
 diminished Trinity in the Unity ‘.” 
 
 Athanasius has also preserved to us some pas- 
 sages from the treatise of Dionysius bishop of 
 Rome against Sabellius. Having remarked on the 
 heresy of Sabellius, and condemned that of Mar- 
 cion, who would have made Christ a mere creature, 
 he proceeds: “‘ We must therefore neither divide 
 the wonderful and divine unity into three God- 
 heads; nor destroy the dignity and exceeding 
 greatness of the Lord, by making him a creature ; 
 but we must believe in God the Father Almighty, 
 and in Christ Jesus his Son, and in the Holy 
 Ghost; and that the Word is united with the God 
 of the universe; ‘ For I,’ he says, ‘and the Father 
 are one*;’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Fa- 
 
 h Araanas. de Sent, Dio- 
 nyS. C. 17.—Ilaréoa eimoy’ Kal 
 amply imaydyw roy Ywy, tonpava 
 kai rovrov éy rp Marpi. Ytdy érn- 
 yayov" & Kat pa) TpoElOnKE Tov 
 Taripa, mdvrwe dy tv rm Yip mpo- 
 ethyrro. “Aytoy Iveta zpoctO na, 
 GAN dpa wai wo0ev Kai dia rivocg 
 
 nKEv épnopooa. 
 
 i Tdem, ibid. Ovra ey nyets 
 ig Te THY Tpidda THY povada 7a- 
 Tuvopey aOdvaiperoy, Kal Ty TpLdda 
 mad apsiwroy ic THY wovdda avy-~ 
 Kepadavov pea. 
 
 k John x. 30. 
 
Article First. 37 
 
 ther in me!’ for thus both the divine Trinity, and 
 the holy doctrine of the Unity, will be preserved™.” 
 
 ARTICLE IL. 
 
 Of the Word or Son of God, which was made 
 very Man. 
 
 ‘*' Tue Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten 
 *‘ from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal 
 ** God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s na- 
 ‘ture in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her sub- 
 ** stance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is 
 ** to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together 
 ‘in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one 
 ** Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, 
 ‘‘ was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father 
 ** to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, 
 ‘* but also for actual sins of men.” 
 
 The first Article having declared God to be one, 
 and “ without parts,” the second proceeds to shew 
 the unity of the Son with the Father, and also to 
 declare more particularly those truths concerning 
 the Son, which are contained in the Scriptures, 
 and which are necessary for Christians to believe. 
 
 1 John xiv. 11. Téa. Tayrokparopa, Kai eic Xourov 
 m A THANAS. de Decret. Syn. "Inoovy roy Yidv abrov, Kai eic 7d 
 Nic. c. 26. et apud Routu Rel. “Aywv Iveipas rvio0a ot ry OG 
 Sacer. vol. iii. Pp: 182. O'9 ody Tyr d\wy Toy Adyov.—otrw yao ay 
 Karapepiley xpi) cic ToEic OedrnTrag Kai 7 Osia rpLdc, Kai Td dywoy KNpVvY- 
 THY Oavpacriy Kal Ociay povddar— pa THiS povapxiag Ovacwloro. 
 Ga wemvorevKévat, cic Oxdv Tla- 
 
Article Second. 
 
 The several propositions contained in this Article 
 are directed against various heresies which have 
 been broached at different times; for though in its 
 form it is affirmative, it is negative in spirit. 
 
 The five several heads into which the Article is 
 here divided will enable me to notice and distin- 
 guish the several opinions, which it seems intended 
 to reject. 
 
 First, then, the Article asserts, “ The Son, which 
 as the Word of the Father, to be begotten of ever- 
 lasting of the Father.” 
 
 It has been already* observed that the Arians 
 denied the coeternity of the Son with the Father ; 
 but it would perhaps be more correct to suppose 
 that the above words were more immediately di- 
 rected against those who altogether denied the 
 pre-existence of the Son; such were the followers 
 of Photinus, bishop of Sirmium in the fourth cen- 
 tury: they admitted the miraculous conception, 
 and the birth from the Virgin, but denied the pre- 
 existence of our Saviour; holding that a certain 
 divine emanation, which they called the Logos or 
 Word, descended upon him after his birth. 
 
 Secondly, the Article asserts the divinity of the 
 Son, and his consubstantiality with the Father ; 
 that he is “the very and eternal God, of one sub- 
 stance with the Father.” 
 
 It may be hardly necessary in this place to no- 
 
 2 Ante, p. 13, 14. 
 
Article Second. 39 
 
 tice the early Jewish heretics, who, having ex- 
 pected a temporal prince, were not easily unde- 
 ceived; and though they professed to receive the 
 Gospel of Christ, could not brmg themselves to 
 believe in his divinity. 
 
 The Arians in one sense admitted the pre-exist- 
 ence of the Son; but seemed to think that the 
 Father must have existed before the Son, other- 
 wise that the Son could not be said to have been 
 begotten. ‘They, however, altogether denied the 
 consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. 
 Others again, as the Semi-Arians, who softened 
 down the doctrines of Arius, professed to believe 
 the consubstantiality, but in a peculiar sense, they 
 held it to be not by nature, only by privilege. To 
 these may be added the Socinians, and all who 
 call themselves Unitarians. 
 
 Thirdly, it is asserted, that the Son of God “ took 
 man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of 
 her substance ;” in opposition to those who admitted 
 only the divinity of Christ. 
 
 Many of the early heretics, amongst many fan- 
 tastic notions with regard to the creation of the 
 world, spirits, and the Deity, maintained that 
 Christ had not a real, but only an apparent body ; 
 consequently they denied his humanity, and con- 
 sidered the scriptural accounts of his life, cruci- 
 fixion, burial, and resurrection, to be allegorical or 
 mystical. 
 
 And Eutyches in the fifth century, in his zeal 
 against the errors of Nestorius, which will be pre- 
 
40 Article Second. 
 
 sently noticed, ran into the opposite extreme, and 
 denied the human nature of Christ; he argued 
 that the human nature could not possibly co-exist 
 with the divine. He was condemned by the gene- 
 ral council of Chalcedon, in the year 451. His 
 followers were called Monophysites; and it is said 
 that many are still to be found in the Eastern 
 Church who hold his opinions. 
 
 The Article next proceeds to assert the conjunc- 
 tion of the divine and human natures in one per- 
 son, which controversialists have designated by the 
 expression “ hypostatic union.” 
 
 In the fourth century, Apollinaris, who is said 
 to have been bishop of Laodicea, gave a name to 
 a sect which, following him, has denied the incar- 
 nation and hypostatic union, maintaining that the 
 Word must have supplied the place of a human 
 soul to Jesus Christ, thereby denying him to be 
 “ perfect man.” 
 
 In the fifth century Nestorius advanced a new 
 doctrine; he admitted the two natures, but not 
 the hypostatic union ; his followers, however, have 
 denied the charge of rejecting the union of the 
 two natures in one person ;—perhaps his doctrine 
 would not be unfairly described as making two 
 persons with one appearance. The words “ one 
 Christ” are, perhaps, inserted in this Article with a 
 view to this particular heresy; as “ very God and 
 very man” is in opposition to those who held that 
 the Logos or Word supplied the place of a human 
 soul. 
 
Article Second. 4d 
 
 Nestorius was made bishop of Constantinople in 
 the year 428, and condemned by the general coun- 
 cil at Ephesus in 431. 
 
 Lastly, the Son “ truly suffered, was crucified, 
 dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, etc.’ 
 The word “truly” seems to be put in opposition 
 to those who denied the reality of Christ’s human 
 nature. The concluding words express the doc- 
 trine of the atonement, but as that will be more 
 conveniently considered under the eleventh Article, 
 I shall not now adduce many passages from the 
 Fathers with a view to illustrate that point. 
 
 I. The pre-existence and eternal generation of 
 the Son. 
 
 The following passage from the Shepherd of 
 Hermas attributes to Christ an uncreated nature, 
 as well as pre-existence before the world was made; 
 “ The Son of God is more ancient than any created 
 thing, so that he was present in counsel with his 
 Father at the creation.” , 
 
 And Ignatius, “ Jesus Christ, who was with the 
 Father before all ages, and appeared in the end °.” 
 
 And very shortly before his martyrdom, when 
 questioned by Trajan, to a question whether 
 the Romans had not God in them, he answered, 
 “ Alas, O king, that you call the idols of the Gen- 
 
 > Herm Pastor, |. iii. Si- © Ienat. Ep. ad Maanes. 
 mil. 9. s. 12. Filius quidem  s. 6.—*O¢ 1p aidvev rapa Marph 
 Dei omni creatura antiquiorest, jy, kai ev reAes Epavq. The whole 
 ita ut in consilio Patri suo ad- section will be inserted here- 
 fuerit ad condendam creaturam. after under Article xxiii. 
 
42 Article Second. 
 
 tiles, gods! For there is one true God, who is the 
 Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the sea, 
 and all things that are in them. There is one 
 Christ Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, of 
 whose kingdom there is no end. Whom if thou 
 also shouldst acknowledge, O king, thy people, and 
 diadem, and regal throne, would be much more 
 firmly established *.” 
 
 So Justin Martyr: “ The Word of wisdom tes- 
 tifieth this unto me, himself being God, begotten 
 of the Father of all things; being also the word, 
 and the wisdom, and the power, and the glory of 
 him that did beget him *:” he then quotes Proverbs 
 vii. from verse 22. to the end of the chapter, as 
 spoken by Christ concerning himself. And again ; 
 * You understand, O hearers, if you attend, that 
 the word hath declared that this which was be- 
 gotten was begotten of the Father, before all cre- 
 ated things whatsoever; and that he which was 
 begotten is another in number from him that did 
 beget him, every one will confess %.” 
 
 Irenzeus having shewn how incapable man, a 
 finite being, is of comprehending what is infinite, 
 says, “ For thou art not uncreated, O man, nor 
 didst thou always co-exist with God; as his own 
 Word has done; but by means of his eminent 
 
 4 Tenav. Martyr. s. 4.—Eis f Idem, c. 129.—Or: yeyenrjc= 
 Xpiores *Iyoavs, 6 tov cov [-ove- Qat 70 Tov Ilarpoc TOUTO TO yiv- 
 yerns Tiss, ob tis Bacideras ode vna Tpo TavTwy aTAOGC THY KTLC- 
 €or TENN. parwv 6 Néyog éondov, kai rd yevvo- 
 
 e Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. Hever Tov yevyG@vroc app Erepdv 
 c. 61.—Adris dy obras 6 Ocds aad «FTL TAL OTIC OY OpodoynoEtE. 
 
 rov Tlargig tov GAwy yevynbeic—. 
 
Article Second. 43 
 
 goodness, now receiving the beginning of being, 
 thou learnest by degrees from the Word the ordi- 
 nances of God who made thee *.” 
 
 And again, in the words immediately following 
 a passage before quoted", he says, “‘ He, the Father 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, by his own Word, who 
 is his Son, is revealed and made manifest to all, to 
 whom he is revealed; for they know him, to whom 
 the Son has revealed him. But the Son always 
 co-existing with the Father, in times past and from 
 the beginning ever reveals the Father, both to 
 angels and archangels, and principalities and pow- 
 ers, and to all to whom the Father will reveal 
 himself.” 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, in a passage hereafter 
 given under this Article, says that Christ “ was in 
 the beginning, and before existed,” 
 
 And Tertullian, “ Christ our Lord has called 
 himself Truth, (John xiv. 6.), not custom. If 
 Christ has been always, and is before all things, 
 Truth is equally eternal and ancient *.” 
 
 Hippolytus, in his Demonstratio contra Judeos, 
 argues that the last punishment of the Jews was 
 greater than all former ones, for that their crime 
 in having crucified the Son of God, was greater 
 than all they had before committed. He asks, 
 
 & Trenz |. il. c. 25. s. 3. Filius Patri, olim et ab initio 
 
 Non enim infectus es, O homo, 
 neque semper co-existebas Deo, 
 sient proprium ejus Verbum. 
 hb Art. I. p. 9. 
 i Irenaé1 lib. ii. c. 30. 
 ult.—Semper autem caaistétis 
 
 semper revelat Patrem—. 
 
 K TERTULL. de Virg. Ve- 
 land. ec. 1. Si semper Christus, 
 et prior omnibus, xque veritas 
 sempiterna et antiqua res. 
 
44: Article Second. 
 
 “ Why was the Temple destroyed? Was it for the 
 making of the calf in days of old? Was it for the 
 idolatry of the people? Was it for the blood of the 
 prophets? Was it for the adulteries and fornica- 
 tions of Israel? By no means; for they always ob- 
 tained pardon and mercy for all those things: but 
 it was because they killed the Son of their Bene- 
 factor; for it is he who is co-eternal with the 
 Father '.” 
 
 The eternal generation of the Son is expressly 
 declared in the following passage from Origen: 
 “ For God did not begin to be a Father, having 
 been prevented, like men, who become fathers, by 
 not being able yet to become fathers. For if God 
 is always perfect, and the power of being a father 
 is present with Him; and if it is good for him to 
 be the Father of such a Son, why does he delay it, 
 and deprive himself of what is good? and why not, 
 if we may so speak, be Father of a Son, from the 
 time that he is able to be so™ ?” 
 
 And Novatian; “ But he who is before all time 
 must be said to have always been in the Father. 
 For time cannot be assigned to him who is before 
 time. For he was always in the Father, lest the 
 Father should not always be a Father.” 
 
 “ For it is not, that God was without a Son, and 
 then begat one; but the term Son means that he 
 
 1 Hippotyti Demonstr. c. ol ywopevor rarépec avOpw7ot, k.T.r, 
 Judeos, c. 7.—Aitis yap ect 6 2 Novat. de Trinitate, c.31. 
 tp Marpt cvvaidsac. Sed qui ante omne tempus est, 
 
 ™ OrIGEN. é lib. 1°. in GE- semper in Patre fuisse dicendus 
 NES. vol. ii. p.1. Od yxpé @cis est—Semper enim in Pautre, 
 Marjo sivar ip£aro, kwvopevoc, og ne Pater non semper sit Pater. 
 
Article Second. 45 
 
 has his existence not of himself, but of the Fa- 
 ther®.” And shortly afterwards, “ The Son alone 
 always existing with the Father, and filled with 
 him that is essentially, himself also is essentially, 
 being of the Father”.” Again, “I have written, 
 and now write, and confess, and believe, and preach, 
 that Christ is co-eternal with the Father, the only- 
 begotten Son and Word of the Father %.” 
 
 II. In the second place, “ Christ is God, of one 
 substance with the Father.” 
 
 From a passage quoted from Barnabas, and 
 given under the fifth head of this Article, it will 
 appear how early the words in Genesis i. 26, ‘ Let 
 us make man’ were considered to refer to Christ ; 
 we may add another passage from the same au- 
 thor, in which he refers to him those words of 
 Ezekiel’, which the prophet attributes to God the 
 Father, and from which we may infer that Barna- 
 bas believed in the divinity of Christ, and his union 
 with the Father. <“ ‘Lo! saith the Lord, <I will 
 take away from them their stony hearts, and will 
 give them hearts of flesh: because he was about 
 to be manifested in the flesh, and to dwell among 
 us 
 
 Clemens Romanus also calls Christ God, as the 
 sufferings which he mentions to have been seen 
 
 ° Dionys. ex Elench. et A- 
 pol. p. 87. Ov yap 8% rovroy 
 adyovoc dy 6 Ose elra traworou- 
 caro’ aN bre py Tag’ éEavTod 6 Yc, 
 aN’ éx row Marpoc exer 76 etvar. 
 
 P Idem, ibid. p- 89. Mévoc 
 B€ 6 Ling cel cvvay TH Matpt, x. 7. A. 
 
 4 Idem, adv. Paul Samos. 
 
 Qu. x. p. 270.—xypirra cvvai- 
 Sworv ry Iarpt Tov Xpiordy, roy po- 
 voyevy Yiov Kat Adyoy Tov Tarpéc. 
 
 ¥ Ezek. xi. 19. and xxxvi. 26. 
 
 5 BARNABE Ep. c. 6. Ido, 
 Neyer Kipwoc, tEeh@ rovrwy, k. 7. X. 
 —Ore ewedev év capi pavepovabat, 
 kai éy Hpty Karouely. 
 
46 Article Second. 
 
 can only be those of Christ. ‘ Ye have all been 
 humble-minded, arrogant in nothing, subjected 
 rather than subjecting, giving rather than receiy- 
 ing, being satisfied with the supplies sent from 
 God; and carefully attending to his words, you 
 have them deeply fixed in your minds, and his 
 sufferings were before your eyes'.” And in another 
 place he quotes several verses of the thirty-fourth 
 Psalm, as spoken by Christ; “ But it is faith in 
 Christ that confirmeth all these things: for he 
 himself thus calleth us by the Holy Ghost, ‘Come, 
 ye children, and hearken unto me; I will teach 
 you the fear of the Lord";’” and so on to the 19th 
 verse. Dr. Burton has remarked, “ It might per- 
 haps be said, that the words in this Psalm were 
 spoken by David, and not by God. This remark, 
 however, does not affect the argument. Clement 
 considered that they were spoken by God: and 
 since he says in this place that they were spoken 
 by Christ, it is evident that in the opinion of Cle- 
 ment it was indifferent whether he referred them 
 to Jehovah or to Christ*.” I agree with the con- 
 clusion here drawn, but should rather say, (and it 
 would make the argument from Clement’s words 
 still stronger,) that David, being inspired by the 
 Holy Ghost, spake those words which were put 
 into his mouth as the words of Christ. 
 
 t Crementis Epist. 12. c.2. otrwe mpooxadetrar Hpac, Asdre, 
 —kai ra TaOipara abrov jy mpd KT. X- 
 bp0aApOv bpor. x Testimonies to the Divinity 
 u Idem, c. 22.—Ka} yap at- of Christ, p. 9. 
 
 roc Out rov Ivedparog Tov ‘Ayiov 
 
Article Second. 47 
 
 We have already ¥ seen that Ignatius said that 
 Jesus Christ was with the Father before all ages, 
 that he is beyond all time, eternal, invisible; we 
 shall now find that he calls him God. He thus 
 commences his Epistle to the Ephesians; “Ignatius, 
 to the church at Ephesus, which was pre-ordained 
 before the worlds, according to the will of the 
 Father and of Jesus Christ our God’.” And after 
 the address, he says ; 
 
 “T approve in God of the much-beloved name 
 that ye have justly acquired, by faith and love in 
 Jesus Christ our Saviour ; being imitators of God, 
 having animated yourselves by the blood of God, 
 ye have performed perfectly the congenial work*.” 
 
 In the following passage Justin declares that 
 God alone can foretell the future, and that Christ 
 did foretell what has since come to pass; whence 
 the conclusion is obvious, that Christ is God. 
 Having spoken of the sufferings to which the early 
 Christians were exposed, he says “ That all these 
 things would come to pass, our teacher, the Son 
 and Apostle of God the Father, and Lord of all 
 things, even Jesus Christ, from whom also we have 
 obtained the name of Christians, foretold; where- 
 fore we are also confirmed in all the things that 
 were taught by him, since whatsoever things he 
 before declared should happen, have in deed come 
 to pass. For it is the work of God, to declare 
 
 y Ante, p- 4). 4 Idem, ibid. —Miyrad OyTES 
 2 IGNAT. Epist. ad Ephes. Oe0v, dvalwruphcarvrec tv aipart 
 c. 1. Kal “Inoot Xpioret rot cod, n. 7.2. 
 Be0d Hye. 
 
48 Article Second. 
 
 things before they happen, and that they should 
 be shewn;to happen, as was foretold by him °.” 
 
 Athenagoras, in answer to the charge of atheism 
 brought against Christians, calls Christ God, “That 
 we are not atheists, since we consider as God the 
 Creator of this universe, and the Word, which is 
 of him, has been proved; if not suitably to the 
 subject, at least to the utmost of my power °.” 
 
 Melito, bishop of Sardis, also says, ‘‘ We are not 
 worshippers of senseless stones, but of the only 
 God, who was before all things, and is above all 
 things: and also of his Christ, who was truly God, 
 the Word, before the worlds °.” 
 
 And Irenzus expressly calls Christ God, “ Neither 
 can any of those things which have been made, and 
 are in subjection, be compared to the Word of 
 God, ‘ by whom all things were made ;’ who is our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Since angels, and archangels, 
 and thrones, and powers, were both appointed by 
 him who is God over all, and made by his Word, 
 John has thus told us; for after he had said of the 
 Word of God, that he was in the Father, he 
 added, ‘All things were made by him, and without 
 
 2e% 
 
 him was not any thing made’ *. 
 
 4 MeEuiro, ex Apol. apud 
 
 > Justin. Apol. 17, c. 12. 
 Rouru, Rel. Sacr. vol. i. p. 
 
 TevncecOa taira wavTa 7poeize, 
 
 npi, O nperepoc Ovdacxadoc— Incove 
 Xpisrdc—Geov Epyoy tom, zp 7 
 yevicOa tizay, Kai odrwe dayPnvar 
 @c 7poEipnrat. 
 
 © ArHenae. Leg. pro Christ. 
 c. 30, ‘Oc wey ai otk écpey a- 
 Geor, Gedy ayovrec TOY TOUNTIY TODOE 
 TOU wayToc, Kai Tov zap’ avrov 
 Adyov—édyrEyKTau. 
 
 112.—xai Eri rod Xpicred aired, 
 évrwe Ozod Adyov zed auwywr, 
 Ecpev Opnoxevrai. 
 
 © TrRENzr ]. iii. c. 8. s. 2— 
 Quoniam enim sive angeli, sive 
 archangeli, sive throni, sive 
 dominationes, ab eo qui super 
 omnes est Deus et constituta 
 sunt et facta per Verbum ejus.— 
 
Article Second. 49 
 
 One of the first chapters in the Cohortatio ad 
 Gentes of Clemens Alexandrinus, in which a Chris- 
 tian’s faith is spoken of, has the following passage, 
 in which it is expressly declared that Christ is God, 
 and that in him are united the two natures of God 
 and man. Having said that man was created by 
 the Word, which is now called Christ, he proceeds, 
 «This Word, therefore, that is, Christ, is both the 
 cause of our original being, for he was in God, and 
 of our well-being ; and now this same Word, who 
 alone is both God and man, hath appeared unto 
 men, as the cause of all good things to us; by 
 whom being instructed in well-being we are con- 
 ducted unto eternal life. For according to that 
 inspired Apostle of the Lord’; ‘ The grace of 
 God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all 
 men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and 
 worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, 
 and godly, in this present world; looking for that 
 blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the 
 great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ This is 
 the new song, the appearance, which has now 
 shone forth amongst us, of the Word who was in 
 the beginning, and before existed. The Saviour 
 who before existed, hath appeared lately; he hath 
 appeared, who is in Him that is: that is to say the 
 Word, who was with God; the Teacher hath ap- 
 peared, by whom all things were created; the 
 Word, who also in the beginning gave life when 
 he formed us, as the Creator, hath taught us to 
 live well, appearing as a Teacher, that he might 
 
 fit. te 
 
50 Article Second. 
 
 afterwards as God, bestow upon us eternal 
 life §.” 
 
 We have already seen what Tertullian meant by 
 the name God*; in the following passage he calls 
 Christ God, and declares him to be of one substance 
 with the Father, “ Neither are we ashamed con- 
 cerning Christ, since it delights us to be judged 
 and condemned under his name. Him we have 
 learnt to be produced from God, and to have been 
 begotten by production, and therefore the Son of 
 God, and called God from the unity of substance’.” 
 
 * He that descends with faith to the washing of 
 regeneration, bids farewell to the evil one, and is 
 numbered with Christ; he denies the enemy, and 
 confesses that Christ is God*.” We have seen 
 under the first Article’ what Cyprian meant by the 
 name of God; no doubt therefore can be enter- 
 tained of his entire belief in the divine nature of 
 Christ ; “ If we cannot persuade some persons, so 
 as to make them please Christ, let us at least, as 
 far as is in our power, please Christ our Lord and 
 God, by observing his precepts ™.” 
 
 And in a letter to Jubaianus, before quoted, 
 
 € Crem. AtEx. Cohort. ad 
 Gentes, c. 1. Obras ytoy 6 Adyac 
 6 Xpisréc Kai rod eivar ~aAa Hpac, 
 VY yap ty ep Kai Tov ev eivar wv 
 On éxegarn avOowzote avTic owvroc 6 
 AGyoc, 0 povoc augw, Ode TE Kai 
 avOpwxoc, axavrwy nyty airwc 
 ayabay.— 
 
 h Ante, p. 3. 
 
 i TerTuLu. Apol. c. 21.— 
 Hunc ex Deo prolatum didici- 
 mus, et prolatione generatum, 
 
 et idcirco Filium Dei, et Deum 
 dictum, ex unitate substantiz. 
 
 * Hiprot. Hom. in Theo- 
 phan. c. 10.—épchoye? BE 73 
 Ociy civar toy Xoiorey. 
 
 ' Ante, p. 4. 
 
 ™ Cypriani. Epist, Ixii. s. 
 ult.—Nos certe, quod nostrum 
 est, Christo Domino et Deo 
 nostro, precepta ejus servando, 
 placeamus. 
 
Article Second. 51 
 
 in which he argues that baptism administered by 
 heretics is invalid, Cyprian thus expresses himself; 
 “Tf any one may be baptized by heretics, he may 
 also obtain remission of sins. If he has obtained 
 remission of sins, he is also sanctified and made 
 the temple of God. If he is sanctified, and made 
 the temple of God, I ask of what God? If you 
 say of the Creator, he cannot, because he does not 
 believe in him? If you say of Christ, neither can 
 that man be the temple of God, who denies Christ 
 to be God”.” It may be remarked also that the 
 principal object of Cyprian’s second book of Testi- 
 monies against the Jews, is by a citation of texts 
 to shew that Christ is God. 
 
 «The same rule of truth teaches us to believe, 
 after the Father, also in the Son of God, Christ 
 Jesus, who is the Lord our God, but the Son of 
 God, of that God who is one and alone, the Creator 
 of all things °.” 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria defending himself against 
 the charge of Arianism, used the expression “ of 
 one substance” which was afterwards the cause of 
 such vehement disputes in the church, though it 
 would seem from his words, that it had been used 
 by writers before him; he is referring to his book 
 
 " Idem. Epist. xxiii. s. 11. 
 Si peccatorum remissam con- 
 secutus est, et sanctificatus est, 
 et templum Dei factus est, 
 quero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, 
 non potuit, quia in eum non 
 credidit. §i Christi, nec hujus 
 fieri potest templum, qui negat 
 Deum Christum. Ante p. 33, 
 
 ° Novat. de Trinit. c. 9. 
 Eadem regula veritatis docet 
 nos credere post Patrem etiam 
 in Filium Dei Christum Jesum 
 Dominum Deum nostrum, sed 
 Dei Filium, hujus Dei, qui et 
 unus et solus est, Conditor sci- 
 licet rerum omnium. 
 
 Eo 
 
52 Article Second. 
 
 against Sabellius, and says, “In which I have 
 proved that the accusation which they bring against 
 me is false, of saying that Christ was not of one 
 substance with the Father ».” 
 
 * And in his letter against Paul of Samosata, 
 speaking of Christ he says, ‘“‘ He was by nature 
 Lord and the Word of the Father, by whom the 
 Father made all things, and said by the holy 
 fathers to be of one substance with the Father *%.” 
 
 Thirdly. “ The Son of God took man’s nature in 
 the womb of the blessed Virgin of her substance.” 
 
 Thus Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 “our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary, 
 according to the dispensation of God, of the seed 
 indeed of David, but of the Holy Ghost *.” 
 
 “For what does a man profit me, if he praises 
 me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that 
 he was truly in the flesh? Now he that does not 
 say this, altogether denies him, and is in death. 
 But their names, since they are unbelievers, I did 
 not think fitting to write to you. God forbid that 
 I should mention any of them, until they. shall re- 
 pent unto the passion, which is our resurrection *.” 
 
 Under the first Article has been given the creed 
 which Irenzus said the church, dispersed over the 
 
 P Dionys. ALEX. ex Elench. 
 et Apol. p- 90.—a5 ot Aéyovros 
 Tov Xpitrov dpoovctoy iva TY OE. 
 
 4 Idem, adv. Paul Samos. 
 p- 214.—xai énootouy +3 arph 
 elonpévoy v7d Ty aylwy TaTépwr. 
 
 * Ienat. Epist. ad Ephes. 
 s. 18. ‘O yap Gets nudy “Iycots 
 
 6 Xpusrdc txvogopnOn bz5 Mapiag 
 kar’ oikovopiay Ozov, tk omépuarog 
 pév AaBid, Ivedparoc dé “Ayiov. 
 
 8 Ienat. Epist. ad Smyrn. 
 s.5. Ti yap we ager? tis, ef ene 
 emaivel, tov d€ Kuguoy wot Brac= 
 Qnpet wn Guohoy@y aitoy cagKe- 
 ¢popov ;— 
 
Article Second. 53 
 
 whole earth, had received from the Apostles; in 
 that is made mention of the incarnation, and in the 
 following he speaks of the birth from a virgin, as 
 well as of the incarnation, and of the union of the 
 two natures. Mentioning Christ he says “who, 
 from his exceeding love towards his creation, sub- 
 mitted to be born of a virgin, himself by himself 
 uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius 
 Pilate, and rose again, and was received into glory, 
 and is to come in glory, the Saviour of those who 
 are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged'*.” 
 
 In a commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew 
 by Clemens Alexandrinus, of which some fragments 
 only are preserved, the birth from the Virgin is al- 
 luded to, “ The pearl is the resplendent and most 
 pure Jesus, whom the Virgin bore from the hea- 
 venly illumination; for as a pearl when in flesh, 
 and in the shell and in the water seems to be a 
 liquid and transparent body full of light and spirit, 
 so also God the Word being incarnate is an intel- 
 lectual light, shining through light and a pure 
 body *.” 
 
 Tertullian having remarked on those who impro- 
 perly interpret all the prophecies figuratively, and 
 speaking of the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14.) adds, 
 “the Virgin conceived in the womb, not figura- 
 tively; and brought forth Emmanuel, Jesus, who 
 
 ‘ IREN#! |. iii. c. 4. s. 2. ipse per se hominem adunans 
 —Qui propter eminentissimam Deo.— 
 erga figmentum suum dilec- “ Ciem. Avex. Fragm. p. 
 tionem, eam qu esset ex Vir- 1014. —'Iyosic, dy ef arrpanis 
 gine generationem sustinuit, 175 Geias 4 mapbévoc eyevvnrev’— 
 
54 Article Second. 
 
 is God with us, not metaphorically".” And again, 
 “He who was to consecrate a new birth, ought to 
 have been born in a new way; concerning which 
 the Lord was to give a sign, as Isaiah declared ; 
 What is that sign? ‘Behold a Virgin shall con- 
 ceive in her womb and bear a Son.’ The Virgin 
 accordingly conceived, and bore Emmanuel, God 
 with us*.” 
 
 And Hippolytus says “ The Word of God, who 
 was not fleshly, put on the blessed flesh from the 
 blessed Virgin, like a bridegroom wearing a gar- 
 ment for himself, in the suffering of the cross, that 
 by blending our mortal body with his own power, 
 and mingling the corruptible with the incorruptible, 
 and the weak with the strong, he might save lost 
 man °.” 
 
 “If any one believe that he who was crucified 
 under Pontius Pilate sojourned in the world as 
 something holy and the cause of salvation; but 
 that he did not receive his birth from the Virgin 
 Mary and the Holy Ghost, but from Joseph and 
 Mary, such a man would be deficient in what is 
 most necessary for entire faith ’.” 
 
 u TERTULL. de Resur. Car- 
 nis, c. 20. Nam et Virgo con- 
 cepit in utero, non figurate ; 
 et peperit Emanuelem, nobis- 
 cum Deum, Jesum, non ob- 
 lique. 
 
 Ov, tvedtcato THY ayiay capka tx 
 THC ayiac TapUEvov, K. T.X. 
 
 2 ORIGEN in Joan, t. XXXii. 
 s. 9. Et rte miorevwr ort Evi Dov- 
 riov IlWdrov cravpwieic tspdyv te 
 XOjpaA Kal cwrnpioy TH Koop éioe- 
 
 * Idem, de Carne Christi, 
 c.17. —Concepit igitur Vir- 
 go, et peperit Emanuelem, no- 
 biscum Deum. 
 
 y Hrpeponyti de Antichristo 
 c. 4. ‘O Adyas rod Oecd UrapKos 
 
 Onunkev* aX’ ove tx mapbévov Tic 
 Mapiac, wai “Ayiov Ivsiparoc ry 
 yévect aveiingev, GX 2& "Iwong 
 kai Mapiac, Kai Tour@ dy dgizror sic 
 ro Taoay Exe THY ToT Ta avay- 
 Karara. 
 
Article Second. 55 
 
 The argument of the ninth chapter of Cyprian’s 
 second book of Testimonies, before mentioned, is 
 «That this was to be the sign of his birth, that he 
 should be born of a Virgin, man and God, Son of 
 man and of God*.” 
 
 And Dionysius of Alexandria considers the birth 
 from the Virgin to have been the fulfilment of pro- 
 phecy: “Isaiah before this was inspired, and spake 
 of the child, who was God, the mighty God, and 
 
 the Virgin who conceived ”.” 
 
 Fourthly, “ The Hypostatic Union.” 
 
 Ignatius frequently mentions the union of the 
 two natures in one person ; 
 
 «There is one physician both fleshly and spirit- 
 ual; made and not made; God incarnate; true 
 life in death ; both of Mary and of God ; first pas- 
 sible, then impassible ; even Jesus Christ our 
 Lord °.” 
 
 And again, “God himself appearing in the form 
 of man, for the renewal of eternal life “.” 
 
 When the Senate at Antioch objected to Igna- 
 tius that he confessed the God in whom he trusted 
 was dead, he answered, “‘ My Lord and God Jesus 
 
 4@ Cypriani Testim. 1. ii. ¢: 
 9. Quod hoc futurum esset 
 signum nativitatis ejus, ut de 
 Virgine nasceretur homo et 
 Deus, hominis et Dei Filius. 
 
 >’ Dionys. ALEx. adv. Paul. 
 Samos. p. 207, 8. —@ecty ras~ 
 Siov kngdrres, Kat mapBévoy ev yar- 
 Tpl hapBavovoay. 
 
 © Ienat. Epist. ad Ephes. 
 
 s. 7. ic tarpdc torw, oapxicdc re 
 kal mvevwatucdc, yevynrog Kai a- 
 yévenroc, tv capKi yevopevocg Osdc, 
 ty Oavarwplwn adn), Kai te Ma- 
 plac kai ée Oeov, moWToy TaOnrdb¢ 
 kai Tore arabe. 
 
 4 Tdem, ibid. s. 19. cst 
 aPourivucg pavepopévov sic Kavd- 
 TyTa cidlov Zone. 
 
56 Article Second. 
 
 Christ, was first made man for our sakes, and for 
 our salvation, and of his own free will he received 
 the cross, and death, and burial; but he rose again 
 the third day, having thrown down the power of 
 the enemy, and he ascended into heaven, whence 
 he had come, at the same time raising us up from 
 the falling of sin, and leading us back again into 
 paradise, whence we had been evilly cast out, 
 giving us greater blessings than we had before *.” 
 Having shewn that the Jews misapplied many 
 passages of Scripture, Justin says, “ And to per- 
 suade you moreover that you understand nothing 
 of the Scriptures, I will also make mention of an- 
 other Psalm of David which was spoken by the 
 Holy Spirit, and which you say was spoken in ho- 
 nour of Solomon, who was also your king; but it 
 was also spoken concerning our Christ. And you 
 deceive yourselves from the equivocal meaning of 
 the words. For where it is said‘, ‘the law of the 
 Lord is blameless’ you do not understand that law 
 which was about to be given after Moses, but that 
 which was delivered by Moses, although God cried 
 out, that he would hereafter give a new law, and a 
 new covenant. And when it is said, ‘God give 
 to the king thy judgments,’ since Solomon was a 
 king, you suppose that the Psalm is spoken in ho- 
 nour of him; whereas the words of the Psalm ex- 
 pressly declare that it is spoken in honour of the 
 eternal King, that is of Christ: for Christ is de- 
 © Ienat. Martyr. s. 7... ‘0 £ Psalm xviii. 8. 
 zpoc Kipwe kai Geb¢ Inoove Xpioroc, & Psalm Ixxii. 2. 
 
 mpatra piv avOpwrocg tyévero Ov 
 7) peac.— 
 
Article Second. 57 
 
 clared to be a king, and priest, and God, and Lord, 
 and angel, and man, and chief-captain, and a 
 stone, and a child born, and first made capable of 
 suffering, then returning into heaven, and again 
 coming with glory, and possessed of the eternal 
 kingdom, as I prove from all the Scriptures".” 
 He then quotes the whole Psalm, and shews that 
 there are many expressions contained in it, which 
 could not apply to Solomon, because they were not 
 fulfilled in him. 
 
 In the same dialogue Justin also accuses the 
 Jews of having expunged from the Septuagint ver- 
 sion of the Scriptures “ many passages, which ex- 
 pressly shewed that this Jesus, who was crucified, 
 was spoken of as God and man, and crucified, and 
 dead '.” 
 
 In the oration of Tatian, which still survives, we 
 find the following passage, which shews that the 
 union of the two natures was generally received by 
 all Christians, “ We are not foolish, nor do we re- 
 late idle tales, when we declare that God was born 
 in the form of man *.” 
 
 Melito, in answer to Marcion, who believed that 
 Christ had not a real body, distinctly asserts the 
 union of the two natures, “ To those persons, who 
 have any sense, there is no necessity to prove, from 
 the actions performed by Christ after his baptism 
 
 h Justin. Dial.cum Tryph.  9ei¢, ore Osdc, Kai drOpwroe, Kai 
 
 ero4.. =o yao Xoorts Baci- oravpodpevoc, Kat aToOynoKwy KEKn- 
 
 Aede, Kal lepedo, Kai Oedc, Kai Kipwc,  pvypevoc, aroveikyura. 
 
 kat dyyédoc, Kai advOowroc—xeKn- K Tartian, Orat.c. Grecos. 
 
 pverat. c. 21. —Ociy ev avOpdrov [sop 
 i Idem, ibid. ec. ee Pi yeyovevar KaTayyeAnoy res. 
 
 7 MAR - 
 oy duappnonv odroc abroc b oTavow- 
 
58 Article Second. 
 
 that he a had real and not an apparent souland body, 
 a human nature such as ours. For the actions 
 performed by Christ after his baptism, and espe- 
 cially the miracles, manifested and demonstrated to 
 the world his divinity which was hidden in the flesh. 
 For he, being at once perfect God and man, has 
 demonstrated his two substances to us, his divinity 
 by the miracles, performed in the three years that 
 followed his baptism; and his humanity in the 
 thirty years that preceded his baptism; during 
 which period, owing to the imperfection which he 
 had from the flesh, the signs of his divinity were 
 hidden ; although he was very God existing before 
 the world’.” 
 
 Irenzus also says, “ Jesus therefore, as we have 
 said before, united man with God. For if it had 
 not been a man who conquered the adversary of 
 man, the enemy would not have been rightly con- 
 quered. And again, if it had not been God who 
 gave salvation, we should not have had it securely. 
 And if man had not been united to God, he could 
 not have partaken of immortality. For it was ne- 
 cessary that the mediator between God and man, 
 by his own relationship to both, should bring both 
 to friendship and unanimity; that he should pre- 
 sent man to God, and make God known to man”™.” 
 
 “There was not one who was known, and an- 
 
 1 Meurro ex l. de Incarn. m Tren«z!I l. iii. c. 18. s. 7. 
 Christi, apud Routn Rel. Sac. “Hywoey oby, xabwc xpotpapev, roy 
 vol. i. p. 115. —Ocde yap dy  dvOpwroy ry Oey.— 
 
 dpod re Kai dvOpwrroc TENELOE O AUTOE, 
 rac Ovo avrovd ovciag imtoTwoaro 
 nv. — 
 
Article Second. 59 
 
 other who said, ‘ No one knoweth the Father,’ but 
 one and the same, the Father subjecting all things 
 to him and he receiving testimony from all, that he 
 is truly man, and truly God, from the Father, from 
 the Spirit, and from angels, from creation itself, 
 from men, and from apostate spirits, from those 
 who have gone astray, and from the enemy, and 
 last of all from death itself”.” 
 
 The following passage is valuable, in that 
 Clemens of Alexandria calls Christ “the living 
 God”’— - 
 
 «Believe, O man, in him who is man and God; 
 Believe, O man, in him who suffered, and is wor- 
 shipped, the living God; believe, ye that are en- 
 slaved, in him that was dead; all ye men believe 
 in him, who only of all men is God?.” 
 
 Tertullian wrote a treatise for the express pur- 
 pose of proving that Christ did really take upon 
 himself our human flesh: in the following passage 
 he, with his accustomed energy of style and diction, 
 inveighs against Marcion for admitting the cruci- 
 fixion of Christ, when he denied his birth in the 
 flesh, for that one was as unworthy of God as the 
 other; he asks, 
 
 * Which is more unworthy of God ? which would 
 he be most ashamed of, to be born or to die? to 
 bear our flesh or the cross? to be circumcised or 
 
 " TrRENzI 1. iv. c. 6. 8. 7. dvOowre, avOodaw Kat @cd* aic- 
 —ab omnibus accipiens tes- tevooy, avOowre, tH rabayts, kad 
 - timonium, quoniam vere homo, moorkuyounevm Od COvts’ mio- 
 et quoniam vere Deus.— Tecate, ob Octro, TH vexed’ ray- 
 
 ° Crem. Avex. Cohort. ad rec avOpwmo, maoredcare psvo TH 
 Gentes, c. 10.—Iferevoo, mévrov avOranwy Ocp 
 
60 Article Second. 
 
 pierced ?—But answer me this, thou slayer of the 
 truth ; was not God really crucified? was he not 
 really dead, as he was really crucified? was he not 
 truly raised again, as being truly dead ?—Our faith 
 therefore is vain; and all that we hope in Christ is 
 a phantom. Thou most wicked of men, who ex- 
 cusest the murderers of God! For Christ suffered — 
 nothing from them, if he did not really suffer.— 
 Christ would not be called man without flesh; nor 
 the son of man, without some human parent; as 
 neither would he be called God, without the Spirit 
 of God: nor the Son of God, without God for his 
 Father. Thus his origin from each substance ren- 
 dered him God and man: on one side born, on 
 the other not born; on one side fleshly, on the 
 other spiritual; on one side weak, on the other 
 passing strong; on one side dying, on the other 
 living. Which peculiarity of conditions, the divine 
 and human, with an equal reality of each nature, 
 is proved by the same test, both of spirit and of 
 flesh. His miracles proved the spirit of God; his 
 sufferings proved the flesh of man. Ifthe miracles 
 were not without the Spirit, the sufferings were 
 not without the flesh. Ifthe flesh with the suffer- — 
 ings was feigned, therefore the Spirit with the 
 miracles was false. Why do you halve Christ by 
 alie? He was altogether reality—If not, he was 
 a phantom, even after his resurrection, when he 
 held forth his hand and his feet for his disciples to 
 examine them—he tricks, and deceives, and de- 
 ludes the eyes of all, the approach and touch of all. 
 You ought not, therefore, to have made Christ 
 
Article Second. 61 
 
 come from heaven, but from some company of jug- 
 glers ; and not God besides being man, but a mere 
 man and a conjurer?.” 
 
 “When he came into the world, he appeared 
 God and man. It is easy to understand that he 
 was man, since he was hungry, and weary, etc. 
 But it is also plain that we may see his divinity, 
 when he is praised by angels, beheld by shepherds, 
 etc. You have seen that according to the flesh he 
 was of David; but that according to the Spirit he 
 was of God; wherefore it is proved that the same 
 person was both God and man‘.” 
 
 In the following passage Origen is referring to 
 Achan’s theft, mentioned in Joshua vii.—*“ In our 
 disputations we are accustomed to say, that we do 
 not call Christ a mere man, but we confess him to 
 be God and man. But that which is stolen from 
 Jericho is said to be pure, that is, without God; 
 which was the cause of sin to him that© stole. 
 Therefore let us have no human' thoughts con- 
 cerning Christ, but let us confess him to be equally 
 God and man; because the wisdom of God is said 
 
 P TrertTuLL. de Carne 
 Christi, c. 5. Itaque utri- 
 
 
 
 ruit ; quapropter probatum 
 est eundem et Deum et ho- 
 
 
 
 usque substantize census homi- 
 nem et Deum exhibuit ; hinc 
 natum, inde non natum ; hine 
 carneum, inde spiritalem ; hinc 
 infrmum, inde _ prefortem ; 
 hinc morientem, inde viven- 
 tem. 
 
 4 Hreroryti Fragm. vol i. 
 p- 225.—Hic procedens in 
 mundum Deus et homo appa- 
 
 minem. 
 
 * Nihil purum et humanum 
 is thus translated by Dr. Bur- 
 ton; preserving the sense with- 
 out the risk of misleading the 
 reader, who might require to 
 be reminded of Origen’s ex- 
 planation of purum, which is, 
 sine Deo. 
 
62 Article Second. 
 
 to be manifold; that by this means we may de- 
 serve to be partakers of the Wisdom of God, who 
 is Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom is glory and do- 
 minion for ever and ever*.” 
 
 Here, as in a former place, it is sufficient to al- 
 lude to the argument of one of the chapters of 
 Cyprian’s Testimonies; the object of the tenth 
 chapter of the second book is to prove, “ That 
 Christ is both man and God, formed of each na- 
 ture, that he might be a Mediator between us and 
 the Father‘.” . 
 
 ““Who, therefore, can doubt, when in the last 
 place it is said", ‘The Word was made flesh and 
 dwelt among us, to say without hesitation, that 
 Christ, whose birth it was, was both man, because 
 ‘he was made flesh,’ and God, because he was ‘ the 
 Word of God’? particularly when he observes in 
 the evangelical scriptures that both these sub- 
 stances united into one agreement for the birth of 
 Christ*.” 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria in answer to Paul, who 
 said that Jesus was a mere man, says “ It is there- 
 fore absurd to say, that Christ was a man, or that he 
 found favour with God above all men, so as to have 
 God dwell in him, without ascetic and laborious 
 
 8 ORIGEN. in Jes. Nav. 
 Hom. vii. s. ult. Deum et 
 hominem confitemur.-—-Deum 
 pariter atque hominem fatea- 
 mur. 
 
 t CyprIANI Testim. 1. ii. c. 
 10.—Quod et homo et Deus 
 Christus, ex utroque genere 
 concretus, ut mediator esse in- 
 
 
 
 ter nos et Patrem posset. 
 
 u John i. 14. 
 
 x Novar. de Trinitat. c. 13. 
 Quis igitur dubitet Chris- 
 tum, cujus est nativitas, et quia 
 caro factus est, esse hominem, 
 et quia Verbum Dei, Deum 
 incunctanter edicere esse ? 
 
 
 
 
 
Article Second. 63 
 
 righteousness ; for Christ is not in name only, but 
 in truth, being the Word before the worlds, Christ 
 the Lord Jesus; for he himself became man, being 
 incarnate of Mary’.” 
 
 “For Christ was this, a man filled with un- 
 mixed and perfect divinity, and God contained in 
 man’.” 
 
 “ The word being made flesh by the will of God, 
 and being found in fashion as a man*, was not de- 
 prived of his divinity ; for neither in order that he 
 should lose the perfection of his power and glory, 
 did it come to pass” that he was made poor though 
 he was rich: but that he might undergo death 
 for us sinners’, ‘the just for the unjust, that he 
 might bring us to God, being put to death in the . 
 flesh, but quickened by the Spirit *’” 
 
 Lastly, The Son “ truly suffered, was crucified, 
 dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father unto us,” 
 etc. 
 
 It will be sufficient under this head to give only 
 a few extracts in support of the reality of Christ’s 
 sufferings, and that he suffered for us: the doctrine 
 
 2° Pink 1. 6: 
 
 > 2 Cor. viii. 9. 
 
 od Peter 11.18; 
 
 4 Perrus. ALEX. apud 
 
 y Dionys. ALEX. adv. 
 Paul. Samos. p. 205, 6. 
 *O yap Xpiors, odK bvipars ove, 
 aK adnbein, mod aidvov, ay Ad~ 
 
 
 
 yes, Xpsotos Kvpios “Inostg? adrdc 
 yap yeysvey GvOpwmes 6 caupkwbels 
 ex Mapiac. 
 
 * Meruopi Sympos. p. 79. 
 ——r0lT0 yxp eivar tov Xpioriy, 
 avOpwomoy axparw Ocoryts, Kat Te- 
 heig memAnpwpevoy, Kai @Oeoy ey 
 avOpanw Kexwpnincvoy. 
 
 Rourtu Rel. Sacr. vol. iii. p.344 
 Oehjpare Oso 6 Adyog capt yevo- 
 pevoc, Kai oxnparte eipebeic We ay- 
 Opwroc, ove amereipOn Tig Oedrn- 
 TOG 
 
 
 
64: Article Second. 
 
 of the Atonement will hereafter require our more 
 particular attention; the crucifixion, death, and 
 burial have been already* mentioned in several of 
 the preceding extracts, and will also be found in 
 some of those given under the next two Articles. 
 
 “For this cause the Lord endured to give his: 
 body to destruction, that we might be sanctified 
 by the remission of sins, which is by the sprinkling 
 of his blood:—The Lord endured to suffer for 
 our souls, though he is the Lord of the world; to 
 whom God said before the constitution of the 
 world, ‘ Let us make man“’” And again, “ If, then, 
 the Son of God, being Lord, and about to judge 
 the quick and the dead, suffered that his stripes 
 might give us life, we will believe that the Son of 
 God could not suffer, except for our sakes®.” 
 
 «As one of the least among you I wish to fore- 
 warn you, that ye fall not into the snares of false 
 doctrine, but that ye be fully instructed in the 
 birth, and suffering, and resurrection (which came 
 to pass in the time of the government of Pontius 
 Pilate) which were truly and assuredly accom- 
 plished by Jesus Christ, our hope; from which 
 God forbid that any of you be turned aside*.” 
 
 e Ienart. ante, p. 55. Justin, 
 57. Irenaus, p. 58. 
 Cremens ALEx. p.59. TER- 
 TULL. p- 59—61. PeErrus. 
 ALEX. p. 63. 
 
 f BarnaBz Epist. c. 5. 
 —Dominus sustinuit pati pro 
 anima nostra, cum sit orbis 
 terrarum Dominus.— 
 
 $ Idem ibid. c. 7.—E? oby 6 
 Yide rod Ocod, Gy Kuvpioc, kai péd- 
 Nov Koivey CHvTag Kai veKpovc, 
 txabey, iva 4 TANYH abrov Cworo- 
 hon ypdc, muoTeboopey, OT O Yide 
 Tov Ocod obk HOvvaro wabety, et pr) 
 Oud nude. 
 
 h Ienat. ad Magnes. s. 11. 
 aad remAnpopopycOa ty TH 
 
 
 
Article Second. 65 
 
 *« Stop your ears, therefore, as often as any one 
 shall speak to you contrary to Jesus Christ ; who 
 was of the race of David, of the Virgin Mary ; 
 who was truly born, and did eat and drink; was 
 truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; was truly 
 crucified and dead; both those in heaven, and on 
 earth, and under the earth, beholding it. Who 
 was also truly raised from the dead, his Father 
 raising him, after the same manner as his Father 
 will also raise up us who believe in him by Jesus 
 Christ, without whom we have not the true life’.” 
 
 “T glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has 
 given you such wisdom, for I have observed that 
 you are settled in an immoveable faith, as if you 
 were nailed to the Cross of our Lord Jesus, both 
 in the flesh and in the spirit, and are confirmed in 
 charity in the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded 
 of those things which relate unto our Lord. Who 
 truly was of the race of David according to the 
 flesh, but the Son of God according to the will and 
 power of God; truly born of the Virgin, and bap- 
 tized of John, that all righteousness might be ful- 
 filled by him; truly nailed to the cross, under 
 Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, for us, in 
 the flesh ; by the fruits of which we are, even by 
 his blessed passion ; that he might set up a token 
 for all ages, through his resurrection, to his holy 
 
 
 
 yevnoe, kai rH TAGE, Kai TH avac- i Tenar. ad Trall.s. 9. 
 race——mpaxivra adnOdc Kai 46 aAnbRs eotavedby Kal dnebay- 
 BeBaiwe sd "Inootd Xpwrov rig ev,— 
 
 EXridog nay 
 
 
 
66 Article Second. 
 
 and faithful servants, whether amongst the Jews or 
 amongst the Gentiles, in one body of his church. 
 
 “* Now all these things he suffered for us that we 
 might be saved. And he truly suffered, as he also 
 truly raised up himself. And not, as some unbe- 
 lievers say, that he seemed to suffer, they them- 
 selyes only seeming to be. And as they think, so 
 shall it happen unto them, when being without 
 bodies and mere spirits. 
 
 *“ But I know that, even after his resurrection, 
 he was in the flesh, and I believe that he is still so. 
 And when he came to those who were with Peter, 
 he said unto them ‘ take, handle me, and see that 
 I am not an incorporeal spirit,’ and straightway 
 they touched him and believed, being convinced 
 both by his flesh and spirit. For this cause they 
 despised death, and were found to be above death. 
 But after his resurrection he did eat and drink 
 with them, as in the flesh, although as to his spirit 
 he was united to the Father*.” 
 
 Justin Martyr, having insisted that the Jews 
 knew neither the Father nor the Son,-. and ig- 
 norantly supposed that it was God the Father who 
 spoke to Moses, whereas it was the Son, continues: 
 «* And formerly he appeared to Moses and to the 
 other prophets in the form of fire and an incor- 
 poreal image; and now in the time of your em- 
 pire, becoming man by a virgin, according to the 
 
 
 
 Kk Idem ad Smyrn.s.1,2,3. —Taira yap rdévtra exabey dy’ 
 ?AAnbGs xi Tovriov TsAarov § yuas va cwobduev. Kat aarnbas 
 
 » Naat 5 4> , + a © 143 ~ » 
 kai “Hpadov teteaoxyov Kabyrw- enabler, ds kal aAnbds avéorycev 
 
 ‘ en’ en > 4 2 c ’ 
 peevoy UTED NiAwy ey TApKie Ss. . EAUTOY: 
 
 
 
Article Second. 67 
 
 will of the Father, he endured to be despised and 
 to suffer, for the salvation of those who believe in 
 him'.” 
 
 And again, 
 
 “If therefore the Father of all things willed that 
 his own Christ, above all mortals, should bear the 
 curse of all, knowing that he would raise him up 
 when he was crucified and dead, why should you 
 account him accursed who endured to suffer these 
 things according to the will of the Father, and not 
 rather bewail yourselves? For although his Father 
 and himself brought it to pass that he should suffer 
 these things for mankind, you did not this in order 
 that you might obey the commandment of God™.” 
 
 Irenzus in one passage before quoted", speaks 
 of the ‘ suffering’ of Christ, and in another ° calls 
 him ‘the Saviour of those who are saved; and in 
 the following he speaks of the remission of sins: 
 “ Jesus, therefore, by remitting sins cured men, 
 and manifestly shewed himself who he was. For 
 if no one can remit sins except God alone, but 
 the Lord remitted these, and cured men; it is 
 plain that he was the Word of God, being made 
 the Son of man, receiving from the Father the 
 power of the remission of sins, that he was man, 
 
 ' Justin. Apol. 1%. c. 63.  rabciv ratira abrov iio Tov dvOpw- 
 
 
 
 
 
 tmép carnpias tov miotev- meéiov yévoug tvnoynoev, vpeic odx 
 ovtayv ait® kat ebovbernPjvar Kal 6 yvopy Os0v UrNpETOYTEC TovTO 
 mabey trenever. empakare. 
 m Justin. Dial. c. 95. ERATE ena. 
 Ei ydp kai 6 Marie abrov Kai airos © Art. IT. p. 53. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 Article Second. 
 
 and that he was God; that as he suffered with us 
 as man, he had compassion upon us as God?.” 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus says that Jesus Christ 
 was adorned with good will, “because he alone 
 gave himself a sacrifice for us 4.” 
 
 In a passage quoted above’ from Hippolytus, we 
 see that he says the Jews “ killed the Son of their 
 Benefactor :” in the following passage he speaks of 
 Christ’s suffering, and why he suffered: “ The 
 God of the universe became man for this cause, 
 that by suffering in passible flesh he might redeem 
 our whole race, which was sold unto death; and 
 by working miracles through the flesh by his divine 
 nature, which was impassible, he might bring us to 
 his own unmixed and blessed life*.” 
 
 And Cyprian, “He became mortal, that we 
 might be immortal; and he by whom all things 
 are governed, endured the final consequence of 
 
 t » 
 
 humanity’. 
 
 
 
 P Jrenzt |. v. ec. 17. s. 3. 
 —ut quomodo homo compassus 
 est nobis, tanquam Deus mis- 
 ereatur nostri. 
 
 4 Cirem. ALEX. Pedag. |. 
 i. c. 11. Ort paves Umep nuoY 
 
 
 
 
 
 ec ~ 3 7 . ay 
 
 be pesoy EAUTOY ETIOEOWKEY 
 ¥ Ante p. 43. 
 § Hippotyti c, Beron. et 
 
 Heiic. c. 2. v. 1. p. 227. 
 tva capki wey rabnte macxwy 
 Garay nuby To TS Oavdto mpabev 
 
 
 
 hutpbontas yévos 
 
 t Cyrriani de Laude Mar- 
 tyr. s. 4.—humane sortis exi- 
 tum pertulit per quem reguntur 
 humana. 
 
ARTICLE IIl. 
 
 Of the going down of Christ into Hell. 
 
 «© As Christ died for us, and was buried ; so also is it to 
 ‘*be believed, that he went down into Hell.” 
 
 This Article asserts the descent of Christ into 
 hell, as distinct from his burial, which is contained 
 in the preceding Article. It has generally been 
 supposed that the descent into hell was not inserted 
 in the more ancient creeds or rules of faith. But 
 though no very early creed has come down to us, 
 containing such an Article, yet there is good reason 
 for supposing that it must have been somewhere 
 expressed. Bishop Pearson, and others, have 
 quoted Ruffinus as the first writer that mentions it 
 as forming part of any creed. Ruffinus’s account 
 must be examined immediately, but there are two 
 of the Fathers prior to him, who make mention of 
 the doctrine, as if it were generally received. 
 These two are Cyril of Jerusalem*, and Epi- 
 
 4 In the first instance I had FF. Hook, for’ directing my at- 
 followed the beaten path, ac- tention to the passages quoted 
 knowledging Ruflinus as the from Cyril and Epiphanius. 
 first author who makes parti- At the same time I hope he 
 cular mention of this doctrine.  will,permit me to:expressimy 
 I have to thank the Rey. W. gratitude to him for many other 
 
70 Article Third. 
 
 phanius. Cyril, who treats of each Article of the 
 creed, says, “As man, Christ was truly placed in a se- 
 pulchre of a rock, but the rocks were rent in twain 
 through terror on account of him. He descended 
 to the lower parts of the earth, that he might 
 redeem the righteous from thence.” And Epi- 
 phanius says of Christ, “that his body was buried in 
 truth, and remained three days without a soul, and 
 breath, and motion, and was wrapped in fine linen, 
 and deposited in the tomb, enclosed by means of a 
 stone, with seals placed upon it; but his divine 
 nature was not enclosed, or buried with it, but 
 descended with his holy soul to the lower parts of 
 the earth, and brought from thence the souls that 
 were in captivity °.” 
 
 Ruffinus ¢ tells us that in his time it was neither 
 in the Roman nor the Oriental creeds ; but it was 
 afterwards added to the Apostles’ creed, the Roman, 
 and others. 
 
 When Ruffinus first quotes this article of the 
 creed of the church of Aquileia, he omits the word 
 “buried” and gives it thus * “crucifixus sub Pontio 
 Pilato, descendit in inferna,” and afterwards he says 
 
 iii. tom. 2. Compend. Fid. 
 
 kind and useful suggestions, 
 Cathol. s. 17.—T0t cdpares ta- 
 
 of which I have availed myself, 
 
 without particularacknowledg- 
 ment, in other parts of the 
 work, 
 
 > Cyriw. Hieros, Catech.iv. 
 "Ev pvnpart étpac éréOn adnOec, 
 @c GvGpwroc, aAd zéTpar Cueppa- 
 yncav 7H d6By Ov airév. xarnOev 
 tic Ta KaTaxPoma, tva KaKeiBey v- 
 TpwsnT at Tove CiKatove. 
 
 © Eprpuan. adv. Heres. 1. 
 
 perros ev adnbein, Kai abiyov 
 pelvavres 5 Tpenyeccv——ab yx} 79g 
 Oedrnres cuyKkrercbeions, ob TIS 
 Bedrntos §=tadeicns, ovyKarea- 
 Bovons b€ tg Wuyy tH dyin ets 
 Ta Kara Govia, Enovons exeibey THY 
 toy Wyo aixparhociay, 
 
 4d Expos. Symb. s. 20. 
 
 € Ibid. s. 16. 
 
Article Third. 71 
 
 that the force of the words “ descendit in inferna”, 
 seems in the Roman creed to be contained in the 
 word “sepultus.” If therefore the above is the 
 original reading of the creed of Aquileia it seems 
 extremely probable that the descent zz inferna was 
 contained in that creed from the earliest times, 
 possibly meaning something more than “ burial,” 
 though occupying the same place that “burial” did 
 in other creeds. It must be observed, however, 
 that the word sepultus also is in the Aquileian 
 creed, and is given by Ruffinus as part of the creed 
 expounded; so in Bingham it is thus “ sepultus e¢ 
 descendit ad inferna.” Unless therefore we come 
 to the conclusion that “ sepultus” was inserted in 
 the time of Ruffinus, it seems difficult to reconcile 
 what he has said of its taking the place of the 
 descent in inferna in other creeds, with the only 
 version of the creed of Aquileia now extant. 
 
 And even in this creed the words descendit ad 
 inferna, were not understood by all to assert the 
 descent into hell, some translating the expression 
 to mean “hell,” others “the lower parts of the 
 earth: the former referring to St. Peter’s application 
 of the prophecy, “ Thou wilt not leave my soul 
 in hell’,” to Christ; the latter to the words of St. 
 Paul, “‘ He descended into the lower parts of the 
 earth.” 
 
 But whether or not we may conclude, on the 
 authority of Cyril and Epiphanius, that the descent 
 into hell did form a part of the creeds used in the 
 earlier churches, it is very clear, that the doctrine 
 
 f Acts, c. ii. v. 27. 
 
42 Article Third. 
 
 was admitted by the earliest Christians. There were 
 several Articles of faith, which are now in our 
 creeds, that were not in the earliest confessions, 
 but which were nevertheless unquestionably re- 
 ceived in the earliest times, and which will be seen 
 under the eighth Article, when we come to give 
 some account of the several creeds. 
 
 It is generally admitted by those who have 
 written on our Articles, that our Church receives 
 the doctrine expressed in this Article as contained 
 in the Scriptures, leaving all its members to attach 
 what meaning they conscientiously believe the 
 words themselves may bear. In the Articles pub- 
 lished in Edward the sixth’s reign, the following 
 words were added, “that the body of Christ lay in 
 the grave until his resurrection, but his Spirit 
 which he gave up, was with the Spirits which were 
 detained in prison, or in hell, and preached to 
 them, as the place in St. Peter testifieth *.” These 
 words put a determinate sense on the Article; and 
 their subsequent omission evidently shews that it 
 was intended to leave the matter open to various 
 constructions, as not being expressly decided by 
 Scripture. 
 
 It seems scarcely necessary to mention the dif- 
 ferent ways in which the fact of the descent into 
 hell, undoubtedly deduced from Scripture, and ad- 
 mitted by Christians of every denomination, has 
 been interpreted and understood ; bishops Pearson 
 and Burnet have given them at some length. 
 ~ Nor do I consider it at all incumbent on me to 
 
 8 ] Pet. c. iii. v. 19. 
 
Article Third. 73 
 
 support any particular view, but shall content my- 
 self with shewing by a few extracts from the 
 earlier Fathers, that as “Christ died for us and was 
 buried,” so also they believed, ‘that he went down 
 into hell.” It will appear, that though they 
 differed as to the persons to whom and the end for 
 which he descended, they all agree that he did 
 descend. 
 
 Irenzus speaks of the soul of Christ going to the 
 place where the souls of the dead were, and after- 
 wards rising with his body; the soul and body 
 being certainly separated, and the former going to 
 another place, while the body was laid in the 
 grave. 
 
 “Since our Lord departed into the middle of 
 the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead 
 were, and then rose again with his body, and after 
 his resurrection was taken up into heaven; it is 
 manifest that the souls of his disciples, for whom 
 also the Lord underwent these things, will depart 
 into an invisible place appointed for them by God, 
 and will there dwell until the resurrection, waiting 
 for the resurrection; and then taking back their 
 bodies, and perfectly rising again, that is, with 
 their bodies, as also the Lord rose, so they will 
 thus come into the presence of God *.” 
 
 And Clemens Alexandrinus was so clearly of 
 opinion that Christ descended into hell, that he 
 says he went there to preach salvation to the souls 
 
 » Tren: |. v. c. 31. s. 2. me mortuorum erant, post de- 
 Cum enim Dominus in medio inde corporaliter resurrexit— 
 umbre mortis abierit, ubi ani- manifestum est, etc. 
 
74 Article Third. 
 
 in hell :—* If then our Lord went down into hell 
 for no other purpose than to preach the Gospel, 
 he therefore went down to preach to all, or to the 
 Jews only '.” 
 
 Tertullian mentions the descent into hell as dis- 
 tinct from burial; having observed that Christians 
 believe hell to be a vast space in the bowels of the 
 earth, he continues; “ If Christ, who is God, be- 
 cause he was also Man, having died according to 
 the Scriptures, and being buried according to 
 them, satisfied this law also, and underwent the 
 form of human death in hell, and did not ascend to 
 the higher parts of heaven, before he had descended 
 into the lower parts of the earth, that he might 
 there make himself known to the Patriarchs and 
 Prophets; you have reason for believing in the 
 subterraneous region of hell, and for refuting those 
 who proudly enough think that the souls of the 
 faithful are not deserving of hell*.” 
 
 And Origen, speaking of Christ says, that “ with 
 his soul naked of his body he went amongst the 
 souls that were naked of their bodies’.”. And in 
 his exposition of the following verse in the 69th 
 Psalm, “I sink in deep mire, where there is no 
 standing: I am come into deep waters, where the 
 
 ? Ciem. ALEX. Strom. 1. vi. 
 c. 6. Ei pev civ 6 Kupiog BY oddev 
 repo cig qoov Katnrbey, 4 dice zo 
 etayyehicacba, dorep Karnrber, 
 NTO TavTas evayyenicacbas, 7 
 paves “EBpaious. 
 
 k TERTULL. de Animd. c. 
 55. Quod si Christus, Deus, 
 quia et homo, mortuus secun- 
 
 dum scripturas, et sepultus 
 secus easdem, huic quoque legi 
 satisfecit, forma humane mortis 
 apud inferos functus.— 
 
 1 OnicENn. c. Cels. 1. ii. s. 
 43. Tousg cdpares yertpeves 
 xy, yupyais coparey 
 opines Wuyaic, 
 
 Tas 
 
Article Fourth. ie 
 
 floods overflow me;” he says “‘ God himself, the 
 Word, sends forth a prayer to his Father, making 
 those sufferings his own, which belong to the 
 human nature he assumed; and he shews the 
 region of hell, whither he alone descended and 
 passed through ™.” 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 Of the Resurrection of Christ. 
 
 ‘** CuristT did truly rise again from death, and took again 
 **his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining 
 * to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith he ascended 
 ‘* into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge 
 ‘* all men at the last day.” 
 
 This Article asserts four things, first the resur- 
 rection of Christ, secondly his ascension in the 
 flesh, thirdly his session, and lastly his second 
 coming to judge the world. 
 
 The Docetz and Apellzans, towards the latter 
 end of the second century, and the Manicheans in 
 the third, and indeed all who are called Allegorists, 
 denied the reality of Christ’s resurrection, and con- 
 sequently of his ascension in the flesh; the second 
 Council of Nice in the year 787, as the preceding 
 Council at Constantinople had done, condemned 
 the notion that Christ ascended into heaven with 
 flesh and bones; but the subjoined extracts will 
 
 ™ Tdem, in Ps. lxviii. vol. dou yoga 0a wives aires 
 ii. p. 755. —Anasi b€ ra trot KataBas diebZrOer. 
 
76 Article Fourth. 
 
 sufficiently shew that the primitive Christians had 
 no doubts on these points. 
 
 First then “ Christ did truly rise again from 
 death and took again his body, ete. 
 
 Clemens of Rome says, “ Let us consider, be- 
 loved, how the Lord continually sheweth us that 
 there shall be a future resurrection; of which he 
 has made our Lord Jesus Christ the first fruits, 
 having raised him from the dead *.” 
 
 And Ignatius, speaking of Christ, and arguing 
 with the Docetz, says, “‘ For I know and do believe 
 that he was in the flesh after his resurrection. And 
 when he came to those who were with Peter, he 
 said unto them, take, handle me, and see that Iam 
 not a spirit; and immediately they touched him 
 and believed, being convinced by his flesh and the 
 Spirit.—And after his resurrection he eat and drank 
 with them as one in the flesh, although in his Spi- 
 rit he was united with the Father”.” 
 
 “The Lord remained on the Cross, almost until 
 the evening, and about evening they buried him; 
 afterwards he arose again the third day °.” 
 
 «But upon Sunday we commonly all meet toge- 
 ther: since that was the first day in which God, 
 having turned over the darkness and matter, made 
 the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the 
 
 @ Crem. Rom. ad Corinth. > Ienat. ad Smyrn. s. 3. 
 s.24. Karavoqcwpev, ayarntol, “Eyo yap meta thy avacracw éy 
 mac 0 deomdrngemetkvuTaOimvER@c = gapK) adtoy cia Kal moretar 
 qpiv THY pé\doveay avacracwwices- Byra.— 
 
 Oa, io THY aTapxiy txoincaro Toy ¢ Justin. Dial. c. 97. — 
 
 , , v Sy = ts 
 Kupwoy Inoovy Xpurov, ex verpOv rg ayéory xp tplry neo 
 avaornoac. 
 
Article Fourth. Tf 
 
 same day arose from the dead. For the day before 
 Saturday they crucified him, and the day after Sa- 
 turday, which is Sunday, appearing to his apostles 
 and disciples he taught them those things which 
 we, for your understanding, also deliver unto 
 you.” 
 
 Tertullian also in answer to Marcion, who denied 
 the reality of the human nature in Christ, says, 
 “He suffered nothing at all, if he did not truly 
 suffer. But a spirit could not truly suffer. The 
 whole work of God is therefore overthrown. 
 The whole both weight and fruit of the name of 
 Christian, that is to say, the death of Christ 
 is denied, which the Apostle so forcibly insists 
 upon as true, making it the chief foundation of 
 the Gospel, and of our salvation, and his own 
 preaching. ‘ For,’ he says’, ‘I have delivered unto 
 you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, and 
 that he was buried, and that he rose again on the 
 third day.’ Moreover, if his flesh is denied, how is 
 his death asserted, which is a suffering peculiar to 
 flesh, that returns by death into the earth, from 
 which it was taken, according to the law of its Ma- 
 ker? But the reality of his death being denied, by 
 the denial of his flesh, neither can his resurrection 
 be established. For by the same reason that he 
 died not, neither did he rise again; that is to say 
 not having the substance of flesh, of which as there 
 
 4 Idem. Apol.1*. c.67. — € 1 Cor. xv. 3. 4, 
 kai Inoove Xptordc 6 npérEpoc owrnp 
 TH abrTy nptow ek vexpav dvéorn: 
 Kk, TA, 
 
78 Article Fourth. 
 
 is death, so also is there resurrection. Conse- 
 quently if the resurrection of Christ is disproved, 
 ours also is overthrown. For neither will that, for 
 which Christ came, prevail, if Christ shall not pre- 
 vail. For as those, who said that there is no re- 
 surrection of the dead, are convinced by the Apos- 
 tle, from the resurrection of Christ; so if the re- 
 surrection of Christ does not stand, the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead is also taken away. And so, vain 
 is our faith, vain is the preaching of the Apostles. 
 And besides they are found to be false witnesses of 
 God, inasmuch as they vouch as a testimony, that 
 he has raised up Christ, whom he has not raised. 
 And we are still in our sins *.” 
 
 And again he refers to the same proof that Igna- 
 tius has done, in the passage given above; 
 
 « As to the truth of his rising again with his body, 
 what can be clearer? since he said to his disciples, 
 who doubted whether he were not a Spirit, yea be- 
 lieved him to be a Spirit, ‘ Why are ye troubled, 
 why do thoughts arise in your hearts*? Behold 
 my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle 
 me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, 
 as ye see me have *’.” 
 
 Origen also says, 
 
 “ But we are far from saying that Christ appeared 
 
 £ TERTULL. adv. Marcion. 
 1. iii. c. 8. —Nam sicut illi, 
 qui dicebant resurrectionem 
 mortuorum non esse, revincun- 
 tur ab Apostolo, ex resurrec- 
 tione Christi: ita resurrectione 
 Christi non consistente, aufer- 
 tur et mortuorum resurrectio.— 
 
 & Luke xxiv. 38. 39. 
 
 h TeRTULL. adv. Marcion. 
 ]. iv. s.43. De corporis autem 
 veritate quid potest clarius ; 
 cum hesitantibus eis ne phan- 
 tasma esset, imo phantasma 
 credentibus: guid  turbati 
 estis ? inquit, etc, 
 
Article Fourth. 79 
 
 to suffer, lest his resurrection, which is true, should 
 appear to be false; for he that truly died, if he 
 rose again, did truly rise again; but if he only 
 seemed to die, he did not truly rise again '.” 
 
 And Novatian, proving the divinity of Christ, and 
 having quoted Col. ii. 15, says, “ It was therefore 
 the Word of God who put off his flesh, and put it 
 on again at his resurrection. But he put it off, since 
 he had also put it on at his nativity. It is there- 
 fore God in Christ who is clothed, and he must 
 also be divested *.” 
 
 The resurrection of Christ is also mentioned in 
 nearly all the passages quoted in support of the 
 second point contained in this Article; viz. 
 
 Secondly, “ The Ascension in the Flesh.” 
 
 In the creed from Irenzeus which is inserted at 
 length under the first Article’, and which he repre- 
 sents as received by the whole Church, we find 
 that they believed ‘in the resurrection from the 
 dead, and the ascension in the flesh into heaven of 
 the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming 
 from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up 
 
 all things, and to raise up all the flesh of all man- 
 and.” 
 
 i OrIGEN. c. Cels. |. ii. ¢. 
 16. AAA’ qpets 13 Boxetv eri rod 
 mabvety ob tdcooney, iva wy Wevdys 
 aitiv Kai 4 ayvdoracig 4, GAN 
 arnOns 6 yup aAnba>s ancbavay, ef 
 avertn, adnbas avert’ — 
 
 k Novar. de Trinitat. c. xvi. 
 Sermo Dei fuit, qui exutus 
 est carnem et in resurrectione 
 rursus indutus.— | 
 
 1 Ante p. 21. 
 
 m Irene, Teal.) sli 
 —kai tiv tyepow tk vexpOy, Kai rij 
 évaapkor éic Tobe ovpavode avadn iw 
 TOU HyaTHpEVoY Xpiorov "Inoov row 
 Kupiov 7pOv, Kaiti eK TOY obpayav 
 ty ry O0&y rod Tlarpd¢ mapouciay 
 abrov, tri Td dvakepadaweacba 
 Ta TavrTa, Kai dvaorioca macay 
 odpka Taone avOpwrérnroc.-— 
 
80 Article Fourth. 
 
 Tertullian, in answer to those who denied the 
 reality of Christ’s suffering, and who said that 
 Christ was different from Jesus, having alluded to 
 the second Epistle of St. John, and said ‘ Whosoever 
 does not confess that Christ is come in the flesh, he 
 is Antichrist ®, thus sums up his argument, “ It is 
 well declared that the same will come from heaven 
 who suffered: the same will appear to all, who 
 has been raised up°: and ‘ they who pierced him 
 shall see and acknowledge him?;’ that is to say, the 
 very flesh against which they raged; without which 
 he can neither be, nor be acknowledged. Let them 
 therefore be ashamed who affirm that the flesh sit- 
 teth in heaven devoid of feeling, like a sheath with 
 Christ taken out of it %.” 
 
 And the following creed touches on all the points 
 expressed in the present Article; it is inserted at 
 length, with a view to a question that will arise 
 under the sixth Article-—* The rule of faith is— 
 that there is only one God, and no other besides 
 the Creator of the world, who made all things of 
 nothing, by his Word which was first of all sent 
 forth ; that that Word, called his Son, was seen at 
 various times by the Patriarchs under the name of 
 God, was always heard in the Prophets; lastly, 
 was brought down by the spirit and virtue of God 
 the Father to the Virgin Mary, was made flesh, 
 
 2 2 John 7. carnem in quam scevierunt; sine 
 ° Apparently in referenceto qua nec ipse esse poterit, nec 
 Acts i. 11. agnosci: ut et illi erubescant 
 P Rey. x. 1—7. qui adfirmant carnem in ccelis 
 
 4 Trerruty. de Carne vacuam sensu, ut vaginam ex- 
 Christi, c. 24. —utique ipsam empto Christo sedere. 
 
Article Fourth. 81 
 
 and that from her he was born a man, and is Jesus 
 Christ ; that after that he had preached a new 
 law, and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; 
 he had worked miracles; was fixed to the cross; 
 had risen again on the third day; carried up into 
 heaven, he sits on the right hand of the Father ; 
 had sent the substituted power of the Holy Ghost 
 to guide those that believe; that he will come 
 with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of 
 life eternal and the heavenly promises, and to ad- 
 judge the wicked to everlasting fire, raising up 
 both of them with the resurrection of the flesh *.” 
 Hippolytus evidently refers Psalm xxiv. 7. to 
 Christ, when he says, “ He comes to the heavenly 
 gates; angels accompanying him; and the gates 
 of heaven are closed; for he is not yet ascended 
 into heaven. He is now the first who appears to 
 the heavenly powers a fleshly body ascending. It 
 is said therefore to these powers by the angels who 
 were before the Saviour and Lord, ‘ Lift up your 
 gates, ye rulers, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting 
 doors, and the King of Glory shall come in*.’” 
 And Cyprian very briefly and decidedly expresses 
 himself; after Christ had spent forty days with his 
 disciples, he says, “ He was then taken up to 
 heaven, a cloud being spread about him, that the 
 
 * TertuLL. de Prescript. 
 Heret. c. 13.—tertia die re- 
 surrexisse ; in ccelos ereptum, 
 sedere ad dexteram Patris ;— 
 venturum cum claritate, ad su- 
 mendos sanctos in vite extern 
 et promissorum ccelestium fruc- 
 tum, et ad prophanos adjudi- 
 
 candos igni perpetuo, facta utri- 
 usque partis resuscitatione cum 
 carnis restitutione. 
 
 8 Hippotyr1 Fragmentum 
 in Ps. xxiv. 7. vol. i. p. 268.— 
 Tpirocg voy gaiverar ratc duvdpect 
 Taic obpaviatc aap£ avaBatvouca,— 
 
 G 
 
82 Article Fourth. 
 
 human nature, which he loved, which he put on, 
 which he protected from death, he might triumph- 
 antly carry to his Father; hereafter about to come 
 from heaven for the punishment of the devil, and 
 the judgment of mankind, with the vigour of an 
 avenger, and the power of a judge ‘.” 
 
 Thirdly, the Article asserts the session of Christ 
 in heaven. We may begin with Justin, who says; 
 “ But that the Father of all was to bring Christ to 
 heaven, after having raised him from the dead, and 
 to retain him there until he should tread under 
 foot the spirits that were hateful to him, and the 
 number of the good and virtuous people, that were 
 foreknown to him, was accomplished, for whose 
 sakes also the final destruction of all things by him 
 is yet delayed; hear the words of the prophet 
 David"; ‘ The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
 on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy 
 footstool *.’” 
 
 Tertullian, in a creed before given, as well as in 
 two others, mentions Christ’s session on the right 
 hand of the Father; “ We believe—that he died 
 and was buried according to the Scriptures; that 
 he was raised again by the Father, and taken up 
 into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the 
 
 * Cyprian. de Idol. Vani- x Justin. Apol. 17. c. 45. 
 iate,s.8. Tuncin celum cir- “Ore & ayayciv tov Xpicrov sic Trav 
 cumfusa nube sublatus est, ut ovpavdy 6 Llarnp tev zavTwy Osbc 
 hominem, quem dilexit, quem pera 70 dvacrijca tx vexpoy abrov 
 induit, quem 4 morte protexit, ##eAAe, kai karéyew Ewe dy wardty 
 ad Patrem Victor imponeret. —-70¥¢ Ex9paivovrac airy daipovac— 
 
 Pees. 1: 
 
Article Fourth. 83 
 
 Father ; and that he will come to judge the quick 
 and the dead’.” And in the other, “ that on the 
 third day he rose again from the dead, was taken 
 up into heaven, and now sitteth on the right hand 
 of the Father, and that he will come to judge the 
 quick and the dead””. 
 
 And Hippolytus says, “ We truly acknowledge 
 one God; we acknowledge Christ; we acknow- 
 ledge the Son who suffered, as he suffered, who 
 died as he died, and rose again on the third day, 
 and is on the right hand of the Father, and cometh 
 to judge the quick and dead *.” 
 
 Fourthly, “ Christ will judge all men at the last 
 day.” 
 
 Barnabas in several places speaks of Christ’s se- 
 cond coming to judge the world: “ He, that he 
 might abolish death, and might shew the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, because it behoved him to appear 
 in the flesh, was content to do so, that he might 
 make good the promise given to our fathers; and 
 preparing for himself a new people, might demon- 
 strate to them, while he was upon the earth, that 
 having himself caused the resurrection, he would 
 judge the world’.” 
 
 ¥ Tertunn. adv. Prax. c.2. 4 Hippotytti c. Noet. c. 1. 
 —et in clos resumptum, se- vol. ii. p. 6.—xKal ora év dela 
 dere ad dextram Patris, ventu- — row Ilarpic, Kai tpxopevoy Kpivar 
 rum judicare vivos et mortuos. Zé vra¢ rai vexpodc. 
 
 * Idem, de Virg. Veland.c.1. > BarnaBm Epist.c. 5. — 
 —sedentem nunc ad dextram érredeiéy, xl THe ye Ov, bre ayvdo- 
 Patris, venturum judicare VIVOS raow abrog Tooag Koel. 
 et mortuos. 
 
 G2 
 
84 Article Fourth. 
 
 And in another place, “ If, then, the Son of 
 God, being Lord, and about to judge the quick 
 and the dead, hath suffered, that his stripes might 
 give us life, we must believe that the Son of God 
 could not have suffered, except on our account °.” 
 
 Justin also alludes to Christ’s second coming ; 
 having in his Dialogue with Tryphon asserted the 
 divinity of Jesus Christ, and referred to various 
 distinct allusions to him in the Old Testament, he 
 adds, “ If you had known this, you would not have 
 spoken blasphemies against him who is already 
 ‘come, and has been born, and has suffered, and 
 ascended into heaven; who will also come again, 
 and then your twelve tribes will mourn *.” 
 
 And Origen; “ But since he often calls ours a 
 hidden doctrine, in this also he must be convicted 
 of falsehood: for almost the whole world is better 
 acquainted with the things that are declared by 
 Christians than with the tenets of the philosophers. 
 For who is ignorant of the generation of Jesus 
 from the Virgin, and that he was crucified, and of 
 his resurrection which so many believe, and as is 
 declared that he will come to judge the. world, 
 punishing sinners according to their, deserts, and 
 conferring rewards upon the righteous * 2” 
 
 © Tdem, ibid. ¢. 7.—éArwyv 
 Koivew Covrac Kai vEeKpove 
 4 Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 
 a ‘ fo / 
 c. 126.—6¢ kal warn TApETTAI— 
 © Origen. c. Cels. lib. ii. 
 ce. 7.—tiva yap havbaver 4 ex Tap- 
 
 
 
 Gévou yévynotwc Inoov, Kai 6 éoravpw- 
 pivoc, Kai) Tapa Tote TETLOTEV- 
 pévn avdoracte abrov, Kai 7) KaTay- 
 yeopévy Kpiowc, KohaZovca péy Kar’ 
 atiay rove apaprdvovtac, yépwco O 
 akwica Tove Oreatouc ; 
 
ARTICLE V. 
 
 Of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 * Tue Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the 
 **Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the 
 “* Father and the Son, very and eternal God.” 
 
 The first Article asserted the personality and 
 divinity of the Holy Ghost; the only addition 
 therefore that seems to be made in this Article, is 
 the procession from the Father and the Son. But 
 as the extracts before given are chiefly intended to 
 illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity, it may be as 
 well:to adduce a few more passages in proof of the 
 distinct personality, and of the divinity of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 It has been already observed* that some of the 
 earlier dissenters from the Catholic doctrine (as 
 the Socinians still do) denied that the Holy Ghost 
 is a Person, but called it an energy, emanation, or 
 operation. Prior however to the Nicene Council 
 there was no separate discussion on this point; 
 ‘the chief differences were concerning the second 
 person of the Trinity, and consequently we find 
 that in treatises composed, (as was Novatian’s 
 for instance,) expressly in support of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity, very little is said of the third 
 
 aS Art. Ie pi. Lo: 
 
86 Article Fifth. 
 
 Person, and for this obvious reason, that if the di- 
 vinity of the Son, and his Unity with the Father 
 could not be proved from Scripture, the whole doc- 
 trine must fall to the ground. The correctness of 
 this remark may be seen from the fact that the Ni- 
 cene creed, as first agreed upon and promulgated 
 A. D. 325, ends with the words “and in the Holy 
 Ghost,” which would scarcely have happened if 
 there had been at that time any serious differences 
 of opinion respecting the divinity of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 Though some traces of a disbelief in the divinity 
 of the Holy Ghost are to be found amongst those 
 who were accused of heresy with regard to the Son, 
 it was not until the fourth century that a sect 
 arose professing such disbelief as its distinguish- 
 ing mark. 
 
 Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople, gave a 
 name to sucha sect, his followers were called Ma- 
 cedonians, or from their opinions Meparondxo. What 
 their opinions were is not very clear, they professed 
 to receive the whole of the Nicene creed, which at 
 that time concluded with the words “and in the 
 Holy Ghost.” It is certain however that they de- 
 nied the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Macedonius 
 was deposed from his patriarchate in a Council 
 held at Constantinople in the year 360. 
 
 The history of the additions subsequently made 
 to the Nicene creed, and which were expressly di- 
 rected against the Macedonian heresy, will more 
 properly come under the eighth Article. But a 
 few words must in this place be said of the proces- 
 
Article Fifth. 8 
 
 sion from the Father and the Son. The origin of 
 the disputes that broke out anew on this point is, 
 as Mosheim observes, “covered with perplexity 
 and doubt ?.” 
 
 The general Council held at Constantinople in 
 the year 381, amongst other additions to the Nicene 
 creed, inserted a declaration of the procession of 
 the Holy Ghost “from the Father ;” it was not un- 
 til the end of the sixth century that the Western 
 church inserted the words “ and the Son;” but it is 
 important to observe, that in the Councils of Alex- 
 andria and Ephesus, as early as the years 430 and 
 431, it was declared that the Holy Ghost proceeded 
 from the Son as well as from the Father. 
 
 In the passages which I am able to adduce from 
 the Anti-Nicene Fathers it must be confessed that 
 very little is said of the procession of the Holy 
 Ghost from the Father and the Son; but it must 
 be borne in mind that controversy had not yet 
 reached to this point ; and that therefore the early 
 Christians, though they continually mention both 
 the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, do 
 not express themselves so precisely as the Church 
 was afterwards compelled to do. The doctrine it- 
 self is not in express words mentioned in the Scrip- 
 tures, but is undoubtedly deduced from thence, and 
 so we shall find some few passages in the Anti-Ni- 
 cene Fathers from which we can collect that they 
 held the same doctrine that our Church professes. 
 
 Justin Martyr in the following passage says that 
 
 » Mosheim, vol. ii. Cent. viii. p. 2. c. 3. s. 15. 
 
88 Article Fifth. 
 
 the Holy Ghost “spoke by the Prophets,” from 
 which we cannot doubt of his belief in the divinity 
 of the Holy Ghost; “He that is enlightened is 
 washed in the name of God the Father and Lord 
 of the universe :——and in the name of our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pi- 
 late, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who de- 
 clared by the Prophets all things that relate to 
 Jesus °.” 
 
 And in his Dialogue he says, “ You must allow 
 me in the first place to quote such prophecies as I 
 please, to prove that Christ is called God and Lord 
 of Hosts, and figuratively, Jacob by the Holy 
 Ghost *.” He then proceeds to comment on the 
 24th Psalm, shewing that it referred not to Solo- 
 mon, but to Christ ascending into heaven and sitting 
 on the right hand of the Father, « For when the 
 officers in heaven saw him bearing an uncomely 
 and undignified and inglorious form, they did not 
 recognise him, and asked ‘ Who is this, the King of 
 Glory ?’ and the Holy Ghost answers them, either 
 in the person of the Father or in his own, ‘-The 
 Lord of Hosts himself, he is the King of Glory °’.” 
 
 A remark of Justin’s own, which has been before 
 made use of, may be again referred to, to shew that 
 he considers the power of foretelling the future to 
 
 © Justin. Apol. 1*. ¢. 61. 
 —Kal én’ Gvonatos Tvevuaros 
 “Ayiov 0 Sie t&y Wipopqtay mooexg- 
 pute Ta Kata Tov Inooby mavra, 6 
 Porilonevos Aovera, 
 
 4 Idem, Dial. cum Tryph. 
 
 c. 36. —kal?laxoB Kareiras év 
 
 mapaPorg to rod “Aylov Tvevua- 
 ToC. 
 
 © Idem, ibid. 
 veras adrois ro Tveta To Ayioy 7 
 ans mpoodmov tov Tareas, amo 
 Tov idtov, Kupioc, kK. T A. 
 
 ees) 4 
 Si ATOK Ob 
 
Article Fifth. 89 
 
 be a proof of divinity; and consequently that he 
 believed in the divinity of the Holy Ghost; “It is 
 the work of God, to declare things before they hap- 
 pen ‘.” 
 
 And in the creed from Irenzus, which will be 
 found at length under the first Article %, it is ex- 
 pressed that the whole church believes “in the 
 Holy Ghost, who declared by the Prophets the in- 
 carnation, and the coming, etc. of the beloved 
 Christ Jesus our Lord.” 
 
 In another place he says, that the Holy Ghost 
 was with the Father before all creation, “ That the 
 Word, that is the Son, was always with the Father, 
 I have already proved at much length: but that 
 Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was with him be- 
 fore all creation, he says in the words of Solomon?.” 
 Irenzus then quotes Prov. i. 19, 20, and viii. 22— 
 27, which the Fathers constantly referred to the se- 
 cond and third persons of the Trinity. The pro- 
 cession from the Son may also be inferred from 
 another extract from Irenzeus given under the first 
 Article, where he says “ that the Spirit is in all of 
 us, and he is the living water which: the Lord sup- 
 plies to those that believe rightly in him, and love 
 him, etc.” 
 
 From Tertullian, who was so much engaged in 
 controversy, we may fairly expect stronger testi- 
 mony to our creed, if it agrees with his; and ac- 
 
 f See the whole passage —Quoniam autem et Sapientia, 
 ante p, 47. que est Spiritus, erat apud 
 & Ante p. 21. eum ante omnem  constitu- 
 
 » Trenzr l. iv. c. 20.5.3.  tionem, per Solomonem ait. 
 
90 Article Fifth. 
 
 cordingly we shall find him using expressions that 
 contain all that this Article declares. In the fol- 
 lowing passage he calls the Holy Ghost God: 
 «« Since we are all ‘the temple of God’, the Holy 
 Ghost being placed within us and consecrated ; 
 modesty is the guardian and priestess of that 
 temple, who permits nothing unclean or profane 
 to be brought within it, lest that God, who dwells 
 within, being offended at the pollution of his 
 sanctuary, should leave it*.” 
 
 The next passage shews the procession of the 
 Holy Ghost from the Father by the Son, and it 
 will be difficult to explain how that differs from 
 the procession from the Father and the Son : 
 
 « But when I derive the Son from nothing else 
 than from the substance of the Father, and when 
 I say that he does nothing without the will of the 
 Father, and that he has obtained all power from 
 the Father, how can I be said by this belief to de- 
 stroy the monarchy, which is given by the Father 
 to the Son, and is in the Son as a Servant? I 
 would also use the same expressions to the third 
 order, because I suppose the Spirit to be derived 
 
 from no other source, than from the Father, by th 
 
 1” 
 
 Sonl 
 
 a Cor: ait. 16: 
 
 Kk Tertuu. de Cultu Fe- 
 minarum, c. 1. Nam cum 
 omnes templum Dei simus, 
 illato in nos et  consecrato 
 Spiritu Sancto, ejus templi 
 editua et antistes pudicitia 
 est, que nihil immundum nec 
 
 profanum inferri sinat, ne 
 Deus ille, qui inhabitat, in- 
 quinatam sedem offensus dere- 
 linquat. 
 
 1 Idem, adv. Praz. c. 4.-— 
 Spiritum non aliunde puto, 
 quam a Patre per Filium. 
 
Article Fifth. 91 
 
 The following illustration of the mode of the 
 procession, which was frequently made use of by 
 the Fathers, however inadequate to the subject, 
 will, nevertheless, shew very distinctly, perhaps too 
 distinctly, Tertullian’s belief in the procession of 
 the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son : 
 
 Having remarked that the Word is put forth 
 from God, but that this putting forth (76%) is 
 very different from that which Valentinus speaks 
 of, when he says that one zon produces another, 
 Tertullian then insists on the unity and consubstan- 
 tiality of the Father and the Son, and continues: 
 “ This is the true sense of probola, and preserves 
 the unity, so that in this sense we say that the Son 
 was put forth from the Father, but is not separate 
 from him. For God put forth the Word, as the 
 root puts forth the shrub, and the fountain puts 
 forth the river, and the sun puts forth the ray ; for 
 those species are puttings forth of those sub- 
 stances, from which they proceed—the shrub is 
 not distinct from the root, nor the river from the 
 fountain, nor the ray from the sun, as neither is 
 the Word from God.—According, therefore, to the 
 form of these examples, I profess to speak of two 
 beings, God and his Word, the Father and _ his 
 Son. For the root and the shrub are two things, 
 but united: and the fountain and the river are two 
 species, but undivided: and the sun and the ray 
 are two forms, but adhering together. Every 
 thing that proceeds from another must necessarily 
 be second with reference to that from which it 
 proceeds, but it is not therefore separate. But 
 
92 Article Fifth. 
 
 when there is a second there are two; and when 
 there is a third, there are three. For the Spirit is 
 the third from God and his Son, as the fruit that 
 comes from the shrub is third from the root: and 
 the river which proceeds from the stream is third 
 from the fountain: and the point which proceeds 
 from the ray is third from the sun™.” 
 
 This method of illustration may be used to ex- 
 plain Tertullian’s words in the passage next pre- 
 ceding: thus, when he says that the Spirit is de- 
 rived “from the Father by the Son ;” he evidently 
 means that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the 
 Father and the Son, as “the fruit that comes from 
 the shrub is third from the root; and the river 
 which proceeds from the stream is third from the 
 fountain ;” in either case that which is third, pro- 
 ceeding from that which is second, and also from 
 the first by that which is second, and so proceeding 
 from both. 
 
 In a former passage of the same treatise Ter- 
 tullian had said that Jesus Christ after his ascen- 
 sion “sent, according to his promise, the Holy 
 Ghost, the Comforter, from the Father, to sanctify 
 their faith, who believe in the Father, and the Son, 
 and the Holy Ghost?.” 
 
 m TERTULL. adv. Praz. c. 
 8. Tertius enim est Spiritus 
 a Deo, et Filio, sicut tertius 4 
 radice fructus ex frutice, et ter- 
 tius a fonte rivus ex flumine, 
 et tertius a sole apex ex radio. 
 
 2 Tdem, ibid. c. 2.— Qui ex- 
 
 
 
 inde miserit, secundum promis- 
 sionem suam, a Patre Spiritum 
 Sanctum, Paracletum, sanctifi- 
 catorem fidei eorum, qui cre- 
 dunt in Patrem, et Filium, et 
 Spiritum Sanctum. 
 
Article Fifth. 93 
 
 The last extract that I shall adduce from Ter- 
 tullian very plainly asserts the divinity of the Holy 
 Ghost: 
 
 “He poured forth the Holy Ghost, the gift 
 which he had received from the Father, the third 
 who bears the divine name, the third in the order 
 of majesty—who leads into all truth, which, ac- 
 cording to the Christian mystery, is in the Father, 
 and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 
 
 “But it is a sort of Jewish creed, so to believe’ 
 in one God, as that you refuse to reckon the Son, 
 together with him, and after the Son, the Spirit. 
 For what other difference is there but this between 
 ourselves and them? what is the effect of the Gos- 
 pel? what is the substance of the New Testament, 
 which says that the Law and the Prophets were 
 until John? unless after that, the Father, and the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are believed to be 
 three, make one God? So God chose to give a 
 new sacrament, that this unity might be believed 
 after anew manner, through the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost, that God might now be openly known 
 under his proper names and characters, who for- 
 merly also was preached by the Son and the Holy 
 Ghost, but was not understood °.” 
 
 Hippolytus speaks of the Holy Ghost as an ob- 
 
 ° Idem, ibid, c. 30,31. Hie Spiritu Sancto, secundum 
 interim acceptum a Patre Christianum sacramentum. 
 munus effudit, Spiritum Sanc- que est substantia Novi Tes- 
 tum, tertium nomen divinitatis tamenti si non exinde Pa- 
 et tertium gradum majestatis. ter et Filius et Spiritus Sanc- 
 —deductorem omnis veritatis, tus, tres crediti, unum Deum 
 que est in Patre et Filio et  sistunt ? 
 
 
 
 
 
94 Article Fifth. 
 
 ject of worship: “Thus we contemplate the in- 
 carnate Word; through him we form a conception 
 of the Father ; we believe in the Son; we worship 
 the Holy Ghost?.” 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, in a passage given at 
 length under the first Article4, very strongly asserts 
 the procession from the Father andthe Son. “If 
 I added the Holy Ghost, I at the same time sub- 
 joined both from whence and by whom he came’.” 
 —And then, having insisted on the union of the 
 Father and the Son, he adds: “ In their hands also 
 is the Spirit, which can neither be separated from 
 the person sending, nor from the person con- 
 
 s 2 
 
 veying*. 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for 
 
 Salvation. 
 
 ‘* Hoty Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salva- 
 ‘tion: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be 
 ‘proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it 
 “should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be 
 ‘thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. In the name 
 “of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical 
 *‘ Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose autho- 
 ‘‘yity was never any doubt in the Church.” 
 
 P Hipponyti c. Noetum c. pocdOnxa, GAN aya Kal mobev 
 
 
 
 12. p. 14. Tlvetuars ‘Ayio Kah dic rhyog qrev epipusoa. 
 TporKvyoDAEy. 8 Idem, ibid. “Ey re rais 
 4 Ante p. 35, 36. yepoly adray ears 7 [Iveta pyre 
 
 * Dionys. Alex. ex Elench. rot wéumovros, pwqre rod cpégovros 
 et Apol. p.93. “Aysoy Tivetux duvanevoy oreper ban. 
 
Article Sixth. 95 
 ‘¢ Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. 
 
 ‘* Genesis. The First Book of Chronicles. 
 “ Exodus. The Second Book of Chronicles. 
 “Leviticus. The First Book of Esdras. 
 
 *« Numbers. The Second Book of Esdras. 
 * Deuteronomy. The Book of Esther. 
 
 “ Joshua. The Book of Job. 
 
 ** Judges. The Psalms. 
 
 “Ruth. The Proverbs. 
 
 “The First Book of Samuel. Ecclesiastes, or Preacher. 
 
 ** The Second Book of Samuel. Cantica, or Songs of Solomon. 
 “The First Book of Kings. Four Prophets the Greater. 
 
 “The Second Book of Kings. Twelve Prophets the Less. 
 
 ‘* And the other Books, (as Hierome saith,) the Church 
 * doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners; 
 *‘but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine ; 
 ‘such are these following : 
 
 ‘The Third Book of Esdras. 
 ‘The Fourth Book of Esdras. 
 “The Book of Tobias. 
 
 “The Book of Judith. 
 
 ‘© The rest of the Book of Esther. 
 **'The Book of Wisdom. 
 
 “ Jesus the Son of Sirach. 
 
 ** Baruch the Prophet. 
 
 “‘ The Song of the Three Children. 
 ** The Story of Susanna. 
 
 “‘ Of Bel and the Dragon. 
 
 “‘ The Prayer of Manasses. 
 
 “The First Book of Maccabees. 
 “The Second Book of Maccabees. 
 
 “* All the Books of the New Testament, as they are 
 
 commonly received, we do receive, and account them 
 Canonical.” 
 
 This Article begins by asserting positively that 
 “ Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary 
 
96 Article Sixth. 
 
 ] 
 
 to salvation ;” and then negatively, “that what- 
 soever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
 thereby,” is not necessary to salvation. 
 
 This part of the Article may, however, be now 
 considered as containing only one proposition, 
 which is directed against the doctrine of traditions 
 held by the Church of Rome. That Church main- 
 tains that the Scriptures are not sufficient without 
 the (so-called) Apostolical traditions, which they 
 declare to be of equal authority with the Scriptures. 
 These traditions, they believe, have been faithfully 
 handed down to the present time, and they affirm 
 that an infallible authority is vested by Christ in 
 his Church to distinguish those which are true 
 from those which are false. The Council of Trent 
 in its fourth session (April, 1546) settled their 
 canon of Scripture, and mention traditions as a 
 ground of their faith, pronouncing an anathema on 
 those who do not receive their Scriptures according 
 to the ancient Vulgate, and also their traditions. 
 
 It should be observed that there is no authorized 
 collection of these traditions, though there are 
 some doctrines of theirs, which can only be sup- 
 ported by them on this pretence. 
 
 The creed of Pope Pius the fourth, which was 
 published A. D. 1564 in the form of a Papal Bull, 
 and which Mr. Butler says contains “a succinct 
 and explicit summary of the canons of the Council 
 of Trent,” is universally received as the true 
 standard of the Romish faith; it therefore seems 
 desirable, especially as its Articles are concise, to 
 give such of them, under this, and the following 
 
Article Sixth. 97 
 
 Articles of our Church, as we shall have occasion 
 to notice. 
 
 The first twelve Articles of that Creed consists 
 of the Nicene Creed; so much of the thirteenth as 
 concerns our sixth Article is as follows; “ I most 
 firmly admit and embrace Apostolical and Eccle- 
 siastical Traditions, and all other constitutions and 
 observances of the same Church *.” 
 
 The following extracts from the Fathers will 
 satisfactorily shew, that they appealed to the Scrip- 
 tures as alone sufficient to determine all contro- 
 versies in matters of faith, and as a necessary con- 
 sequence, that nothing, which may not be proved 
 from Scriptural authority, is necessary for salvation. 
 
 But while we are putting down the authority of 
 tradition, as independent of the word of God, we 
 must be cautious not to lose sight of its value as 
 the interpreter of Scripture. But inasmuch as it 
 is better to have one only object in view, viz. that 
 immediately arising out of the Article before us; 
 the consideration of the question how far the au- 
 thority of the primitive Church is binding on us, 
 must be considered at more length in the preface. 
 On this subject we are at issue with the whole 
 body of Dissenters, and some of the Protestant 
 Churches on the continent of Europe. 
 
 Irenzus says; “ The Scriptures indeed are per- 
 fect, as being dictated by the Word of God and his 
 Spirit ».” 
 
 And again, “‘ We following the one and sole true 
 
 * Butler’s Confession of > TrENzI |. ii. c. xxviii. s. 2. 
 Faith, p. 9. Scripture quidem _ perfecte 
 
 H 
 
98 Article Sixth. 
 
 God as our teacher, and having his words for the 
 rule of truth, say always the same things con- 
 cerning the same subjects °.” 
 
 And Clemens of Alexandria; ‘ We should not 
 simply attend to the words of men, which it is as 
 lawful for us to gainsay. But if it be not sufficient 
 only to say what we think, but what is said ought 
 to be confirmed, let us not wait for testimony from 
 men, but let us confirm, what is questioned, by the 
 voice of God, which is more certain than all de- 
 monstrations, or rather is itself the only demon- 
 stration *.” 
 
 The writers of the Roman Church claim Ter- 
 tullian as an authority in favour of their traditions, 
 and as this Article is expressly directed against that 
 Church, it may be necessary to enter at some length 
 on the consideration of those passages of Tertullian 
 which seem to uphold their opinions. It must be 
 admitted, that a hasty perusal of some of this 
 author’s works may give an impression, that the 
 Romanists have some reason in resorting to his au- 
 thority, but on a little examination it will be found 
 that he does not help them much. 
 
 If in any of Tertullian’s writings we should ex- 
 pect to find the doctrine of Traditions strongly in- 
 sisted on, it would be in that called “The Pre- 
 
 qd Crem. ALEx. Strom. 1. 
 
 sunt, quippe a Verbo Dei et 
 ahha Ty TOD 
 
 Spiritu ejus dictz. Wu. then 0G: 
 
 
 
 ¢ Idem, 1. iv. c. xxxv. s. 4, 
 Nos autem unum et solum ve- 
 rum Deum doctorem sequentes, 
 et regulam veritatis habentes 
 ejus sermones, de iisdem sem- 
 per eadem dicimus omnes. 
 
 Kupsot gary microvneba ro Cyrov- 
 pevov, 4 Tacby arodeiLewy exey- 
 yuerepa, padrroy 0€ 4 wavy ame= 
 debs ctca TVY NAVEL. 
 
Article Sixth. 99 
 
 scriptions,” or more properly, “Of Prescription 
 against the Hereticks.” 
 
 The very title shews that their opinions are to 
 be combated on the ground of their novelty, and 
 as opposed to that faith which had been handed 
 down from the times of the Apostles. 
 
 His adversaries, the heretics, he says, offer to 
 abide by the decision of the Scriptures, this he de- 
 clines, not because they are insufficient for the 
 purpose, or because there is any traditional doc- 
 trine beyond the Scriptures, but for reasons which 
 will be given best in his own words.— 
 
 “ That heresy does not receive certain Scriptures, 
 and what it does receive, by adding and taking 
 away, it perverts to support its own doctrine. If 
 it does receive them, it does not receive them en- 
 tire.’ He then shews that they pervert the meaning 
 of those Scriptures which they do admit, and that 
 therefore they must first agree, what are the Scrip- 
 tures. “To whom does the rule of faith itself ap- 
 pertain? in whose keeping are the Scriptures ? 
 From whom, and through whom, and when, and 
 to whom was delivered the discipline, by which 
 Christians are made Christians? For where it 
 shall appear that the truth of the Christian disci- 
 pline and faith is, there will be the truth of the 
 Scriptures, and of their meaning, and of all Chris- 
 tian traditions *‘.” 
 
 Thus far Tertullian does not seem to go beyond 
 
 © Tertu.u. de Prescript. ad dispositionem instituti sui 
 Heret. e. 17.——quas recipit, intervertit. 
 adjectionibus et detractionibus f Thid. c. 19: 
 
 H 2 
 
 
 
100 Article Sixth. 
 
 our twentieth Article, which declares the Church 
 to be “a witness and keeper of holy writ ;” and to 
 have authority in controversies of faith, so that 
 however it does not ordain any thing contrary to 
 God’s word. 
 
 But to proceed with Tertullian. He, in the fol- 
 lowing chapter ®, states that from those Churches 
 which have been founded by the Apostles, all true 
 Churches must be derived; and in the next chap- 
 ter continues: “ To this point therefore we direct 
 prescription. If the Lord Jesus Christ sent the 
 Apostles to preach, no other preachers are to be 
 received than those whom Christ appointed ; be- 
 cause no one knew the Father, but the Son, and 
 he to whom the Son revealed Him; nor does the 
 Son appear to have revealed the Father to any 
 others than the Apostles, whom he sent to preach, 
 viz. that which he revealed to them. But what 
 they preached is that which Christ revealed to 
 them ; and here I prescribe, that doctrines ought 
 not otherwise to be proved than by those same 
 Churches which the Apostles themselves founded, 
 having themselves preached to them; as well viva 
 voce (as it is said) as afterwards by their Epistles. 
 If this be so, it is consequently plain that all doc- 
 trine which agrees with those Churches that are 
 apostolical, and the nurseries and originals of faith, 
 is to be accounted true; without doubt containing 
 what the Churches received from the Apostles, the 
 Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. But 
 
 e Nearly the whole of this chapter will be found under the 
 nineteenth Article. 
 
Article Sixth. 101 
 
 every other doctrine is to be prejudged as false, 
 which is contrary to the truth of the Churches, 
 and Apostles, and Christ, and God. It remains, 
 therefore, that we shew whether our doctrine, the 
 rule of which we have given above, can be ac- 
 counted to be of the tradition of the Apostles; and 
 consequently, whether the rest come of falsehood. 
 We communicate with the apostolic Churches, be- 
 cause there is no difference in our doctrine; this 
 is a proof of its truth %” 
 
 It will be important in this place to refer to the 
 rule of faith to which Tertullian alludes. It will be 
 found at length under the fourth Article *. 
 
 Applying, therefore, his argument in favour of 
 tradition, as far as he intended it should be carried, 
 it amounts to this, that laying aside the Scriptures 
 as the medium of proof, the question of heresy or 
 not must be decided by an appeal to the doctrines 
 received by the apostolic Churches: the rule of 
 faith, or creed, which contained the true doctrine, 
 and which only he had then to maintain, was that 
 rule which the Church had received and adopted 
 from the times of the Apostles. But the foregoing 
 passage can by no means be adduced in support of 
 traditions which are not supported by the authority 
 of Scripture. 
 
 The twenty-third chapter ofthis book of Ter- 
 tullian’s may be quoted as an express authority 
 against traditions. Some of the heretics rejected 
 the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and yet en- 
 
 € Terrutt. de Prescript. Heret. c. 2). 
 5 Ante, p. 80. 
 
102 Article Sixth. 
 
 deavoured to shew that the Apostles were ignorant 
 of some things, from the circumstance that St. Paul 
 had found fault with St. Peter. To which Tertul- 
 lian ingeniously remarks, “then, if you reject the 
 Acts of the Apostles, how do you know that St. 
 Paul was an Apostle?” and adds, “ But they will 
 believe without the Scriptures, so that they may 
 believe against the Scriptures *.” 
 
 Further on Tertullian again says, “ If this be so, 
 that the truth is adjudged to be with us, who ob- 
 serve that rule which the Church handed down 
 from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and 
 Christ from God, the reason of my first position 
 stands good, when I laid down that heretics are 
 not to be allowed to appeal to the Scriptures, 
 whom, without the Scriptures, we prove not to be- 
 long to the Scriptures at all; for if they are here- 
 tics they cannot be Christians ’.” 
 
 And again, “ Wherever a diversity in the doc- 
 trine is found, there it must be concluded that the 
 Scriptures, and the expositions of Scripture, have 
 been corrupted. They who purposed to teach 
 otherwise must needs have made another disposi- 
 tion of those instruments whence the doctrine is to 
 be derived. For they could not else teach any 
 other doctrine, unless they had wherewithal to 
 teach otherwise. As the corruption of the doctrine 
 could not succeed with them without the corrup- 
 tion of the instruments of proof; so with us also, 
 
 h Tertuuu. de Prescript. Heret. c. 23. Sed credent sine 
 Scripturis, ut credent adversus Scripturas. 
 i Tbid, c. 37. 
 
Article Sixth. 103 
 
 the integrity of our doctrine could not be ascer- 
 tained, without the integrity of those things by 
 means of which the doctrine is arrived at. for 
 what have we that is contrary to our Scriptures? 
 what have we inserted of our own, so that we 
 should remedy, by taking away, or adding, or 
 changing any thing that can be discovered in it 
 contrary to the Scriptures ? What we are, that the 
 Scriptures are from the first. We are from them, 
 before there was any thing otherwise than we are*.” 
 
 This passage, obscure as it is, is sufficient to 
 clear all doubts which the former may have raised. 
 Scripture is referred to as the ultimate and only 
 sure test. 
 
 Dupin, in his account of Tertullian’s book De 
 Corona Militis, says, “ He speaks in this discourse 
 very advantageously of custom and tradition, and 
 relates several remarkable examples of ceremonies 
 which he pretends to be derived from tradition.” 
 The use of the word “ pretends,” shews that Dupin, 
 when he appealed to Tertullian’s opinion in favour 
 of his Church, was unwilling to admit his authority 
 as establishing those very traditions which he cites. 
 And it will be found that tradition here means 
 nothing more than it does in our thirty-fourth 
 Article. 
 
 Tertullian, in the book before us, is defending 
 
 * Tdemibid. ¢.38. Hlicigitur 
 
 menta doctrine. Alias enim 
 
 et Scripturarum et expositio- 
 num adulteratio deputanda est, 
 ubi diversitas Linvenitur] doc- 
 trine. Quibus fuit propositum 
 aliter docendi, necessitas insti- 
 tuit, aliter disponendi instru- 
 
 non potuissent aliter docere, 
 nisi aliter haberent per qua 
 docerent.——(Quod sumus, hoc 
 sunt Scripture ab initio suo. 
 Ex illis sumus antequam nihil 
 aliter fuit, quam sumus. 
 
104 Article Sixth. 
 
 a soldier, who was a Christian, for having refused 
 to put a crown upon his head, and maintains, that 
 Christians are forbidden to crown themselves, or 
 even to bear arms; this is a custom, he says, ob- 
 served by all Christians, and proceeds; ‘‘ It is easy 
 to demand where it is written, that we may not be 
 crowned? On the other hand I ask, where is it 
 written, that we may be crowned? For when they 
 require the authority of Scripture on the other 
 side, they concede that they ought to have the 
 authority of Scripture on their side. For if it be 
 said, that it is lawful to be crowned, because Scrip- 
 ture does not forbid it, we may equally retort, that 
 therefore it is not lawful to be crowned, because 
 Scripture does not command it. What will dis- 
 cipline do in this matter? will it admit both, as if 
 neither were prohibited? or will it reject both, as 
 if neither were enjoined ?—If no Scripture has de- 
 termined this observance, custom certainly has con- 
 firmed it, as having, without doubt, emanated from 
 tradition. For how can any practice be observed, 
 if it has not been first handed down? But you 
 say, a written authority must be required to sup- 
 port a tradition. Let us ask, therefore, whether a 
 tradition which is not written ought to be received. 
 We must altogether deny that it is to be received, 
 unless we can adduce examples of other observ- 
 ances, which without the sanction of any Scripture, 
 on the ground of tradition alone, we vindicate on 
 
 1” 
 
 the authority of custom’. 
 
 ! Tertuun, de Corond Militis, ec. 2, 3. 
 
Article Sixth. 105 
 
 Tertullian then quotes the ceremonies observed 
 in baptism, the eucharist, etc., and adds: “If you 
 demand a law taken from the Scriptures for these 
 and other matters of discipline of the same sort, 
 you will find none; we must answer, tradition has 
 established it, custom has confirmed it, and faith 
 has caused it to be observed™.” 
 
 He then refers to some customs observed by the 
 Jews, which were not enjoined in their law; and 
 says, “ Even in civil affairs custom is admitted as a 
 law, where the law fails*.” 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to remark how different 
 the traditions, here spoken of, are from those pre- 
 tended by the Church of Rome. The whole dif- 
 ference lies between tradition which sanctions a 
 doctrine not found in Scripture, and tradition which 
 establishes a custom about which Scripture is 
 silent. 
 
 After a careful examination of the whole of Ter- 
 tullian’s writings, I can find no other passages, 
 which give a colour to the pretensions of the 
 Roman Church; but must subjoin two passages 
 which bear directly on the Article before us. 
 
 He is arguing against Hermogenes, who main- 
 tained that God could not make all things out of 
 nothing, and that therefore matter was co-eternal 
 with God. Hermogenes received the Scriptures of 
 both Testaments; Tertullian therefore says: “ Let 
 Hermogenes’ workshop shew that it is written. If 
 it be not written, let him fear the curse denounced 
 
 m Ibid, c. 4. " Thbid. 
 
106 Article Sixth. 
 
 against those who add to or take from the word of 
 God?.” 
 
 The other passage is quoted by the venerable 
 Hooker, I may therefore give it in his words : 
 
 *‘ We may not give ourselves this liberty to bring 
 in any thing of our will, nor choose any thing that 
 other men bring in of their will; we have the 
 Apostles themselves for authors, which themselves 
 brought nothing of their own will; but the dis- 
 cipline which they received of Christ, they de- 
 livered faithfully unto the people’.”. Hooker re- 
 marks‘, ‘in which place the name of discipline im- 
 porteth not, as they who allege it would fain 
 have it construed, but as any man (who noteth the 
 circumstance of the place, and the occasion of ut- 
 tering the words,) will easily acknowledge, even 
 the selfsame thing it signifieth which the name of 
 doctrine doth ; and as well might the one as the 
 other there have been used.” 
 
 So many pages have been devoted to Tertullian, 
 that the extracts from other writers in support of 
 this part of the Article, must be given without 
 comment. 
 
 “ There is one God, whom, my brethren, we 
 
 arbitrio suo induxerit. Apos- 
 
 ° TERTULL: adv. Hermog. 
 tolos Domini habemus autores, 
 
 ce. 22.—Scriptum esse doceat 
 
 Hermogenis officina. Sinon est 
 scriptum, timeat ve illud ad- 
 Jjicientibus aut delrahentibus 
 destinatum. 
 
 P Idem, de Prescript. He- 
 ret. c. 6.—Nobis vero nihil 
 ex nostro arbitrio inducere licet, 
 sed nec eligere, quod aliquis de 
 
 qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo 
 arbitrio, quod  inducerent, 
 elegerunt: sed acceptam a 
 Christo disciplinam _ fideliter 
 nationibus adsignaverunt=- 
 
 4 Hooker, Ecclesiast. Pol. 
 Bama. 
 
Article Sixth. 107 
 
 know from no other source than from the Holy 
 Scriptures. For as if any one should desire to ex- 
 ercise himself in the wisdom of this world, he could 
 not do so in any other way than by reading the 
 opinions of philosophers ; so whosoever of us 
 would exercise ourselves in piety towards God, 
 cannot earn from any other source, than from the 
 oracles of God. Whatsoever things therefore the 
 holy Scriptures declare, let us know; and whatso- 
 ever things they teach, let us learn; and as the 
 Father will be believed, so let us believe; and as 
 he wills the Son to be glorified, so let us glorify 
 him; and as he wills the Holy Ghost to be given, 
 so let us receive it. Not according to our own 
 will, nor our own mind, neither doing violence to 
 those things, which have been given to us by God; 
 but as He by the Holy Scriptures has vouchsafed 
 to teach us, so let us understand *.” 
 
 “ But if there remaineth any thing which the 
 holy Scripture doth not determine, no other third 
 Scripture ought to be received for the confirmation 
 of knowledge‘*.” 
 
 “Whence is that tradition? Does it descend 
 from the authority of our Lord and the Gospel, or 
 does it come from the commands and the epistles 
 
 * Hrprotytr c. Noetum. Warnp moreverdas, morevouper, 
 
 vol. ii. c. 9. p. 12, 13. ed. 
 Hambr. 1716-18.— Eis @evs, ty 
 ok GAAdDev emiyiveoKonev, adEr~ 
 X a > ~ c is ~ 
 gol, 4 (ex) tay ayiov yoapiv— 
 toa toivuy Kyptocovow ai eta 
 \ wy my ef, / 
 yeapal, iopey, Kal toa diddo~ 
 Kavoly, emiyvopuev, Kat ws Bere 
 
 S OrIGEN. in Lev. Hom. v. 
 —Si quid autem superfuerit, 
 quod non divina scriptura de- 
 cernat, nullam aliam debere 
 tertiam Scripturam ad authori- 
 tatem scientiz suscipi. 
 
108 
 
 of the Apostles? For that those things are to be 
 done, which are written, God testifies and pro- 
 pounds, saying to Jesus Nave, ‘ Let not the book 
 of the Law depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt 
 meditate in it night and day, and thou shalt ob- 
 serve all these things that are written in it to do 
 them. The Lord, also, sending his Apostles, 
 commands that ‘ all nations should be baptized and 
 taught, that they should observe all things what- 
 soever he commanded *.’” 
 
 Constantine also, if his authority may be admitted, 
 in his oration to the Council of Nice, reminds them 
 how “ the Evangelical and Apostolical books, and 
 the divine oracles of the ancient Prophets, do 
 clearly teach us whatsoever we are to believe con- 
 cerning God,” and therefore in the conclusion 
 says “ Let us take the solution of those things that 
 are questioned from the divinely inspired Oracles ; 
 certainly accounting nothing as an article of faith 
 but what may be proved from thence *.” 
 
 “For the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures 
 are of themselves sufficient for the discovery of the 
 truth *.” 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, having touched upon the 
 
 Article Siath. 
 
 s Cyprian Ep. lxxiv. ad 
 Pomp. s. 2.—Unde est ista tra- 
 ditio? Utrumne de Dominica 
 et Evangelica auctoritate de- 
 scendens, an de Apostolorum 
 mandatis atque epistolis ve- 
 niens? Ea enim facienda esse 
 que scripta sunt Deus testatur, 
 et proponit ad Jesum Nave di- 
 cens ; ‘Non recedet liber legis 
 hujus, ete.’ 
 
 ' Constant. Orat. ad Syn. 
 Nic. apud TuEoporet. Hist. 
 Beet, Acs eye "EK TOY 
 Geomvevctwy Acyov AdBowey Toy 
 Cyrovpevay tyy AUci.— 
 
 u ATHANAS. Orat. c. Gent. 
 p- init. Adrapnes péev yao 
 elow at ayia Kai Oedrvsvoror yoagat 
 Tpoc THY THE adnOEiag dmayyediay. 
 
 
 
Article Sixth. 109 
 
 great articles of the Christian faith, in his lectures 
 to the Catechumens, says that he will afterwards 
 explain them from Scripture, and adds, “ For 
 nothing at all ought to be delivered concerning 
 the divine and holy mysteries of faith, without the 
 holy Scriptures, nor ought we to be at all influenced 
 by probabilities or prepared arguments: nor in any 
 wise believe me that say these things to you, 
 unless you take the demonstration of the things 
 that are declared, out of the holy Scriptures *.” 
 There is another passage in Cyril’s works to the 
 same purpose, which must here be noticed, because, 
 strange to say, the Romanists will have it that it 
 makes for their traditions: in the old Paris edi- 
 tions, amongst the marginal notes, which stand as 
 finger posts to guide the reader to the true mean- 
 ing of the author, is the following; traditiones suas 
 servare jubet ; and true it is, he does bid them ob- 
 serve his traditions; he says “‘ Take heed therefore, 
 brethren, that ye observe the traditions which ye 
 have now received, and write them in the breadth 
 of your hearts.” But the matter will appear in a 
 very different light, if we look at the context ; and 
 first go back as far the preceding marginal note, 
 which is also worthy of remark “ fides ecclesice sola 
 servanda,” meaning, I conclude, that the Pope is 
 infallible ; the passage is as follows; “Hold fast to 
 that faith alone which is now delivered to you by 
 
 * Cyrit. Hieros. Catech.  xairéywv carackevaic rapagépecOat. 
 4. Act yap mept tov Belwy Kat pyoé emot rp Tadra co Héyorre 
 ayiwy Tie TisTEwy pvoTnolwy, pnde  amHo mioTEvOYC, tay THY arddekw 
 TO TUXOY avev THY Osiwy Tapadidoc- THY KarayysopévWY ad TOY DEiwy 
 Dat ypapay" pndé amrMO¢ Taverns uy ABYC ypaday. 
 
110 Article Sixth. 
 
 the Church, and which is fortified by all Scripture. 
 For since all cannot read the Scriptures ; but 
 some, incapacity, others, want of leisure, hinders 
 from attaining knowledge, in order that poor souls 
 may not perish through ignorance, we include the 
 whole doctrine of the faith in a few lines, which 
 I wish you to remember when read to you, and to 
 say over to yourselves with all diligence, not 
 writing them on paper, but engraving the memory 
 of them in your hearts, preserving them by medita- 
 tion, lest one who is only a Catechumen should 
 overhear those things that are delivered to you. 
 And you must keep this faith as your constant 
 companion during the whole period of your life, 
 nor receive any other than this ; not though we our- 
 selves should change, and declare what is contrary to 
 what we now teach, nor though an adverse angel, 
 being transformed into an angel of light, should 
 wish to lead you astray: ‘For though we, or an 
 angel from heaven should preach any other Gospel 
 unto you than that ye have received, let him be 
 accursed *.’ And as long as thou hearest this 
 saying, remember thy faith. But on a fitting op- 
 portunity draw from the holy Scriptures the proof 
 of every thing that is laid down. For, as we see, 
 the Articles of faith were not composed by men, 
 but the most important things from all Scripture 
 being collected together, make up one doctrine of 
 the faith. For as the seed of mustard in a little 
 grain contains many branches, so this faith in few 
 words embraces all the knowledge of piety that is 
 
 ¥ Gal. i. 8. 9. 
 
Article Sixth. 111 
 
 comprised in the Old and New Testament. Take 
 heed therefore, etc 7.” 
 
 « Every word and action ought to be confirmed 
 by the testimony of the divinely inspired Scriptures, 
 to the full confirmation of the good, and the con- 
 fusion of the evil*.”. And in another place the 
 same author says, that it is “a manifest falling off 
 from the faith, and an argument of pride, either to 
 take away any thing from the things that are 
 written, or to introduce any of the things that are 
 not written.” 
 
 “Tt is an instinct of the devil to follow the 
 sophisms of human minds, and to think any thing 
 divine without the authority of the Scriptures °.” 
 
 «“ As we do not deny those things which are 
 written, so we reject those things that are not 
 written. That God was born of a Virgin we 
 believe, because we read it. That Mary was 
 married after her delivery, we do not believe, be- 
 
 cause we do not read it *.” 
 
 z Cyriv. HreRros. Catech, 5. 
 
 2 
 
 Dévepa exatwois tlotewg Kat 
 imeongauvias katnyopia, 4 abereiy 
 Th TOY yeypaypevov, 4 ememmcye 
 TOY [AN YEypujepevay. 
 
 © TuropuiL. ALEX. Pasch. 
 2. Bib. Maz. tom, v. p. 849. 
 
 Exdéyou 0€ Kata toy déovra 
 
 
 
 ‘\ ‘\ > \ ~ 7 ~ X 
 Kangoy Thy ane TOY Delay ypapby rept 
 EKaoTOU TOY eyKELLEeYaY CVoTACLY. 
 
 > \ ec IN £ > / / 
 od yeep ws Cdokey avOpdmars cvvereOy 
 Ta THs Tlorews, GAN ex maons 
 ypapns tT Kasgidtara cvdrex-  Demonici Spiritus est instinc- 
 Gévra, play avanhnpot thy tag tus sophismata humanarum 
 miatens MudacKkariay.— mentium sequi, et aliquid extra 
 
 2 Basit, Moral. Reg. xxvi. 
 si og ~ ~ ew \ ~ 
 C.1. “Ors det may paua Kal moaypa 
 miotoicba. tH pwaptupia tio Beo- 
 myevaTov youdns eis mAnoogopiay 
 fey Tov ayaboy, evtoonny be Tay 
 
 TOV NpOv. 
 
 > Idem, de Fide. s. 1. 
 
 Seripturarum authoritatem pu- 
 tare divinum. 
 
 4 Hieron. c. Helvid. s. 19. 
 Ut hee que scripta sunt non 
 negamus, ita ea, que non sunt 
 scripta, renuimus.— 
 
112 Article Sizth. 
 
 “ When our Lord Jesus had done many things, 
 they were not all written, as the same holy Evan- 
 gelist testifies, that the Lord Christ had both said 
 and done many things which were not written ; 
 but those things were chosen out to be written, 
 which seemed sufficient for the salvation of be- 
 lievers °.” 
 
 And in another place more strongly, which may 
 be given in Hooker's‘ version; ‘‘ Whether it be 
 question of Christ, or whether it be question of his 
 Church, or of what thing soever the question be ; 
 I say not, if we, but if an angel from heaven shall 
 tell us any thing beside that you have received in 
 the Scripture, under the Law and the Gospel, let 
 him be accursed *.” 
 
 As those books of the Old Testament which our 
 Church receives as Canonical, are received also by 
 all other Christian Churches, it seems unnecessary 
 to shew that they constituted the Canon of the pri- 
 mitive Churches, except with a view to prove ne- 
 gatively, that those Churches did not admit any 
 other books to be canonical. 
 
 None of the books contained in our Apocryphal 
 catalogue were ever received, as canonical, by any 
 formal act into any Christian Church, until in the 
 fourth session of the Council of Trent the Church of 
 quacunque alia re, que perti- 
 net ad fidem vitamque vestram, 
 non dicam nos, sed—si angelus 
 
 de celo vobis annuntiaverit 
 preter quam quod in Scripturis 
 
 e Aucust. in Johan. Tr. 1. 
 xlix.s. 1. electa sunt autem 
 que scriberentur, que saluti 
 credentium sufiicere videbantur. 
 
 £ Eccl. Pol. 1. ii. s. 5. 
 
 
 
 & Aueust. c. Liter} Petil. 1. 
 iii. c. 6. Proinde sive de Christo, 
 sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de 
 
 legalibus et evangelicis acce- 
 pistis, anathema sit. 
 
Article Sixth. 113 
 
 Rome declared them all to be canonical, except 
 the third and fourth books of Esdras and the 
 prayer of Manasses, which are not there mentioned 
 at all. 
 
 The four following lists will be found to agree 
 exactly with our Canon. . 
 
 Melito, bishop of Sardis in the second century, 
 wrote several works, of which only a few passages 
 are preserved ; the following is taken from Eu- 
 sebius’s history: 
 
 “ Melito to Onesimus, his brother, greeting. 
 Since you have often, on account of your zeal for 
 the word of God, begged of me to make selections 
 for you, from the law and the prophets concerning 
 the Saviour and our whole faith; and as you 
 moreover wished to learn accurately of the old 
 books, how many they are in number and in what 
 order they are written, I have taken great pains to 
 do it; well knowing your zeal for the faith; and 
 your great desire to learn of the word of God; 
 and that, through your earnest love towards God, 
 you desire these more than all things, striving for 
 your eternal safety. I went accordingly to the 
 east, and coming to the very place where these 
 things were preached and transacted, and having 
 accurately learnt the books of the Old Testament, 
 I have sent to you the subjoined list. Their 
 names are as follows. Five books of Moses, viz. 
 Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deutero- 
 nomy. Joshua Nave, Judges, Ruth. Four books 
 of Kings, two of Paralipomena. The Psalms of 
 
 h Lib. iv. c. 26. 
 
114 Article Sixth. 
 
 Dayid; the Proverbs of Solomon, which is also 
 called the Wisdom; Ecclesiastes; the Song of 
 Songs; Job. Of Prophets, Isaiah; Jeremiah; 
 and of the twelve one book; Daniel; Ezekiel; 
 Esdras '.” 
 
 By way of explanation, it is necessary to mention 
 that the “Four books of Kings” are the same as 
 the two of Samuel and two of Kings in our Canon ; 
 in the Septuagint version they are called the four 
 books of Kings, or of the kingdoms. The two of 
 Paralipomena, or of things omitted, are the two 
 books of Chronicles. The first and second books 
 of Esdras, in our authorised version called of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, are the same as that called Esdras, 
 the last in the above catalogue ; it is probable that 
 the same book contained also the book of Esther, 
 as many supposed that was written by Ezra; some 
 persons, however, may think that Melito did not 
 acknowledge the authenticity of the book of Esther, 
 as some of the Fathers did not: I do not think it 
 necessary to discuss that point. 
 
 It may be worth while to notice the way in 
 which Dupin gets over the difficulties that this ca- 
 talogue must raise to the Romish Canon. He 
 says Melito “ gives us a catalogue of the canonical 
 books of the Old Testament, omitting those that 
 are not included in the Canon of the Jews; these 
 are the Books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom (for he 
 
 i Meuiro apud Rourtu, Rel. ras warats diabjKns PiBrta, 
 Sacr. Velen): ave\bav wimordbas emeud oor’ ov dot) rx 
 ovy cig THY avaTtoryy, Kal ews ToD byouata’ Mwitcéws mévtre. Téq 
 
 romov yevoprevos evba exnptyOn kal  veorg, Ebadog, x. T. A. 
 empaxOn, Kal &KpiPs pabdy rx 
 
 
 
Article Sixth. 115 
 
 calls the Book of the Proverbs by the name of 
 Wisdom,) Judith, Esther, and the two Books of the 
 Maccabees.” I have given the passage from Melito 
 at length, to shew that he had no such intention, 
 as Dupin suggests, of giving the Jewish Canon, he 
 evidently gives the whole Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament, that were acknowledged by the Chris- 
 tian Church. 
 
 The Laodiczan council, assembled towards the 
 latter end of the fourth century, and afterwards 
 approved by the sixth Constantinopolitan synod, 
 which was also confirmed by Pope Adrian, and so 
 the Loadiczean council confirmed by him too, de- 
 creed the number of the canonical books, exactly 
 the same as afterwards determined by this Article : 
 “The books of the Old Testament that ought to 
 be read are, 1. The Creation of the World 
 (Genesis). 2. The going out of Egypt (Exodus). 
 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 
 6. Joshua, the son of Nun. 7. Judges and Ruth. 
 8. Esther. 9. The first and second books of 
 Kings. 10. The third and fourth of Kings. 
 11. The first and second of Chronicles. 12. The 
 first and second of Esdras. 13. The book of one 
 hundred and fifty Psalms. 14. The Proverbs of 
 Solomon. 15. Ecclesiastes. 16. The Song of 
 Songs. 17. Job. 18. Twelve Prophets. 19. Isaiah. 
 20. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 21. Ezekiel. 
 22. Daniel®.” 
 
 & Concil. Load. Canon. LX. xecOas tits raralas OrabaKns. a. 
 Pandect Beverecit tom.i. p. Téveoig Kéopov. x. 5. A 
 481.—"Oca de BiBrla avaywde- 
 
 ee 
 
116 Article Sixth. 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen gives us the following list of 
 canonical books : 
 
 «First Genesis, then Exodus and Leviticus, then 
 Numbers, then Deuteronomy, then Joshua and 
 Judges; Ruth is the eighth, the ninth and tenth 
 books are the Acts of the kings and Chronicles ; 
 in the last place you have Esdras; the poetical 
 books are five, of which the first is Job, then 
 David, then three of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Canti- 
 cles, and Proverbs; and there are five books like- 
 wise of the prophetical spirit ; these twelve are in 
 one book, Hosea, and Amos, and Micah, the third, 
 then Joel, then Jonas, Abdiah, and Nahum, and 
 Habakkuk and Sophoniah, Haggai, then Zechariah, 
 Malachi; these are one book: the second, Isaiah, 
 then he that was called Jeremiah from infancy, 
 then Ezekiel, and Daniel!’.” 
 
 Epiphanius also gives a catalogue of the canon- 
 ical books of the Old Testament, which entirely 
 agrees with ours : 
 
 “Thus then the Books are contained in four 
 pentateuchs, and other two remain behind ; so that 
 the canonical books are thus, five legislative, 
 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deutero- 
 nomy, this is the Pentateuch, and the giving of the 
 law. And five poetical books, the book of Job, 
 then the Psalter, the Proverbs of Solomon, Eccle- 
 siastes, the Song of Songs; then another Pen- 
 tateuch which is called the Writings, but by some 
 called the Holy Writings, which are as follows, 
 the book of Joshua the son of Nun, of Judges with 
 
 1 Gree. Naz. v. de hoc. 8. Balsam, p. 1081—3. 
 
Article Sixth. 117 
 
 Ruth, the first of Chronicles with the second, the 
 first of Kings with the second, the third-of Kings 
 with the fourth ; another Pentateuch is, the twelve 
 Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and 
 this is the Prophetical Pentateuch: but there re- 
 main two other; which are, one of Ezra, which is 
 also reckoned, and another book called Esther, 
 and so the twenty-two books are completed ™.” 
 
 To these I must add the testimony of Athanasius, 
 who gives the same catalogue ; and says also what 
 will be important to our qualified reception of the 
 Apocryphal books. 
 
 «Since some persons have attempted to set in 
 order the books that are called Apocryphal, and to 
 mix them with the divinely inspired Scriptures, of 
 which we have been fully certified, as those who 
 saw them, from the beginning, and who being 
 ministers of the word, handed them down from 
 our fathers, it seemed fitting to me, being exhorted 
 thereto by the orthodox brethren, and having 
 learnt the truth, to set out in order the canonical 
 Scriptures, and which have been handed down, 
 and are believed to be from God; that every one 
 who has been deceived, may convict those who 
 have led him astray.”—He then gives the canonical 
 list, and adds, “ It is true that besides these there 
 are other books which are not put into the Canon, 
 but yet are appointed by the Fathers to be read 
 by those who first come to be instructed in the 
 
 ™ EprpHan. de Ponderibus  oty ctyxewrtas ai BiBAu, af revra-~ 
 et Mensuris, c. 4. p. 162. tom. — revyais TETAOTL, Ka) EVOUTLY HAAG 
 ii. ed. Colon. 1622. Ottas y bv borepatious. K, T. rs 
 
118 Article Sixth. 
 way of piety".” He then reckons up most of the 
 Apocryphal books. 
 
 The Presbyterians and Puritans object to our, 
 in any way, receiving the Apocryphal books. I do 
 not think it necessary, by collecting extracts from 
 each of them, to shew that the books contained in 
 our catalogue, were all read by the early Chris- 
 tians ; a few general extracts will suffice. 
 
 Epiphanius, speaking of the Apocryphal books, 
 says, “‘ These also are useful and profitable, but 
 are not brought into the number of canonical 
 books °.” 
 
 The passage in Jerome to which the Article 
 refers, seems to be the following, in which he is 
 speaking of the Book of Wisdom, and Jesus the 
 son of Sirach, “ As therefore the Church reads the 
 books of Judith, and Tobit, and of the Maccabees, 
 but doth not receive them into the number of the 
 canonical books ; so these two volumes it reads for 
 the edification of the people, but not to confirm 
 the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines ”.” 
 
 Ruffinus also, having given the catalogue of the 
 
 162. Kal airas ypjowmos rev 
 clot, Kal @perinar GAN ele cepiOnoy 
 
 n AtHANAS. in Ep. Festal. 
 
 , pe ay , > ny 
 ETELON TED TLVEC ETEXELONOAY AVATAS- 
 
 ‘ Ea , 5g 
 aoQat éavrotc Ta NeyOpmeva aTroKpupa, 
 kai éxysi~ar ravta Ty Osorveborp 
 x yar pia Cones 
 yoady E00Ee Kapot EENnc éxOic- 
 Oar ra xavorvi~opeva——éori Kai 
 érepa y3\ia TovTrwy tEwev ov 
 Kavoviopeva piv, TeTUTWpeva O& 
 Tapa TOY TaTépwy avaywooKecOar 
 Tog dpTt TeoTEpYoMEVOLC Kai Bovdo- 
 plévowc KarnxEio0a Tov Tic EvaEBEiac 
 Noyor. 
 
 
 
 
 
 © EprepHan. de Ponderibus 
 
 et Mensuris, c. 4. tom ii. p. 
 
 pyt@v odK ayvacépoyrat, 
 
 P Hieron. Prolog. in Libros 
 Salomonis. Sicut ergo Judith, et 
 Tobiz, et Maccabzorum libros 
 legit quidem ecclesia, sed eos 
 inter canonicas Scripturas non 
 recipit ; sic et hac duo volu- 
 mina legat ad edificationem 
 plebis, non ad auctoritatem ec- 
 clesiasticorum dogmatum con- 
 firmandam. 
 
Article Sixth. 119 
 
 canonical books of the Old and New Testament, 
 precisely in accordance with this Article, proceeds. 
 
 “ These are they which the Fathers concluded 
 within the Canon, out of which they would have 
 the assertions of our faith to consist. But we must 
 know that there are also other books, which are 
 not called canonical, but ecclesiastical, by the 
 ancients; such as the Wisdom of Solomon, and 
 another Wisdom which is called of the Son of 
 Sirach, which book among the Latins, is called by 
 this general name ‘ Ecclesiasticus, by which word, 
 not the author of the books, but the quality of the 
 writing is surnamed. Of the same order is the 
 book of Tobit and Judith, and the books of the 
 Maccabees. But in the New Testament a little 
 book called the Pastor or Hermas, which is named 
 ‘The Two ways, or The Judgment according to 
 Peter,’ all which they would have read indeed in 
 the churches, but not produced to confirm the au- 
 thority of our faith out of them %.” 
 
 The framers of our Articles in saying that our 
 Church receives “ All the Books of the New Testa- 
 ment, as they are commonly received,” without 
 giving any enumeration of them, seem to have 
 adopted that course which has been before re- 
 marked as the only obvious one in drawing up a 
 rule of faith; it is unnecessary to give a list of 
 books which none but infidels question, and with 
 them we have nothing to do here. Following the 
 
 4 Rurrin. i Expos. Symb.  erunt, non tamen proferri ad 
 ad calcem Sti. Cypriani, p.26. auctoritatem ex his fidei confir- 
 ed. Oxon. 1682.—que omnia mandam. 
 legi quidem in ecclesiis volu- 
 
120 Article Seventh. 
 
 same plan, I do not see the necessity of swelling 
 the present work by the insertion of a number of 
 extracts, which, to prove that all the books, we 
 now receive as canonical, were received by the 
 primitive Church, must be very extensive. The 
 reader who wishes to see the matter proved beyond 
 a doubt must be referred to Dr. Lardner’s “ Credi- 
 bility of the Gospel History.” Bishop Burnet, in 
 his Exposition of this Article gives a brief historical 
 account of the early reception of the several books 
 of the New Testament, and of the formation of the 
 Canon, as does also Mr. Horne in the first volume 
 of his Introduction. 
 
 ARTICLE VIL. 
 
 Of the Old Testament. 
 
 “Tue Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for 
 ‘both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is 
 ** offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator 
 ““between God and man, being both God and man: 
 ‘‘ wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the 
 ** Old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. 
 
 ** Although the law given from God by Moses, as touch- 
 ‘* ing ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor 
 “the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be re- 
 ‘ceived in any commonwealth, yet notwithstanding no 
 ** Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of 
 ** the commandments which are called Moral.” 
 
Article Seventh. 121 
 
 The authority of the books of the Old Testa- 
 ment having been established in the preceding Ar- 
 ticle, the question then arises, are they binding on 
 Christians, and to what extent ? 
 
 The followers of Marcion in the second century, 
 the Manichezans in the third, and the Catharists, 
 who in many respects imitated the Manichzans, 
 in the twelfth, altogether rejected the Old Testa- 
 ment as being contrary to the New. To this point 
 therefore the first class of extracts is directed. 
 
 “Ve love the Prophets, because they also 
 preached the Gospel, and hoped in him (Christ) 
 and waited for him *.” 
 
 “Moreover, concerning the righteousness of 
 which the law speaks, the writings of the Prophets 
 and Evangelists are found to agree together, because 
 all being filled with the Spirit, spoke by one and 
 the same Spirit of God ».” 
 
 “ Let them not therefore ascribe the unbelief of 
 some persons to the Law; for the Law did not for- 
 bid them to believe in the Son of God, but exhorted 
 them, saying, that men could not any other ways 
 be healed from the old wound of the serpent, unless 
 they believed in him, who, according to the likeness 
 of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the 
 tree of martyrdom, and who draws all things to 
 himself, and quickens the dead °.” 
 
 @Tenat. ad Philad. c. 4. 
 Kai rove mpopnrac O& dyar Oper, Od 
 7) Kal avrove sic 7d evayyédoy Ka- 
 THYYEAKEVaL, Kal Eig avTOY éEhrriZey, 
 Kai abroy avapéver. 
 
 > TueEoruHiL. ad Autolyc. 1. 
 ii. c. 12. “En: feny Kab mept O- 
 
 Kaloobyne ico vop0c EipnKEV, aKdoUVOa 
 eUploKETal Kai TA TOY TPOPHTOY, Kai 
 TOY EvayyeNwy ExELY. 
 
 © TrenazI |. iv. c. ii. s. 7. 
 Non ergo quorundam infideli- 
 tatem Legi adscribant; non 
 enim Lex prohibebat eos cre- 
 
 
 
122 Article Seventh. 
 
 Tertullian says, “‘ The separation of the Law and 
 the Gospel is the peculiar and principal work of 
 Marcion*.” Marcion maintained that the God of 
 the Old Testament was not the God of the New, 
 and consequently he rejected the Law and the Pro- 
 phets. Tertullian in another part of the same 
 work says, “‘ We so far admit that separation, by 
 reformation, by enlargement, by procession ; as the 
 fruit is separated from the seed, when it becomes 
 fruit from the seed ; so also the Gospel is separated 
 from the Law, in so far as it is produced out of the 
 Law. It is another than it, but it does not come 
 from another ; it is different, but not contrary’. 
 
 “‘ But all the Scripture is divided into two Testa- 
 ments. That which preceded the coming and pas- 
 sion of our Lord, that is to say, the Law and the 
 Prophets, is called the Old. But those things 
 which were written after his resurrection are called 
 the New Testament. The Jews are the Old, we 
 the New: but yet they are not diverse, because the 
 New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both the 
 same Christ is testator "” 
 
 «For our faith ariseth from the two Testaments; 
 nor doeth he wrong that saith, there is the like 
 
 dere in Filium Dei, sed et ad~ 
 hortabatur, dicens ; non aliter 
 salvari homines ab antiqua ser- 
 pentis plaga nisi credant in 
 eum, ete. 
 
 4 Terruuy. adv. Marcion. 
 li. c. 19. Separatio Legis et 
 Evangelii, proprium et princi- 
 pale opus est Marcionis. 
 
 e Idem, ibid. 1. iv. c. 11. 
 
 —Aliud ab illo, sed non alie- 
 num ; diversum, sed non con- 
 trarium. 
 
 f Lacrant. |. iv. de Verd 
 Sap. c. 20. —Sed tamen di- 
 versa non sunt, quia Nova Ve- 
 teris adimpletio est, et in u- 
 troque idem testator est Chris- 
 tus. 
 
Article Seventh. 123 
 
 measure of perfect faith in both, when the Lord 
 himself saith, ‘If you believed Moses you would 
 believe me also,’ who was the Lord that spoke also 
 in Moses*.” And again, “ But there is one God in 
 whom the doctrine of the New and of the Old Tes- 
 tament agreeth ".” 
 
 The Anomeeans, against whose tenets Chrysos- 
 tom published several homilies, first obtained that 
 name in the fourth century; they seem not to have 
 differed from the pure Arians, they held the Son to 
 be of a different nature from the Father, thence 
 called ’Avyois. In this homily Chrysostom shews 
 that the New Testament agrees with the Old; 
 
 “Whence,” he says, “ shall I begin my discourse ? 
 from whencesoever you please, either from the New 
 Testament or the Old; for not only in the Gospels 
 and the writings of the Apostles, but also in the 
 Prophetic books, and throughout all the Old Tes- 
 tament, we may see the glory of the only-begotton 
 Son of God shining forth abundantly.” He then 
 adduces and enlarges on several passages from both 
 Testaments, and adds, “ Do you see how the New 
 
 Testament agrees with the Old ‘.” 
 
 & Ampros. in Luc. c. 15. 1. 
 vii. Duobus enim testamentis 
 fides nostra consurgit ; nec in- 
 juriam facit, qui parem dixerit 
 in utroque perfect fidei men- 
 suram, cum dicat ipse Dominus, 
 Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis 
 et mihi, qui et in Moyse Domi- 
 nus est locutus. 
 
 h Tdem, in Luc. c. 20.1. x. 
 s. 4. Sed unus Deus in quo et 
 Novi et Veteris Testamenti 
 doctrina concordat. 
 
 i Curysost. Hom. c. Ano- 
 mos. Vi. Tobey oty quiy dpxréoy 
 Tou Ndyou; bev ay BotdnoOe: Eire 
 a0 Kawie, cite ATO Tadatac: ob yap 
 On povoy éy roic EvayyeXiowe, Kai 
 Toig “AmroaroNKvic phyacw, adda 
 kai ty Tolg TpOPHTIKOLC, Kai Taoy TY 
 mahad pera TOhAHG Tig TEpLOVGiac 
 Ctadaproveay tor iéiv Tiy Tov po- 
 voyevovg ddkav-—Opdce THo obpupw- 
 Yoo n KAW) TH Tada ; 
 
124 Article Seventh. 
 
 And in a discourse on 2 Cor. iv. 13, he says, “So 
 that there is only difference of names in the two 
 Testaments, not opposition or contrariety ; for the 
 Old is called Old from the New, but its being Old 
 is not from any opposition or contrariety, but from 
 the difference of the name only *.” 
 
 The Article then assigns a reason why the Old 
 Testament is not contrary to the New, viz. because 
 in both, “everlasting life is offered to mankind by 
 Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and 
 man, being both God and man.” 
 
 That everlasting life is offered to mankind by 
 Christ, in both Testaments, and that Christ is the 
 only Mediator between God and man, need not be 
 made the subject of separate proof, as most of the 
 passages given under the first proposition in this 
 Article assert one or other of these things, as will 
 also most of those next given; the assertion that 
 Christ “‘is both God and man” is supported under 
 the second Article. 
 
 The next point to be shewn therefore, is, that 
 the old Fathers did not look only for transitory 
 promises. 
 
 The Anabaptists at the period of the Reforma- 
 tion seem to have held that the promises made by 
 God to the Patriarchs were only transitory promises, 
 and against them therefore this part of the present 
 Article was probably directed’. j 
 
 k Idem, in 2 Cor. iv. 13. toto dé oF payne, obdé tvavTwoewe, 
 Serm. xxv. “Qore diagop&e pivoy GAA Cragopac dvdparoc poync. 
 ioriy dvoparuy ty ratg OrabnKatc, ov 1 See Hey’s Lectures, v. iii. 
 paxn, ove EvavTiwotc. Td yap wa- pp. 46, 47. 
 
 Aatby éx Tov Kawov yiveTar TadaLov 
 
Article Seventh. 125 
 
 Ignatius in-a passage given a few pages back, 
 says, that the Prophets “hoped in Christ and waited 
 for him ;” he continues thus; “ In whom also having 
 believed, they were saved, in the unity of Jesus 
 Christ, being saints deservedly beloved and admired, 
 to whom Jesus Christ bore witness, and who were 
 numbered in the Gospel of our common hope ™.” 
 
 “God promised Abraham corporeal things, but 
 he sought for spiritual things. Where, you will 
 ask, did God promise him corporeal things, and did 
 he desire spiritual things? ‘Get thee out,’ he says, - 
 ‘of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from 
 thy father’s house unto a land that I will shew 
 thee". Both the former land, and the latter land 
 that was to be given him, were corporeal. What 
 then did he? or rather let us not hear him, but at- 
 tend to Paul who speaks of him; that we may 
 learn, that he looked not to this land, although God 
 had promised him this, but that he let go the pre- 
 sent, and eagerly longed for the future. What 
 then does Paul say? ‘These all died in faith’, 
 speaking of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and 
 all the righteous. For not only Abraham, but all 
 of them were partakers of this same doctrine. 
 ‘ These all died in faith, not having received the 
 promises, but having seen them afar off’ ”.” 
 
 “ But the Old Testament, to them that rightly 
 
 m I@nat. ad Philad, c. 4. 0 Gen. xii. I. 
 "Ey @ wai mioretoarrec toWOnoav ev ° Heb. xi. 13. 
 evorntt Inoov Xpiorov, ovrec akvaya- P Curysost. 7n Gen. Serm. 
 myroi Kat a&oOaipacro dy, i7d jx, ————4p9e yap APoacy prdvoc, 
 ‘Ingov Xpiorov pewaprupypévor, Kai Ya TAVTEC THC AUTHC joay pu\oc0- 
 ovynolOunpévor ty TH evayyelyp TiC piac Kowwrvol. 
 Kowie tiridoc. 
 
 
 
126 Article Seventh. 
 
 understand it, is a prophecy of the New Testament. 
 And therefore in that first people, the holy Patri- 
 archs and Prophets, who understood what they did, 
 or what was done by them, had that hope of eternal 
 salvation in the New Testament. For to that be- 
 longed what they understood and loved ; which al- 
 though it was not yet revealed, was however then 
 typified. But they belonged to the Old Testament, 
 who desired no more than the temporal promises 
 _ there thought of, in which they did not understand 
 the eternal promises typified and foretold %.” 
 
 Augustine has a chapter in the tenth book of his 
 work De Civitate Dei of which the title is as follows, 
 “That all the saints, both during the time of the 
 Law, and of preceding ages, were justified by the 
 doctrine and faith in Christ *.” 
 
 This Article next asserts that the Jewish rites 
 and ceremonies are not binding on Christians, and 
 that their civil polity is not of necessity to be re- 
 ceived. The framers of the Articles, however, by 
 using the word “ although,” seem to have thought 
 the matter not deserving of a direct denial; and 
 though it seems scarcely requisite to adduce many 
 authorities shewing the practice of the primitive 
 Christians, yet it must be here noticed, that in ad- 
 
 a Avueust. c. Faust. lib. xv. ¥ Idem, de Civitate Dei, 1. 
 c. 2. —Itaque et in illoprimo x. c. 25, Ommnes sanctos et 
 populo sancti patriarche et pro- sub Legis tempore, et sub pri- 
 phete qui intelligebant quid oribus seculis, in sacramento et 
 agebant, vel quod per eos age- fide Christi justificatos fuisse. 
 batur, in Novo Testamento ha- 
 bebant istam spem salutis eter- 
 ne. 
 
Article Seventh. 127 
 
 dition to the early Jewish converts, many of whom 
 were desirous of upholding their former customs 
 and laws, there were at the time of the Reforma- 
 tion many judaizing Christians, who in different 
 degrees and various particulars wished to restore 
 the observance of the Jewish laws. 
 
 Little need be added to the authority of Justin 
 Martyr; the passages to be found in his Dialogue 
 with Trypho, in which the abrogation of the cere- 
 monial law is insisted on, are so numerous, that 
 the work can be scarcely dipped into without one’s 
 falling on some of them; indeed it is the chief 
 topic of discussion from the tenth to the twenty- 
 fourth section. It must be observed, at the same 
 time, that though Justin speaks generally of the 
 law, he evidently directs his arguments against the 
 observance of the ceremonial law only, for the neg- 
 lect of that is amongst the chief of his opponent’s 
 objections to the Christian dispensation. It will be 
 sufficient to extract one or two passages. 
 
 « But now, O Trypho, I have read that there 
 was to be a last law, and a testament the most 
 binding of all, which now it behoves all men to 
 observe, as many as desire to attain unto the in- 
 heritance of God. For that which was delivered 
 in Horeb, is now an old law, and belongs to you 
 only; but this belongs to all mankind; but a law 
 made after a former law, operates as a repeal of 
 the former law; just as a subsequent testament 
 puts an end toa former one. But we have an eter- 
 nal law, and a law which is last of all, which Christ 
 
128 Article Seventh. 
 
 gave, and a faithful testament, after which there is 
 no law, nor precept, nor commandment *.” 
 
 And again in a subsequent place; “ The Gen- 
 tiles who believe in Christ, and have repented of 
 their sins, will have their inheritance with the pa- 
 triarchs and prophets, and whatever just men have 
 sprung from Jacob, although they do not observe 
 the sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor keep the ap- 
 pointed feasts *.” 
 
 Tertullian, speaking of St. Paul says; “ If he 
 pointed out that some false brethren had crept in, 
 who wished to bring over the Galatians to another 
 Gospel*, he shews that that adultery of the Gospel 
 had not for its object the transferring their faith to 
 another God and Christ, but to uphold the disci- 
 pline of the law; pointing out those, for instance, 
 who advocated the circumcision, and observed the 
 times, and days, and months, and years of the Jew- 
 ish ceremonies, which now they ought to acknow- 
 ledge to be abolished, according to the new ap- 
 pointment of the Creator, who had long since fore- 
 told by his prophets this very thing, as by Isaiah, 
 etc.*.” He then quotes Isaiah xlui. 19; Jeremiah 
 xxxi. 32; and iv. 4; Hosea ii. 11; and Isaiah i. 14. 
 
 s Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 s. 11.—O yap & Xaon8, zarasis 
 Hon youes, Kai Susy wsyey.— 
 
 © Idem ibid. s. 26.—< xai uy 
 cabBariteues, unde sepiteuvevras, 
 pnbe Tas Esotas Gukdocoves. 
 
 = Gal. ii. 4. 
 
 * TertTuLu. adv. Marcion. 
 lib. i. c. 20.—deprehendens sci- 
 
 licet illos, cireumcisionem vin- 
 dicantes, et observantes tem- 
 pora, et dies, et menses, et an- 
 nos Judaicarum ce#remoniarum, 
 quas jam exclusas agnovisse de- 
 buerant, secundum innovatam 
 dispositionem Creatoris, olim de 
 hoc ipso predicantis, ete. 
 
Article Seventh. 129 
 
 Origen, arguing for the truth of Christianity 
 from the low estate in which our Saviour appeared 
 upon earth, and the wonderfully rapid propagation 
 of his religion, says, 
 
 “ But if any would make more particular en- 
 quiries concerning such an one, how could he do 
 otherwise than ask, in what way one brought up 
 in meanness and poverty, and who had received 
 no liberal education, nor been instructed in modes 
 of reasoning, or philosophy, whereby he might 
 have better hopes of attracting the multitude, and 
 gaining over the people, and winning over to him- 
 self a greater number of hearers, how could he do 
 otherwise, I say, than enquire how such an one at- 
 tempted to teach new doctrines; publishing to 
 mankind a system, that both puts an end to the 
 rites of the Jews, at the same time that it exalts 
 their prophets, and, above all, upsets the laws of 
 the Greeks, respecting the worship of the Deity’?” 
 
 In the last place, « No Christian man whatsoever 
 is free from the obedience of the commandments 
 which are called Moral.” 
 
 The Antinomians might have been mentioned 
 before, as setting aside the whole of the Jewish 
 law; and bishop Burnet was of opinion that the 
 whole of this Article relates to them; but it is diffi- 
 cult to see how that part which repudiates the 
 ceremonial law can have reference to those who 
 rejected the whole. Some enthusiasts also, who 
 
 ¥Y OriGEN c. Cels. 1. i. c.29. ovra, pera rod cepvorotiy abriv 
 —irecdywr Typ yéver TOV dvOpwTWY  TOde TpOPHrac. 
 Adyov, ra TE 'Lovdaiwy (On Karadv- 
 
130 Article Seventh. 
 
 called themselves Anabaptists, at the time of the 
 Reformation, set aside not only the Jewish law, 
 but all law whatsoever; this sect proceeded to 
 great excesses in Germany, particularly at Munster 
 in Westphalia. The nineteenth of king Edward 
 the Sixth’s Articles had this additional clause; 
 “* Wherefore they are not to be heard, which teach 
 that the Holy Scriptures were given to none but 
 to the weak; and brag continually of the Spirit, 
 by which they do pretend that all whatsoever they 
 preach is suggested to them; though manifestly 
 contrary to the Holy Scriptures.” 
 
 That the early Christians considered themselves 
 bound to the observance of the moral precepts of 
 the law of Moses, will be made sufficiently clear 
 from the following extracts ; 
 
 “ We also confess God, but only one God, the 
 founder, and creator, and maker of this universe ; 
 and we know that all things are governed by pro- 
 vidence, but by him only; and we have learnt a 
 holy law; but we have for our lawgiver him who 
 is truly God, who teaches us to act justly, and to 
 be pious, and to do good works’.” He then refers 
 to the ten commandments, to which he adds also 
 some other moral precepts from the Old Testa- 
 ment. Under piety he places the first two com- 
 mandments, under good works the fifth, and under 
 justice the sixth to the tenth. 
 
 “That our Lord did not abrogate the natural 
 
 2 THEOPHIL. ad Autolyc. Tov bvTwe Ody, b¢ SWaoKe Huac 
 L. iii. c. 9.—Kad vopov Eyoy pe-  Steatorpayeiv, kai edoeBety, kai Ka- 
 pajraper* aA vomoberny Exopey  Aorrorety. 
 
Article Seventh. 151 
 duties prescribed by the Law, by which duties a 
 man is justified, and which those men who were 
 justified by faith, and pleased God, observed before 
 the giving of the Law; but that he enlarged them, 
 and supplied what was wanting in them, is shewn 
 by his own words; for he says, ‘ It was said by 
 them of old time, etc.*,’” Matt. v. 21; and then 
 Irenzeus continues : 
 
 “ For all these things do not contain any con- 
 trariety or dissolution of things past, as those that 
 are with Marcion insist; but their fulness and 
 extension, as our Saviour himself saith”, ‘ Unless 
 your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the 
 Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not-enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven *.’” 
 
 And again, having observed that God did not 
 stand in need of man, but that man could not at- 
 tain unto eternal life except by obedience to God, 
 he quotes the words spoken by God through Mo- 
 ses‘, “ Choose life, that both thou and thy seed 
 may live: that thou mayest love the Lord thy God, 
 and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou 
 mayest cleave unto him; for he is thy life and the 
 length of thy days.” ‘ To which life,” continues 
 
 * Irenz!I adv. Heres. 1. iv. 
 c. xili. s. 1. Et quia Dominus 
 naturalia legis, per que homo 
 justificatur, que etiam ante 
 legisdationem custodiebant, qui 
 fide justificabantur, et place- 
 bant Deo, non dissolvit, sed 
 extendit, et implevit ; ex ser- 
 monibus ejus ostenditur. 
 
 > Matth. v. 20. 
 
 © TrenzI adv. Heres. |. iv. 
 c. xili.s. 1. Omnia enim hee 
 non contrarietatem et dissolu- 
 tionem preteritorum continent, 
 sicut qui 4 Marcione sunt vo- 
 ciferantur ; sed plenitudinem et 
 extensionem ; sicut ipse ait ; 
 Nisi abundaverit justitia ves- 
 tra, etc. 
 
 4 Deut. xxx. 19, 20. 
 
 kK 2 
 
132 Article Seventh. 
 
 our author, ‘ God preparing man, himself by him- 
 self spoke the words of the Decalogue to all men 
 alike ; and therefore they in like manner abide 
 with us, receiving enlargement and increase, but 
 not dissolution, by his coming in the flesh. But 
 the commands of servitude he by Moses enjoined 
 his people separately, suited to their instruction ; 
 as also Moses himself said*, ‘And the Lord com- 
 manded me at that time to teach you statutes and 
 judgments.’ These things, therefore, which were 
 given them for servitude, and for a mark of dis- 
 tinction, he has circumscribed by a new testament 
 of freedom. But those things which are natural, 
 and free, and common to all men, he has increased 
 and enlarged, giving abundantly, without sparing, 
 to mankind by adoption, to know God the Father, 
 and to love him with all their heart, and without 
 backwardness to follow his Word, not only abstain- 
 ing from evil works, but even from the desire of 
 them *.” 
 
 “* Liberty in Christ hath done no wrong to in- 
 nocence. The whole law of piety, of holiness, of 
 humanity, of truth, of chastity, of justice, of pity, 
 of benevolence, of modesty, still remains in force. 
 In which Jaw, ‘ blessed is the man that shall medi- 
 tate day and night *.. Concerning which the same 
 David says in another place*, ‘the law of the Lord 
 
 © Deut. iv. 14. tionem accipientia per carnalem 
 f Trenz1 adv. Heres. |. iv. ejus adventum. 
 
 c. xvi. s. 4.—ideo similiter per- 8 Ps, i. 2. 
 
 manent apud nos, extensionem h Ps aa 
 
 et augmentum, sed non dissolu- 
 
Article Seventh. 133 
 
 is perfect, converting the soul; the statutes of the 
 Lord are right, delighting the heart; the com- 
 mandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the 
 eyes. And so the Apostle‘; ‘ Wherefore the law 
 is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and 
 good ;’ for instance, ‘ Thou shalt not commit adul- 
 tery.’ And in a former chapter*, ‘Do we then 
 make void the law through faith? God forbid: 
 yea, we establish the law?’ that is to say, in those 
 things which now being interdicted in the New 
 Testament, are forbidden by a more weighty com- 
 mandment. Instead of ‘Thou shalt not commit 
 adultery,’ ‘ Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust 
 after her, hath committed adultery with her already 
 in his heart!’ and instead of, ‘ Thou shalt not kill,’ 
 ‘Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall 
 be in danger of hell-fire™’ Consider whether the 
 law against adultery is still entire, to which is added 
 a commandment against lusting ”®.” 
 
 “ There are some laws of our nature which were 
 given from the beginning, when God formed man, 
 of which Paul says°, ‘ For when the Gentiles, which 
 have not the law, do by nature the things con- 
 tained in the law, these, having not the law, are a 
 law unto themselves ;’ and again”, ‘ For I delight 
 in the law of God after the inward man.’ There 
 
 i Rom. vii. 12. Libertas in Christo non fecit 
 k Rom. iii. 31. innocentiz injuriam. Manet lex 
 1 Matt. v. 28. tota pietatis, etc.—Quere an 
 
 m Matt. v. 22. Tertullian  subsit lex non mechandi, cui 
 here, as in many other places, _accessit, nee concupiscendi. 
 quotes incorrectly. ° Rom. ii. 14. 
 
 ” TertuLt. de Pudicit. c. 6. » Rom. vii. 22. 
 
154 Article Seventh. 
 
 are also commandments which are written, and all 
 these are still in force; but if some have been re- 
 pealed, it is that they have been changed not for 
 the worse, but for the better: for that one, ‘ Thou 
 shalt do no murder, has not been repealed, but 
 added to; and that other, ‘ Thou shalt not commit 
 adultery, has not been done away with, but en- 
 larged; and therefore he said *, ‘I am not come to 
 destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil*’” 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 Of the Creeds. 
 
 «‘ Tue three creeds, Nice Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and 
 “that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, 
 “‘ ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they 
 ‘*may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scrip- 
 “ture.” 
 
 From the very earliest ages of Christianity, it 
 was the practice of every Church, settled in diffe- 
 rent parts of the world, to prepare the catechumens 
 for baptism, by explaining to them the nature of 
 that faith, which they were about to profess, and 
 
 a Matt. v. 17. KarenvOncay, ovK txi TO yEipoy, GAN” 
 * Curysost. in Ps. cx.— zi ro BeArwy perappvdmcbeicar, 
 *"Evrohai cist kai ai ypamrai, Kai K.-H. 
 avrat Tacat pepevnKacw" sicé TiwEC 
 
Article Eighth. 135 
 
 by requiring from them, or their sponsors, such 
 profession. No one certain form of a creed was 
 prescribed universally to all Churches; “every 
 Church had liberty to frame their own creeds, as 
 they did their own liturgies, without being tied 
 precisely to any one form of words, so long as they 
 kept to the analogy of faith and doctrine at first de- 
 livered by the Apostles *.” 
 
 Of the many forms of ancient creeds that have 
 reached our times, the Church of England retains 
 three, which were most generally used from the 
 fourth century to the time of the Reformation. 
 These the present Article asserts to be agreeable 
 to the Word of God, and it is the business of this 
 work to shew that they are consistent with the 
 faith of the early Fathers. Almost every Article 
 contained in them will be found fully supported by 
 the passages adduced under other Articles, they 
 will not therefore require a detailed proof. 
 
 The most convenient plan seems to be to give a 
 short history of each of these Creeds, and to sub- 
 join some of the earlier formule, which are to be 
 found in the preceding writers. 
 
 First then, as to the Nice or Nicene Creed. 
 
 In the year of our Lord 325 the emperor Con- 
 stantine the Great summoned all the Bishops of 
 the Christian world to meet at Nice, in Bithynia, 
 for the purpose of putting an end to a contention 
 that had arisen respecting the proper time of ob- 
 
 * Bingu. B. x. ¢: 11. s. 6. 
 
136 Article Eighth. 
 
 serving Easter, and also for the suppression of the 
 Arian heresy, which had then lately arisen, was 
 spreading far and wide, and caused the most vio- 
 lent divisions in the Church. 
 
 When the Council had met, to the number of 
 three hundred and eighteen Bishops, they con- 
 sulted, amongst other things, about settling one 
 rule of Christian faith over the whole world ; all, 
 with the exception of some few heretics, agreed in 
 the fundamental points of doctrine, and in the 
 substance of the creed, but, as was to be expected 
 from their coming from so many and so widely 
 distant places, they differed as to the terms in 
 which they were expressed, and in the explanation 
 and number of the Articles. 
 
 Amongst others Pamphilius Eusebius, bishop of 
 Czesarea Palestina, presented the creed of his own 
 Church, which was made the groundwork of the 
 Nicene Creed : it was introduced with the following 
 preamble— 
 
 « The faith expounded by us, and as we have re- 
 ceived from the Bishops that were before us, and in 
 our first catechizing, and when we received baptism, 
 as we have learned from the Holy Scriptures, as 
 we believed and taught in our presbytery and in 
 our episcopacy, so also now believing, we make 
 known our faith unto you; and this is it.—‘ We 
 believe in one God Father Almighty, maker of all 
 things both visible and invisible ; and in one Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, light 
 of light, life of life, the only begotten Son, the first 
 born of every creature, before all worlds begotten 
 
Article Highth. 137 
 
 of God the Father ; by whom also all things were 
 made; who for our salvation was made flesh; and 
 conversed amongst men, and suffered, and rose 
 again the third day; and ascended to the Father, 
 and will come again in glory to judge the quick 
 and the dead: And we believe in one Holy Ghost ; 
 believing every one of these to be and to exist, the 
 Father truly a Father, and the Son truly a Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost truly an Holy Ghost.’ As also our 
 Lord, sending his disciples to preach the Gospel, 
 said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost.’>” 
 
 One of the principal objects of this Council, as 
 has been stated, was to suppress the Arian heresy, 
 which denied the divinity of Christ ; in the Creed, 
 ultimately adopted, this point was put beyond dis- 
 pute, as far as the authority of any human tribunal 
 could prevail. It was as follows : 
 
 > Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. 
 c. 8. ‘H id’ quay exrebcica ric- 
 TIC, Kai KaOwe wapehaBopeY Tapa THY 
 7pd Hay triokoTwy Kal ty Ty KaTH- 
 xno, kal bre Kai 7d ouTpdy éXap- 
 Bavopev, kabwe ard THY Osiwy ypa- 
 gov pepaljcapev, Kai we tv TH 
 mpeoBurepup Kai ty duty Ty érisKoTy 
 Emiorevopey Te Kai edLddoKoper, buTW 
 kai viv muorevovTeg Tiy ypeTEpav 
 TloTw wiv mpocavagépoper" Eore OF 
 airy. Tiorevoper tic tva Ocdy TMa- 
 TE9a TaYTOKpaTopa, TOY ToY amay- 
 TWY OpaTHyY TE Kai doparwy TouThy 
 kai éic Eva Kbpioy “Inoovv Xpioroy, 
 Tov TOU Oso Adyov, Osby ék Oxod, 
 
 pHc ék gwrdc, Cony ex Lwic, Yiov . 
 
 ~ , : , 
 HOVvOyYELyn, TOWTOTOKOY TaonC KTI- 
 
 oewe, TPO TavTwY THY aiwywy tk 
 Tov Ocov Tarpic yeyerynptvorv or 
 ov Kai tyévero Ta TWavTa’ Toy Oia THY 
 npetipay owTnpiay capKkwlivra, Kai 
 ty avOpwroe motreboapevoy, Kai 
 maQovra, Kai avacrayta 7H TpiTy 
 Hpéog, Kai dveMMovra mpd¢ roy Ta- 
 réoa, Kai HEovra wadty éy dey Kpiva 
 Zovrac kat veKpovg TioTEbopEY Kai Eic 
 ty ILvetpa “Aytoy* rovrdy teacrov 
 elvae kai Wrdpxew TLoTEboVTEC, Tla- 
 ripa adnPGc Tartoa, kai Yidv ddnPwc 
 Yiiv, cai Ivedpa “Aywyv adnbic 
 
 “Aywv Tvevpar cabwe Kai Kipuocg 
 
 Hoy, atoore\\wy ic TO KNpvypa 
 Tove éavrou pabnrdc, ele’ Tlopevbev- 
 Tec pabnrevoare TayTa TH EON. K. T- 
 
138 Article Eighth. 
 
 “ We believe in one God, Father Almighty, ma- 
 ker of all things visible and invisible: and in one 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the 
 Father, the only begotten, that is of the substance 
 of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, very 
 God of very God, begotten not made, of one sub- 
 stance with the Father; by whom all things 
 were made, both that are in heaven, and that are 
 on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, 
 came down, and was made flesh, and became man, 
 suffered and rose again the third day, and ascended 
 into heaven, and will come again to judge the quick 
 and dead: and in the Holy Ghost *.” 
 
 To the creed was added an anathema, in the 
 following words; “‘ But those who say there was a 
 time when he was not, and that he was made of 
 nothing, or who say that he was of another sub- 
 stance or essence, or created, or convertible, or 
 changeable, such the catholic and apostolic Church 
 pronounceth accursed *.” 
 
 This creed, with the anathema, was subscribed 
 
 © Socrar. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. 
 c. 8. THeEoporer. lib. ii. c. 
 12. Arnanas. Ep. ad Jovian. 
 de Fide, p. 247. Tierevoney eis 
 éva Ocov, Ilartpa zmayvroKkparopa, 
 mavTwy opaTmy TE Kai doparwy 
 Mowry: cai sic $va Kéiguov Incovy 
 Xoworby, roy Yidy Tov Oeov, yevyn- 
 Gévra tx Tov Tlarpoc, povoyervi, Tov- 
 riot ik Tie ovoiag Tov Ilarpdc* 
 Oxdy ek Oc0v, Pic Ee Pwrdc, Osdy ady- 
 Owvoy ix Oeov adnOvod: yevynbevra 
 
 owrnpiay KaredOoyra, Kai capKwbéy- 
 ta, kai tvavOowrnoayra, wabdvra, 
 kai avactavra 7TH Tpiry NEG, Kai 
 avedOovra sig Tole ovpavodc, Kai 
 tpxpevoy madw Kpiva Zévrae Kai 
 vekpovc, Kai ic TO Ivevpa ro"Ayov. 
 
 4 Idem, ibid. Todc dé Aéyor- 
 Tac, iv more Ore ovK Wy, Kai 
 amply yevynOijvar ovK Hv, Kai Ore &é 
 oux dyvTwy éyévero, 4 tE érépac 
 bTooTacEWwe 7 OvGiag PaoKoVTAaCG 
 elvat, 7) KTTOY, 7) ToETTOY,  AA-= 
 
 ob romlévra’ Opoovo.oy ry Tarpt 
 OU ob ra Tava tyévEro, Ta TE tv TH 
 ovoav@ kal ra tv ry yg’ Toy OU Hpac 
 rove avOpwomoue Kai dud THY TmETEpAY 
 
 Aolwroy, Tov Yioyv rov ov, rovTove 
 ? s « 4 ‘ > 
 avaGenariZer 4 KaOodtKy Kai a7roo- 
 TOALKH EkkAnola. 
 
Article Eighth. 139 
 by all the three hundred and eighteen members of 
 the Council, with the exception of five who were 
 followers of Arius. 
 
 It will be observed that the creed agreed upon 
 at this Council, as given us by the historians from 
 whose writings it is now extracted, ended with the 
 words, “And in the Holy Ghost.” In the same 
 century the Macedonian heresy, which denied the 
 divinity of the Holy Ghost, sprung up: accordingly 
 the emperor Theodosius, for the further confirma- 
 tion of the Nicene Creed, and for other purposes, 
 especially the suppression of this new heresy, called 
 together another general Council, which met at 
 Constantinople A. D. 381. On that occasion the 
 alterations, which will be remarked on a comparison 
 of the first part of that now called the Nicene, 
 and the above creed, were made, and the following 
 was added at the end; “And in the Holy Ghost, 
 the Lord, and giver of life, proceeding from the 
 Father, who with the Father and the Son together 
 is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the 
 Prophets: and in one catholic and _ apostolic 
 Church: we acknowledge one baptism for the re- 
 mission of sins; we look for the resurrection of 
 the dead, and the life of the world to come °.” 
 
 It may perhaps seem extraordinary that the 
 Council at Nice having taken the creed of the 
 
 © Ex Concil. Gen. ed. 
 
 ij Geer, 6 \ Ls 
 iavy ayiavy Ka OAK HY Kat atoo~ 
 
 Binul.—Ka} ¢ig 1d veda 1d 
 “Arysov, To Kipiov, 72 Cwomaity ro ex 
 rod § larpig exmopevorevoy, 0 
 avy Warpt Kal ‘Yip cupmpoc- 
 Kuvotpevoy Kak ovvdobatdnevoy, To 
 harnoay Sia toy mpogntay’ els 
 
 TOMKYY eKKAnTiay® Guorayodjey ev 
 Pamricna ele apecw cuaptiov. 
 TM por OokB ey AYATTATLY VEKODY, Kat 
 Cony tod péAdovtos aidvos’ Et 
 vide EprpHan. in Anchor. tom 
 ii. p. 122. 
 
140 Article Eighth. 
 
 Church at Cesarea, as the groundwork of its 
 Creed, should have omitted or struck out the 
 latter part which relates to the Holy Ghost, 
 merely professing a belief in the Holy Ghost, and 
 so concluding. But that such was the case is not 
 entirely free from doubt’. Athanasius* and Grego- 
 rius® Cesariensis both speak of the Acts of the 
 Nicene Synod, which are now lost; and the former 
 mentions that those Acts assert “‘ That the Son is 
 of the same substance with the Father,” and that 
 “the Holy Ghost is to be glorified together with 
 the Father and the Son.” So that it is not impro- 
 bable that the Nicene Council after the Creed had 
 been confirmed as above, added explanations of it, 
 which most Churches inserted as part of the 
 Creed itself. Whether this conjecture be right or 
 not, it is certain that some years before the Con- 
 stantinopolitan Council met, the latter words rela- 
 ting to the Holy Ghost were used in several 
 Churches as part of the Nicene Creed. Thus 
 Cyril‘ of Jerusalem in his exposition of the creed, 
 above twenty years before the meeting of the latter 
 Council, concludes the Creed in almost the same 
 words that this Council afterwards did: and Epi- 
 phanius, who wrote his ‘‘ Anchorate” six or seven 
 years before this Council, has set down in his creed 
 the same explanations and additions with which 
 
 f See Hey on this Art. s. 5. 
 
 & Aruanas. Ep. ad Fratres 
 Orthodozxos. 
 
 h Gree. Cesar. de 318 
 Patr. Nicen. Orat. apud ME- 
 rapuHrRastT, Jul. 10. 
 
 i Cyriz. Hreros. Catech. 
 = 7 
 Xvilll. Eis & Baxticpo peta- 
 ’ > » c ~ ‘ > 
 volas €is aeciy AuagriBy, Kab Eis 
 . ae: \ 
 play Kaborixny exkAnciay, Kal eis 
 A ‘ x 
 cacKkes avactaciy, Kai eig Cony 
 BsDYsO7. 
 
Article Eighth. 14] 
 
 the Constantinopolitan Council afterwards promul- 
 gated it; and he adds, “It is the faith delivered 
 by the Holy Apostles, and in the Church in the 
 Holy City by all the holy Bishops together to the 
 number of three hundered and ten and upwards *.” 
 
 This Creed thus confirmed was generally adopted 
 in the Western as well as in the Eastern Churches, 
 and inserted in their liturgies; but afterwards there 
 arose a division as to one Article, which caused a 
 vast schism in the Eastern and Western Churches. 
 The latter generally held that the Holy Ghost 
 proceeds from the Father and the Son, and inserted 
 words in the Creed to that effect; the Eastern 
 Church held that the Holy Ghost proceeds from 
 the Father only, and would not consent to the in- 
 sertion. This difference of faith or opinion is now 
 nearly extinguished, or at all events is no longer 
 the subject of controversy. Our Church, as will 
 be seen in the Creed used in the Communion 
 service, as well as in the Second of her Articles, 
 holds that the Holy Ghost proceeds “from the 
 Father and the Son.” 
 
 So much space has been occupied in speaking of 
 the Nicene Creed, that little can be said of the two 
 others. Nor is it important to dwell at any length 
 upon them, for they contain no doctrines which 
 are not expressed in or deducible from the Nicene 
 Creed, or which are not supported in other parts of 
 this work. The Nicene Creed moreover is more 
 
 k Eprpuan, Anchorat. Airy TH dyin wohe amd mdvroy 6uod 
 ‘ € s G ~ ~ - 
 Key 4 miotig mapebsOn amd ty tev dylwy emiokimwy imep TpiaKo= 
 « fs / ’ 
 aylay amorrokwy Kal év exxAgnoie civ déxa Tov apiOpor. 
 
142 Article Eighth. 
 
 particularly deserving of lengthened notice, as it 
 represents the faith of the whole Christian world, 
 solemnly promulgated at the first two general 
 Councils. 
 
 The Athanasian Creed, as is well known, takes 
 its name from Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, a 
 distinguished opponent of the Arian heresy, at the 
 time of the Nicene Council. Some persons have 
 supposed him to have been its framer, but on that 
 point it is unnecessary to say any thing in this 
 work, as our Article does not assert it to be his, 
 but refers to it, as known by that name’. 
 
 Dr. Waterland, whose work on this subject is 
 the generally received authority, supposes it to have 
 been composed about the year 430. But it was 
 not called the Creed of Athanasius until near the 
 end of the seventh century. ~ . 
 
 The creed commonly called the Apostles’ Creed 
 was, with the exception of one or two Articles, 
 (which must have been added afterwards,) very 
 early received into the Christian Church. But 
 though many of the Fathers speak of a Creed 
 compiled by the Apostles, no one prior to Ruffinus™ 
 speaks of this particular Creed as of their compo- 
 sition. 
 
 It will suffice" in this place to remark, that it 
 
 1JIn the Rubric in our 2 The reader who wishes to 
 
 Common Prayer Book it is 
 called, “‘ The Creed commonly 
 called the Creed of St. Atha- 
 nasius.” 
 
 ™ Rorrin. Expos. Symb. 
 ad calcem Sti. Cypriani. p. 17. 
 
 see more on this subject is re- 
 ferred to BineHam’s Anti- 
 quities, B. x. c. iii.; BisHop 
 Usuer de Symb. Romano; and 
 Pearson on the Creed. 
 
Article Eighth. 143 
 
 ones only one Article, (the Communion of 
 Saints,) which is not also to be found in the 
 Nicene Creed; and that Creed having been shewn 
 to express the faith of the primitive Church, it 
 follows that our Church, in making use of this 
 Creed, professes the same doctrine as the primitive 
 Churches. 
 
 It remains to add or refer to some of the earlier 
 Creeds used in the different Churches. Three 
 have been given in this or other preceding Articles; 
 that which Irenzus has left us, and which will be 
 found’ at length under the first Article, is the 
 earliest that has come down to us. One also from 
 Tertullian has been already inserted”. And the 
 creed produced by Eusebius at the Council of 
 Nice, as used in the Church of Cesarea, is given 
 under this Article 4. 
 
 To these may be added, the creed contained in 
 the Apostolical Constitutions, which Cotelerius 
 supposes to have been compiled towards the end 
 of the third century". 
 
 “ I believe, and am baptized in one unbegotten, 
 the only true God Almighty, the Father of Christ, 
 the Creator and Maker of all things, of whom are 
 all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only 
 begotten Son, the first-born of every creature, who 
 before all ages was begotten, not made, by the 
 good will of the Father, by whom all things were 
 made in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible ; 
 
 ° Ante, p. 21. in the Appendix to PEARSON on 
 P Ante, p. 80. the Creed, many more of the 
 4 Ante, p. 136. early creeds are given at length. 
 
 ¥ In Bine . B. x. c. iv. And 
 
144 Article Eighth. 
 
 2 
 
 who in the last times came down from heaven, and 
 taking flesh upon him, was born of the holy Virgin 
 Mary, and lived a holy life according to the laws 
 of God his Father, and was crucified under Pontius 
 Pilate, and died for us, and the third day, after he 
 had suffered, rose again from the dead, and as- 
 cended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand 
 of the Father, and shall come again with glory in 
 the end of the world to judge both the quick and 
 the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. 
 And I am baptized into the Holy Ghost, that is to 
 say, the Comforter, which wrought effectually in 
 all the saints from the beginning of the world, and 
 was afterward sent to the Apostles by the Father, 
 according to the promise of our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ ; and after the Apostles to all others, 
 who in the Holy Catholic Church believe the re- 
 surrection of the flesh, the remission of sins, the 
 kingdom of heaven, and the life of the world to 
 
 3s” 
 
 come’. 
 
 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 
 “‘ engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is 
 
 § Constit. Apostol.\.vii.c.41. -yévvnrov, povov adnOwoy Sco, 
 Tliorevw cai Baxrifoua tic Eva a- ke TeX. 
 
Article Ninth. 145 
 
 ** very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his 
 ‘© own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth 
 ‘* always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every 
 ** person born into this world it deserveth God’s wrath 
 ** and damnation. And this infection of nature doth re- 
 ** main, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the 
 * lust of the flesh, called in Greek ®povqpne capxis, which 
 ‘some do expound the wisdom, some the sensuality, 
 ‘* some the affection, and 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 bap- 
 ** tized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence 
 ** and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.” 
 
 The doctrine of Original Sin became the subject 
 of controversy at the end of the fourth, or begin- 
 ning of the fifth century. Pelagius then openly 
 professed, that Adam would have died, though he 
 had never offended, that his sin was merely personal, 
 that his posterity derive no corruption from his 
 fall, but that they are born in the same state in 
 which he was created. 
 
 Against this heresy the first part of this Article 
 is directed. 
 
 In the latter part there is some difference be- 
 tween our Church and the Romanists: they say 
 that original sin is taken away by baptism; we say 
 that “ the infection” remains after baptism. 
 
 All those who are opposed to Infant Baptism 
 must necessarily deny the doctrine of Original Sin. 
 
 The Article may be divided into the following 
 propositions.—There is Original Sin.—It does not 
 consist in the following or imitating of Adam.—It 
 consists in the corruption of our nature.—This 
 
 L 
 
146 Article Ninth. 
 
 corruption we derive from our first parents.—We 
 are liable to God’s wrath for it.—And it remains 
 even in regenerate Christians. 
 
 It does not seem necessary to support each pro- 
 position separately; but the whole may be taken 
 together, and the reader will easily discover which 
 passages are applicable to the several points. 
 
 In the following passages Clemens Romanus 
 speaks of that pollution which all that are born 
 into this world are tainted with : 
 
 “ Moreover of Job it is thus written; ‘Job was 
 just and blameless, true, one that feared God, and 
 abstained from all evil.’ But he condemns himself, 
 and says, ‘ There is none free from pollution,’ no, 
 though his life be but of the length of one day*.” 
 
 In the Septuagint translation used in the time 
 of Clement the words of Job were thus translated ; 
 our version is, “ Who can bring a clean thing out 
 of an unclean? not one?.” 
 
 Again, “ Let us consider, therefore, brethren, 
 whereof we were made; who and what kind of per- 
 sons we entered into this world ; as it were, out of 
 a sepulchre, and out of darkness. He that made 
 and formed us, brought us into his own world, 
 having prepared for us his benefits before we were 
 
 c 
 
 born *. 
 
 2 Ciem. Rom. Ep. 1*. ad > Job xiv. 4. 
 
 Corinth. c.17. "Er: 8€ Kat rept © Cirm. ibid. c. 38. ’Avado- 
 
 IOB otrw yéyparrat, Iw rv dikawe yowpeba ody, adeddoi, te rroiac UAnS 
 
 kai dpeprroc, adn Oude, OeoceBrjc, éyevynOnuev, Toto Kai Tivec ciondOo- 
 - arrexopevoc ard TavtTicKakov.’ANN’ HEV sig Tov Kdopoy, we te Tow Tagov 
 
 abric éavrod karnyopoy Neyer OU- Kal OKOTOUG.— 
 
 sic kaBapdc ard pitrou, ovde Et pucic 
 
 Huspag H Cw abrov. 
 
Article Ninth. 147 
 
 Justin Martyr speaks of original sin as different 
 from the actual sins of each individual; “ And we 
 know that he did not go to the river Jordan, as 
 having himself any need of being baptized, or of 
 the Spirit’s coming upon him in the form of a dove; 
 as neither did he submit to be born and to be cru- 
 cified, as having any need of these things, but for 
 the sake of the human race, which by Adam had 
 fallen under death and the guile of the serpent, 
 besides the particular cause which each man had 
 for the sins he had committed °.” 
 
 I have ventured to depart from Wall’s transla- 
 tion in the last few words; he has rendered it, 
 “ besides the particular cause which each man had 
 of sinning.” The passage seems to me to express 
 very strongly the doctrine of our second Article, 
 that Christ came “to be a sacrifice, not only for 
 original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.” 
 
 “ As in the beginning all of us were by our first 
 parents brought into bondage through the obliga- 
 tion we were under to suffer death; so at length, 
 by the latter Adam, all who from the beginning 
 have been his disciples, being cleansed and washed 
 from such things as are of a deadly nature, are 
 permitted to enter into the life of God°.” 
 
 “« As we offended God in the first Adam, by not 
 obeying his commandment ; so we are reconciled 
 
 4 Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. © Irenx1 adv. Hares. |. iv. 
 €. 88.— arn ime rot yévorg rod cc. xxii. 8s. 1. Uti quemadmo- 
 tov dOpirwv,d dro rob “Addu ixd dum in initio per primos, omnes 
 Sdvaroy kai mravyy riy Tov 6pewo in servitutem redacti sumus 
 emenri@Ke, Tapa Ty idiav airiay debito mortis; sic in ultimo, 
 EKQOTOV aUTOY TovnpEevoapevov. ete. 
 
 2 
 
148 Article Ninth. 
 
 in the second Adam, being made obedient even 
 unto death. For we were debtors to none but him, 
 whose commandment we had transgressed from 
 the beginning ‘.” 
 
 “* Man is condemned to death for having tasted 
 of one little tree, and thence proceed sins with 
 their punishments; and now all perish, who have 
 not known a single turf of Paradise .” 
 
 “Satan you speak of with all hatred, and de- 
 spite, and detestation, who, we say, is the angel of 
 wickedness, the worker of all error, the spoiler of 
 the whole world, by whom man at the beginning, 
 being beguiled to transgress the commandment of 
 God, was therefore given up to death; thence the 
 whole race, sprung from the same seed, being 
 tainted, derived also their own condemnation *.” 
 
 “So there is almost no being born clean, that 
 is to say, of heathens. For hence the Apostle 
 says', that from either parent sanctified, the child- 
 ren that are born are holy: as well by the pre- 
 rogative of the seed, as by their education: else, 
 he says, were they unclean. Meaning, however, 
 to be understood that the children of the faithful 
 are designed for holiness, and thereby for salva- 
 
 f Idem, ibid. 1. v. c. xvi. s.3. 
 —Deum, quem in primo qui- 
 dem Adam offendimus, non fa- 
 cientes ejus preeceptum ; in se- 
 cundo autem Adam reconciliati 
 sumus, obedientes usque ad 
 mortem facti—. 
 
 & TEeRTULL. adv. Marcion. 
 ]. i. c. 22. Homo damnatur in 
 mortem, ob unius arbuscule de- 
 
 libationem, et exinde proficiunt 
 delicta cum peenis, et pereunt 
 jam omnes, qui paradisi nullum 
 cespitem noverunt. 
 
 h Idem de Testim. Anime, 
 c. 3.—exinde totum genus de 
 suo semine infectum, suz etiam 
 damnationis traducem fecit. 
 
 i] Cor. vii. 14. 
 
Article Ninth. 149 
 
 tion; that by a pledge of such hope he might 
 plead for those marriages which he would have to 
 be continued. Otherwise he remembered our Lord’s 
 determination, ‘ except a man be born of water 
 and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
 of God*;’ that is, he shall not be holy. Thus 
 every soul is so long reckoned in Adam, until it be 
 anew enrolled in Christ; and so long unclean, un- 
 til it be so enrolled; and sinful, because unclean, 
 receiving a taint from the fellowship of the flesh'.” 
 
 «Tt is our own will, when we will evil, contrary 
 to the will of God, who wills that which is good. 
 Moreover if you ask whence that will comes, by 
 which we will any thing against the will of God ; 
 I will tell you—from ourselves; and not without 
 reason, for you must necessarily resemble your 
 origin; since Adam, the author both of our race 
 and of sin, willed that which he sinned ™.” 
 
 “ Kvery one that entereth into this world is 
 said to be affected with a certain contamination ; 
 and therefore the Scripture saith, ‘ There is none 
 clean from filth, though he be but one day old.’ 
 Upon this very account, therefore, because he is 
 placed in his mother’s womb, and because he de- 
 
 K John iii. 5. tat. ec. 2.—Porro si queris, unde 
 
 ! TerTut. de Animé c.39, 
 40.—Ita omnis anima eousque 
 in Adam censetur, donec in 
 Christo recenseatur ; et tamdiu 
 immunda, quamdiu recensea- 
 tur; peccatrix autem quia im- 
 munda, recipiens ignominiam 
 ex Carnis societate. 
 
 ™ Idem de Exhort. Casti- 
 
 veniat ista voluntas, qua quid 
 volumus adversus Dei volunta- 
 tem. Dicam, ex nobis ipsis; 
 nec temere ; semini enim tuo 
 respondeas necesse esse. Si- 
 quidem ille princeps generis et 
 delicti Adam voluit quod deli- 
 quit. 
 
150 Article Ninth. 
 
 rives the materials of his body from the origin of 
 his father’s seed, he may be said to be contaminated 
 in his father and mother °.” 
 
 And Origen, in another passage, which will be 
 found under the twenty-seventh Article, says, that 
 original sin is the reason why infants are baptized. 
 
 «And also in the law it is commanded that a 
 sacrifice be offered for every child that is born; 
 ‘a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons; of 
 which one is for a sin-offering, the other for a 
 burnt offering’.’ For what sin is this one pigeon 
 offered? Can the child that is new born have 
 committed any sin? It has even then sin, for 
 which the sacrifice is commanded to be offered ; 
 from which every one is denied to be free, though 
 his life be but of one day. Of this sin David must 
 be thought to have spoken that which we men- 
 tioned before, ‘in sin did my mother conceive me;’ 
 for in the history there is no particular sin of his 
 mother’s related °.” 
 
 Origen’s testimony to the doctrine of original sin 
 is equally strong, though he was mistaken in his 
 proof; and supposed that the sin-offering was 
 
 made on account of the 
 in fact it was that the 
 clean. 
 
 " OrIGEN. in Lev. Hom. xii. 
 s. 4. Omnis qui ingreditur 
 hunc mundum in quadam con- 
 taminatione effici dicitur: prop- 
 ter quod et Scriptura dicit, 
 << Nemo mundus a sorde, etc.” 
 
 © Levit. xii, 8. 
 
 P ORIGEN. Com. in Ep, ad 
 
 sin of the child, whereas 
 mother might be made 
 
 Rom. |. v. c. 9.—Pro quo pec- 
 cato offertur hic pullus unus? 
 numquid nuper editus parvulus 
 peccare potuit ? Et tunc habet 
 peccatum, pro quo hostia jube- 
 tur offerri, a quo mundus nega- 
 tur quis esse etsi unius diei 
 fuerit vita ejus.— 
 
Article Ninth. 151 
 
 Cyprian quotes the same verse from Job, which 
 Clement of Rome had done before him, in proof of 
 original guilt : 
 
 « That no one is without pollution and sin, ap- 
 pears from what Job says, ‘ Who can bring a clean 
 thing out of an unclean? Not one! And from 
 Psalm li. 5. ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; 
 and in sin did my mother conceive me? And 
 from 1 John i. 8. ‘If we say that we have 
 no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not 
 amsis)ts” 
 
 Fidus a country bishop sent a letter to a pro- 
 vincial council of bishops, who met at Carthage, 
 desiring their resolution on two questions, one of 
 which was; whether an infant might be baptized 
 before it was eight days old; in the answer, which 
 I shall have occasion to refer to again under the 
 twenty-seventh Article, is the following passage, re- 
 lating to our present subject : 
 
 ** But if moreover remission of sins is granted to 
 the greatest offenders, and such as have before 
 sinned very much against God, when they have 
 afterwards believed, and no one is kept back from 
 baptism and grace ; how much more ought not an 
 infant to be forbidden it, who being newly born 
 hath committed no sin, except that being carnally 
 born according to Adam, it hath contracted in its 
 first nativity the contagion of the old death ? 
 Who cometh to the remission of sins on this very 
 
 4 Cyprian. Testim. ad  apud Job: ‘Quis enim mundus 
 Quirin. \.iii. c.54. Neminem 4 sordibus,’ etc. 
 sine sorde et sine peccato esse 
 
152 
 
 Article Ninth. 
 
 account the more easily, that not its own but 
 another's sins are remitted to it’.” 
 
 Athanasius, speaking of Christ’s being born of 
 the Virgin Mary, says; “ Having thus taken a 
 body from our race, because all men were subject 
 to the corruption of death, giving it to death for all 
 men, he offered it to the Father; doing this mer- 
 cifully ; that all men, as it were dying in him, the 
 law respecting the corruption of man, might be 
 abolished *.” 
 
 And in another place, “ That as Adam sinning, 
 the sin descended to all men, so the Lord con- 
 quering, that his conquest at last comes to us ‘.” 
 
 Hilary says; “ For who can glory that he hath 
 a chaste heart before God, nay though he be an 
 infant of one day old, seeing, according to the 
 Apostle, both the origin and law of sin remain in 
 Sass 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, in the following passage, 
 mentions that the ‘ infection of nature remains in 
 them that are regenerated ;’ 
 
 “We must give an account to the Lord of all 
 the things done in the body. Say not, ‘no one sees 
 
 ™ Idem, Ep. lix. ad Fidum. s. 6. 
 
 c. 4.—infans, qui recens natus 
 nihil peccavit, nisi quod secun- 
 dum Adam carnaliter natus 
 contagium mortis antique pri- 
 ma nativitate contraxit ?— 
 
 Ss ATHaAnas. de Incarnat. 
 Verb. s. 8. tom. i. p. 54.—iva 
 Oo pev mavtwy arobavavray ev 
 Gut@, Avg 6 Kara THs GOop&s 
 tay avboanoy vous5.— 
 
 t Idem, c. Arian. Orat. ii. 
 
 “OQerep yao tiv “Adam 
 mapuPpayros ig mavTacs TOUS ay~ 
 Opdrove 4 anaty dieBy cite K. 
 Tt, i. 
 
 u Hivar. in Ps. lviii. Enarr. 
 s. 4. Quis enim gloriabitur cas- 
 tum se habere cor coram Deo, 
 nec si unius diei fuerit infans, 
 manente in nobis etiam secun- 
 dum Apostolum et origine et 
 lege peccati ? 
 
Article Ninth. 153 
 
 me,’ nor think that there is no witness of what you 
 do; oftentimes indeed no man does see you; but 
 the Creator, an unerring and faithful witness dwells 
 in heaven, and beholds whatever is done: and the 
 stains of sin remain in the body; for as when the 
 body has been wounded, although the wound be 
 cured, the scar nevertheless remains; so likewise 
 sin wounds the soul and the body, and the marks 
 of the scars remain in all men; and they are taken 
 away from those only who receive the washing of 
 baptism ; God by means of baptism heals the 
 former wounds of soul and body; but for the 
 future we must all with one accord secure our- 
 selves, so that keeping the garment of this our 
 body clean, we may not, by even slight fornication 
 or wantonness, or the commission of any other sin, 
 lose our heavenly salvation; but that we may in- 
 herit the eternal kingdom of God, of which may 
 God make us all worthy by his grace *.” 
 
 “Here is mercy without judgment, for he did 
 not come to judge the world, but to save the 
 world; but there will not be judgment without 
 mercy, because there cannot be a man found that 
 is clear from filth though it be his birth day ¥.” 
 
 “Not to sin at all, God hath ordained it as a 
 privilege above the human nature ’.” 
 
 * Cyrit. Hreros. Catech. %apiv eipeOijvar dard prov, pnt 
 18.—kal of omlra d€ Tray [a 0= dy puia Hepa 7) THC yevécewe abrod. 
 Tiby peyouts TH THuaTI—Kal * Grea. Naz. Orat. iv. in 
 pévouor of timn tov frwov ey JSul.ii. Tod mayredas AVAL OT n= 
 TT b.— toy bmep thy avOowmiyyy vow 
 
 Y Basin in Ps. xxxii. s. 4. erabevs Octs, 
 
 —did 7d py ObvacOa avOpwroy Ka- 
 
154 Article Ninth. 
 
 “ Who is he that lends out sin, but the Devil? 
 From whom Eve having borrowed sin, by the 
 usury of obnoxious succession, lent it out again to 
 all mankind *.” 
 
 “In that thou confessest thou offendest, in this 
 thou hast common fellowship with all, for none is 
 without sin; to deny this is sacrilege.” 
 
 It is well known that Augustine was the great 
 opponent of the Pelagian heresy, from its earliest 
 rise; his opinions, as well those that were pub- 
 lished before, as those that were declared after, the 
 commencement of the Pelagian controversy, are 
 fully and clearly collected in Wall on Infant 
 Baptism, so far at least as they bear on his sub- 
 ject ; afew passages may be here adduced shewing 
 his opinions on original sin, and the infection of 
 nature that remains even after baptism. 
 
 “For as infants do not imitate Christ bectiuad 
 they cannot, and yet may belong to his spiritual 
 grace, so without the imitation of the first man, 
 yet they are bound with the infection of being 
 begotten carnally of him °.” 
 
 And so Augustine says that this infection re- 
 mains after baptism : 
 
 “ Let it not be thought that we should say that 
 lust is sanctified, with which the regenerate them- 
 quia nemo sine peccato; negare 
 hoc sacrilegium. 
 
 ¢ Aucust. c: Jul, Pelag. 
 
 ]. vi. c. 12.—ita sine imitatione 
 
 2 AMBROSE in Tob. c. ix.— 
 A quo Eva mutuata peccatum 
 obnoxiz successionis usuris de- 
 feenerayit omne genus huma- 
 
 num. 
 
 > Idem, zn Ps. exviii. Quod 
 lapsum fateris, in eo tibi cum 
 omnibus commune consortium, 
 
 primi hominis, contagione ta- 
 men ex ipso carnalis genera- 
 tionis obstricti sunt. 
 
Article Ninth. 155 
 
 selves are forced to conflict in a certain intestine 
 war, as with an enemy, and to desire and pray to 
 be healed from that plague *.” 
 
 And again, “ So long as thou livest, sin will ne- 
 cessarily be in thy members; but howsoever, let 
 the dominion of it be taken away, let it not be 
 obeyed in what it commands °.” 
 
 “Ts all iniquity blotted out (in baptism?) Doth 
 no infirmity remain? If no infirmity remained, we 
 might live without sin. But who can say this, un- 
 less he be proud? Unless unworthy of the mercy 
 of the Redeemer? Unless he will deceive himself, 
 and be one in whom there is no truth ‘?” 
 
 “ Though in that we are born of God, we cannot 
 commit sin; yet there is still that in us, that we 
 are born of Adam, because death is not yet 
 swallowed up in victory, which also is promised in 
 the resurrection of our bodies, that we may be 
 altogether blessed, and spotless, and uncorrupt *.” 
 
 4 Tdem, ibid, c.6. Absit ut 
 dicamus sanctificari (concupis- 
 centiam) cum qua necesse ha- 
 bent regenerati, si non in va- 
 cuum Dei gratiam susceperunt, 
 intestino quodam bello tanquam 
 cum hoste confligere, et ab eA 
 peste desiderare et optare sa- 
 
 Nulla remansit infirmitas? Si 
 non remansisset, sine peccato 
 hic viveremus. Quis autem 
 audeat hoc dicere, nisi super- 
 bus? Nisi misericordia libera- 
 toris indignus? Nisi qui seip- 
 sum vult decipere, et in quo 
 veritas non est ? 
 
 nari. 
 € Idem, zn Job. Tract. 41. 
 Quamdiu vivis, peccatum ne- 
 cesse est esse in membris tuis. 
 ‘Idem, ibid. Numquid 
 quia deleta est tota iniquitas? 
 
 & Aucust. in Ep. ad Par- 
 men. |. ii. c. J. Quamvis 
 enim in quantum ex Deo nati 
 sumus non peccemus, inest ta- 
 men adhuc quod ex Adam nati 
 sumus.— 
 
ARTICLE X. 
 
 Of Free Will. 
 
 **TueE condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, 
 ‘that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own na- 
 ‘tural strength and good works to faith and calling upon 
 ‘“God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works 
 ‘pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of 
 ‘**God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good 
 “will, and working with us when we have that good 
 $* will.” 
 
 This Article opposes two contrary errors; first 
 that of the Pelagians, who, as a consequence of 
 their tenets respecting original sin, maintained 
 that men are capable by their own natural strength 
 of reaching the highest degrees of piety and virtue, 
 and therefore denied any necessity of the inward 
 assistance of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, 
 the Antinomians held grace to be irresistible, and 
 as a consequence, all human endeavours to be un- 
 necessary. 
 
 The meaning of the Article, and such was the 
 unvarying doctrine of the primitive Fathers until 
 Augustine perhaps, in his zeal against Pelagius, 
 made use of expressions which, if taken simply 
 and without any view to the controversy in which 
 he was engaged, might be urged in favour of the 
 
Article Ninth. 157 
 
 doctrine of irresistible grace ;—but the meaning of 
 the Article appears to me to be this, that without 
 impeaching the free will which God has given us, 
 we cannot do good works pleasant and acceptable 
 to God without preventing and assisting grace: 
 here works “pleasant and acceptable to God,” are 
 put in opposition to natural works, which we can 
 do, but which are not “pleasant to God” as our 
 thirteenth Article asserts, “‘forasmuch as they spring 
 not of faith in Jesus Christ.” With a view to il- 
 Justrate this distinction, my first extract shall be 
 from one of the Apostolic Fathers, who uses ex- 
 pressions almost the same as in this Article: 
 
 “Let us consider what is good, and what is 
 pleasing and acceptable in the sight of him who 
 made us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of 
 Christ, and see how precious is his blood with 
 God, which, being shed for our salvation, hath ob- 
 tained the grace of repentance for the whole 
 world *.” 
 
 Clemens thus considered works to be pleasing to 
 God, not for any intrinsic merit which they had, 
 but for Christ’s sake, they being done through faith 
 in him. And again, having exhorted those whom 
 he addressed, to the exercise of all Christian 
 virtues, he says “ But all these things faith which 
 is in Christ must confirm; for so he himself ex- 
 horts us by the Holy Spirit; ‘Come ye children, 
 
 @ Crem. Rom. Ep. 1%. ad @ ws bic ry npertépay acwrnplay 
 Corinth. s. 7.—Arevicwpey els exyvbev, rayt) rp Kéopy peravolac 
 7) aina tod Xpiorod, Kat 1wprev ~cpw tmnveykey. 
 
 Os €or Timsy TH Och alua duro, 
 
158 Article Tenth. 
 
 hearken unto me, and I will teach you the fear of 
 the Lord.” Our author continues his extracts to 
 the end of the seventeenth verse. 
 
 Then, towards the end of the Epistle, he says ; 
 “Let him that is pure in the flesh, not be proud of 
 it, knowing that it is another who gives him con- 
 tinence °.” 
 
 Ignatius is insisting on the reality of Christ’s suf- 
 fering, etc., and warns the Christians of Smyrna 
 against false teachers : 
 
 “ But I caution you against wild beasts in the 
 form of men; whom you must not only not re- 
 ceive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with, 
 but only pray for them, if by any means they may 
 repent, which however is difficult. But of this 
 Jesus Christ who is our true life, has the power. 
 For if in appearance only these things were done 
 by our Lord, then I too am bound only in appear- 
 ance. Why then have I given up myself to death, 
 to fire, to the sword, to wild beasts ?—Near the 
 sword, near God; in the midst of wild beasts, in 
 the midst of God. Only in the name of Jesus 
 Christ, in order that I may suffer with him, do I 
 endure these things; he who was made perfect 
 man giving me power to do so “.” 
 
 And in a subsequent section he says; “ Being 
 
 b Idem, s. 22. Tatra 8 
 mayra BeBaswt » ev Xgiord rloris. 
 
 © Idem, s. 38. ‘O dyvic év 
 Ty capKt Kal wy analoverer Ba, 
 yweokoy Gre Erepag eat 6 émi- 
 Kopnyay avr@ Thy eykpareray. 
 
 4 Tenat. ad Smyrn. s. 4.— 
 
 / \ , ed > ~ 
 pavoy d€ mporevyerbas Urep auTOy, 
 ~ eo 
 cay TBs peTavontwow, omep dvc~ 
 , x wy cs y 
 Koroy. Tovrov d€ exe: ebovetay 
 c ~ .% \ 5 xX c ~ 
 Inoovs SS me an Oivoy gnag= 
 Sav.—adrod we evduvapotvres Tov 
 / 
 renelov ayOpomou yevoprevov. 
 
Article Tenth. 159 
 
 perfect, think also the things that are perfect ; for 
 God is ready to assist you who desire to do 
 well.*.” : 
 
 “Do you think, O men, that we could under- 
 stand these things, except we have received the 
 grace of understanding by his will who willed these 
 things ? that that also which was spoken in the, 
 time of Moses might come to pass‘; ‘ They pro- 
 voked him to jealousy with strange Gods, with 
 abominations provoked they him to anger, etc®.” 
 to the end of the twenty-third verse, containing 
 the prophecy of the admission of the Gentiles into 
 the Church. 
 
 «¢ Wherefore the Lord himself, who is Emmanuel 
 from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation ; 
 because it was the Lord himself who saved them, 
 for they were able to do nothing towards saving 
 themselves. And therefore St. Paul, speaking of 
 man’s infirmity, says, ‘I know that in my flesh 
 dwelleth no good thing", shewing that the meri- 
 torious cause of our salvation is not from ourselves 
 but from God. And again, ‘ O wretched man that 
 Iam: Who shall deliver me from the body of this 
 death’? And then he comes to mention his de- 
 liverer; ‘I thank God, through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord * '.” 
 
 © Idem, ibid, s. 11.—Oédovery 
 yap tuiv edapdocey Oct Eros 
 €ig To Mapacryely. 
 
 '  f Deut. xxxii. 16. etc. 
 
 8 Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 ec. W9—e ph Oedjuars rod 
 Dericavros alta eAdBonev yceouw 
 TOU vonTat.— 
 
 h Rom. vii. 18. 
 
 i Thid, v. 24. 
 
 k Tbid, v. 25. 
 
 1 Trenzi adv. Heres. |. iii. 
 c. xx. s. 3. Propter hoc ergo 
 signum salutis nostre illud, 
 qui ex Virgine Emmanuel, est 
 ipse Dominus : quoniam ipse 
 
160 Article Tenth. 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria also shews the existence 
 of free will, and the necessity of grace : 
 
 On these words “ If thou wilt be perfect ™,” he 
 remarks: ‘“ He was not therefore yet perfect, for 
 nothing is more than perfect. And the expression 
 ‘if thou wilt,’ shewed, upon divine authority, the 
 free will of the mind, which was conversing with 
 him. For the choice was in the man, as being 
 free; but the gift is in God, as Lord. But he 
 gives to those who are willing, and strive, and 
 pray, that thus their salvation may be their own. 
 For God does not compel. For force is repugnant 
 to God; but he gives to those who seek, he sup- 
 plies those who ask, he ope to those who 
 knock *.” 
 
 « A corrupt tree will not produce good fruit, 
 unless it be grafted; and a good tree°® will pro- 
 duce corrupt fruit, if it be not cultivated. And 
 stones will be made the sons of Abraham ?, if they 
 are formed into the faith of Abraham. And the 
 offspring of vipers‘ will produce the fruit of repent- 
 ance, if they have spit out the malignant poison of 
 their nature. This will be the effect of divine 
 grace, more powerful truly than nature, having 
 subjected to itself the power of free will that is in 
 us, (which is called azzefwow.) And since that 
 
 Dominus erat qui salvabat eos, salvetur. ce. 10.—éni rh dvb pire 
 quia per semetipsos non habe- yp 7 y aiperss, aS arevbép* éxt 
 bant salvari. Et propter hoc @c@ d€ 4 ddc1s, ds Kupigs— 
 
 Paulus infirmitatem hominis ° Luke, vi. 43. 
 annuntians, ait: Scio ete. P Matt. iii. 9. 
 m Matt. xix. 2]. 4 Ibid, 7. 
 
 n Crem, ALEX. Quis dives 
 
Article Tenth. 161 
 
 power is both natural and mutable, whithersoever 
 it is turned, our nature is turned withit. But that 
 this free will (76 airetosoor) is in us by nature, I have 
 already shewn to Marcion and Hermogenes *.” 
 The following seems to be the passage in his 
 work against Marcion, which is above referred to. 
 He has been answering objections made to the 
 goodness, foreknowledge, and power of God ; 
 Marcion it would appear had objected, that if God 
 was perfectly good, he could not have been willing 
 that evil should come into the world; if he had 
 perfect foreknowledge, he must have foreseen it, 
 and if his power was Almighty, he might have 
 prevented it: Tertullian, having shewn that God 
 must be perfectly good, and have perfect fore- 
 knowledge and power, proceeds; “ If therefore 
 God had those attributes, from which no evil either 
 could or ought to have happened to man, and evil 
 nevertheless did happen ; let us also consider the 
 condition of man, whether or not that, which 
 could not happen through God’s means, has not 
 rather happened through means of that. I find 
 that man was created by God free in will and 
 power ; for I can perceive no image and likeness 
 of God in him, except the form of the same state. 
 For in his features and corporeal lineaments, 
 which are so varied in the human race, man has 
 not been fashioned in the likeness of God, who is 
 uniform, but in that substance, which he derived 
 
 * Tertuuu de Animd,c.21. in nobis subjacentem sibi libe- 
 —Heec erit vis divine gratie, ram arbitrii potestatem, quod 
 potentior utique natura, habens = zirefovcuoy dicitur.— 
 
 M 
 
162 Article Tenth. 
 
 from God himself, that is, the soul, which answers 
 to the form of God, he has been stamped with 
 freedom and power of will. This condition of his 
 moreover the law itself, then laid down by God, 
 confirmed. For a law would not be imposed on 
 one, who had it not in his own power to pay that 
 obedience which the law required: nor again 
 would a threat of death be affixed to disobedience, 
 unless the contempt of the law was imputed to man 
 as the act of his own free will *.” 
 
 «Except the Lord build the house, their labour 
 is but lost that buildit. Except the Lord keep the 
 city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” Psalm 
 exxvin) 1 2. 
 
 Origen in his comment on these verses give us a 
 plain illustration of both preventing and assisting 
 grace. 
 
 “He builds the house, whosoever progresses, 
 and he keeps the city, whosoever is perfect ; but 
 vain is the labour of the builder, and vain the 
 watching of the watchman, except the Lord build, 
 and the Lord keep. The power of the Lord which 
 assists in the building of him that buildeth, and 
 which helps him to build who is not able of himself 
 to complete the building, isa good beyond our own 
 free choice: and the same must be thought about 
 the city that is kept. And as if I should say that 
 the good in agriculture, which causes the fruit to 
 grow, is mixed of that freedom of choice which is 
 in the art of the farmer, and of that which is not in 
 
 S Idem adv. Marcion. 1. ii.c. sue potestatis invenio homi- 
 5.—Liberum et sui arbitriiet nem a Deo institutum 
 
 
 
Article Tenth. 163 
 
 his free choice but from Providence, that is to say, 
 the temperature of the atmosphere, and the supply 
 of sufficient rain; so the good of the reasonable 
 creature is mixed, of his own free will, and the di- 
 vine power assisting with him that chooses the 
 things that are most honest. Therefore, in order 
 to be honest and good, there is not only need of 
 our own free choice, and the divine assistance, 
 which as far as we are concerned is not in our own 
 choice ; but this is also necessary, that he who has 
 become honest and good, should persevere in vir- 
 tue. Since he that has been made perfect, will fall 
 again, if he is over-elated with his honesty, and 
 claims the merit to himself, and does not pay the 
 honour that is due to Him, who has contributed 
 much more to the acquirement and support of his 
 virtue *.” 
 
 And a little further on he continues, “ Perhaps 
 the holy Apostle, seeing that our free will contri- 
 buted much less than the power of God to the at- 
 tainment of good things, said that the end is not of 
 him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God 
 who has mercy *. Not as if God had pity on those 
 who did not will or who did not run, but as if the 
 willing and the running were nothing in comparison 
 of the mercy of God, and therefore that it was fit- 
 
 t Origen. Select. in Psalm. 
 tom. ii. p. 570, 571. ——otro 
 
 Boy yevérbas, yoela Kad rg mpoa- 
 perews TIS HueTepas Kal TI Belas 
 
 ‘ ~ ~ > \ / > 
 TO TOU RoyiKed ayabey puKToy éo-= 
 a ~ / ~ 
 TW EK TE THS TpoapEerews avTO, 
 are 
 Kak THs cupmveddans Betas Ouvduews 
 Nn \ 4 / e > 
 TT) TH KaAMTTAH TODEAOKEYW™ Ov 
 / 7 
 povey Tolvuy, €ig TO KarOY Ka) aya 
 
 o ¢ ~ 
 cuprvelas, ATs eatly wo Tpos NUas 
 2, Z * 2 \ Oe DE | \ / 
 GMpoabgeTos’ ahha Kak Ekg TO yEvo~ 
 
 \ \ > \ “ 
 pevoy KaAGy Kal ayaboy Srapeivas 
 €y Ty apeTy.—— 
 
 u Rom. ix, 16. 
 M 2 
 
164 Article Tenth. 
 
 ting the good should be ascribed rather to the 
 mercy of God, than to human willing or running*.” 
 
 “Human weakness is incompetent to obtain any 
 thing of itself; and this only is the duty of its na- 
 ture, that it should be willing to begin to form itself 
 into the family of God. It belongs to the mercy 
 of God to assist those who are willing, to confirm 
 those who begin, to receive those who come. But 
 the beginning is from ourselves, that he may per- 
 fect at.” 
 
 “It belongs to me to speak, to you to give atten- 
 tion, to God to make perfect. Let us strengthen 
 our minds, let us brace up our soul, let us prepare 
 our heart. The race is for life; the hope is for 
 everlasting things. God, who knows our hearts, 
 and discerns who is sincere and who is a hypocrite, 
 is able to preserve the sincere, and to make the hy- 
 pocrite faithful. For God is able to make even 
 the unbeliever a believer, if he will but give his 
 heart ’.” 
 
 “Even if you have no faith, or have but little 
 faith, the Lord is merciful, and assists you, if you 
 
 x Idem, ibid. Taya yoty spay * Cyrit. Hieros. Prefat. 
 
 6 bepdg "Amsarodos moAd éAatroy TO 
 NET EpOY TpoasoeTsKoY Tg TOV Oead 
 Ouvajrews Tpes THY KTATW TOY aya- 
 Ody, Qyol, To TeAGG, K. T A. 
 
 y Hivar. Tr. in Ps. cxviii. 
 lib. xvi. s. 10. Hoc tantum 
 nature suz officium est, ut ag- 
 gregare in familiam Deiet velit 
 et ceperit. Divine misericordiz 
 est, ut volentes adjuvet, incipi- 
 entes confirmet, adeuntes reci- 
 piat: ex nobis autem initium 
 est, ut ille perficiat. 
 
 Catech. p. fin. °Ey ewat yap éore 
 Tb elmew, ev cot 0€ +a mporbecbas, 
 Avya-=- 
 
 
 
 \ \ 
 ey @cd de To TeAGLWTaL 
 \ ‘ < ‘\ < A 4 ec n 
 Tos de 6 eds 6 Tas Kapdiag duoy 
 PNT ad \ 4 \ 4 > 7 
 0B, Kal yiwdocKwy Tio wey ears Oi— 
 X s\ 4 
 Kasoc, Thc Oe UroKpiT YS, TOY KEY YYN- 
 A 
 cwyv guadbas, tov Sé wmoxpiryy 
 mioromoncas Svvaras yap 6 Qeds 
 Yj ~ 
 Kah Toy amioTOy TicTOTOITaL, ece 
 / ~ ‘ 
 povoy 00 Thy Kapdiay. 
 
Article Tenth. 165 
 
 repent. Only say yourself, with a proper feeling, 
 ‘Lord I believe ; help thou mine unbelief*’ If you 
 think that you believe, but have not yet the perfec- 
 tion of faith, you must say with the Apostles ‘Lord, 
 increase our faith”.’ For you have something from 
 yourself, but you receive much from Him *.” 
 
 “You see, because the power of God every where 
 cooperates with the endeavours of man, that no- 
 body can build a house without the Lord, nobody 
 can keep a city without the Lord, nobody can begin 
 any thing without the Lord *.” 
 
 Again; “The good Lord requires exertion, he 
 supplies strength °.” 
 
 Chrysostom, having observed that Noah was en- 
 abled by God’s grace to go through those trials 
 to which he was exposed during the deluge, thus 
 exhorts his hearers : 
 
 “Let us also, I beseech you, imitate this right- 
 eous man, and let us earnestly endeavour to do 
 what is in our power, to make ourselves worthy of 
 those gifts that are from God. For on this account 
 he waits for occasions from us, that he may mani- 
 fest his exceeding bounty. Let us not therefore 
 by our indolence deprive ourselves of those gifts 
 that are from Him, but let us hasten and press on- 
 wards to lay hold of the beginning, and to enter into 
 that way that leads to virtue, that being aided by 
 
 4a Mark ix, 24. s. 84. ed. Bened. tom. i. p. 
 > Luke xvii. 5. 1309. Vides itaque quia ubi- 
 © Idem, Catech. 5, —+3 wév que Domini virtus studiis co- 
 yup ri mapa ceavrov exec, TO dé ri operatur humanis; ut nemo 
 mag’ txeivov Tod hap Paverc. possit edificare sine Domino.— 
 ‘1 Amprose, in Luc. lib. ii. ® Idem, p. 1394. 
 
166 Article Tenth. 
 
 assistance from above, we may be enabled to per- 
 severe even unto the end: for it is not possible for 
 us to do any good thing rightly without we are as- 
 sisted by strength from above *.” 
 
 And speaking of Jacob’s prosperity in his service 
 with Laban, he says : 
 
 “For although he was aided by assistance from 
 above, yet he first did all that was in his own power. 
 So also let us persuade ourselves, that although we 
 incessantly strive with all our might, we shall not 
 be able to do any thing as it ought to be done, un- 
 less we be assisted by strength from above. For 
 as, if we do not obtain assistance from thence, we 
 have it not in our power to do any of the things 
 that we ought to do, rightly; so on the other 
 hand, if we do not contribute what in us lies, we 
 shall not be able to obtain strength from above *.” 
 
 “ Man, from the beginning of his condition has 
 God as an assistant; and since it was of his grace 
 that he was created, and it is of his mercy that he 
 subsists and lives, he can do no good work without 
 him, who has so granted free will, that he did not 
 refuse his grace in any single work >.” 
 
 * Curysost. in Cap. vii. 
 Genes. Homil. xxv. onde 
 yap oi6y ré Te xonordy nuag Tore 
 KaropQ@oar pu) THE avywOey poTic 
 amo\aboavrac. 
 
 & Idem, in Cap. vxxiii. Ge- 
 nes. Hom. lviii. p. fin. 
 Otro Oy Kai Hnpetic TEicwpeEV EavToOdc, 
 Ort Kay pupiaKic orrovdaZwpey, obdév 
 ovdérore KaropPdcar Suvnodpeba, et 
 py Kal THC dvwOev pore a7rodad- 
 camer. “Qorep yap, &t pry TH ExeiOev 
 
 
 
 ouppayiac arohavowper, obdéy toxb- 
 opév more TOY OedvTwy KaTopNGoaL 
 oUrw mad, ti jo) TA Tap’ EauToY 
 Eioeveykoper, ov Ovvnodusba Tic 
 adyvwlev aéwicbar pore 
 
 h Hieron. Ep. Crit. ad 
 Cypr. Presb. tom. ii. p. 696. 
 ed. Bened. Homo a principio 
 conditionis sue Deo utitur ad- 
 jutore : et quum illius sit gra- 
 tie quod creatus est, illiusque 
 misericordie quod subsistit et 
 
Article Tenth. 167 
 
 “It is therefore agreed between us, that in good 
 works after our own will, we depend on the assist- 
 ance of God; in bad works upon that of the devil'.” 
 
 “ Neither doth a man begin to be converted or 
 changed from evil to good by the beginnings of 
 faith, unless the free and undeserved mercy of God 
 work it in him *.” 
 
 And shortly afterwards; “So therefore let the 
 grace of God be accounted of, that from the 
 beginning of his good conversion to the end of his 
 perfection, he that glorieth, should glory in the 
 Lord. Because as none can perfect a good work 
 without the Lord, so none can begin it without the 
 Lord *.” 
 
 “ The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord, 
 (which the true faith and catholic Church always 
 holds) translates both small and great from the 
 death of the first man unto the life of the second 
 man, not only by blotting out their sins, but also 
 by helping such as can use the liberty of the will 
 not to sin, but to live holily; so as that unless he 
 do help, we can have no piety or righteousness in 
 word nor in will: ‘For it is God that worketh in 
 us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure.’ 
 
 vivit, nihil boni operis agere k Avueust. c. duas Epist. 
 
 10. Nec 
 
 potest absque eo, qui ita con- 
 cessit liberum arbitrium, ut 
 suam per singula opera gratiam 
 non negaret. 
 
 ‘Idem, Dial, adv. Pelag. 
 1. i. tom. iv. pars 2", p. 486. 
 Constat ergo inter nos, in bonis 
 operibus post propriam volun- 
 tatem, Dei nos niti auxilio, in 
 malis diaboli. 
 
 Pelag. lib. ii. c. 
 
 omnino incipit homo ex malo in 
 
 bonum per initium fidei com- 
 
 mutari, nisi hoc in illo agat in- 
 
 debita et gratuita misericordia 
 el. 
 
 1 Idem, ibid.—Quia  sicut 
 nemo potest bonum perficere 
 sine Domino, sic nemo incipere 
 sine Domino. 
 
168 Article Tenth. 
 
 For who but he that came to seek and to save that 
 which was lost, can make any one differ from that 
 mass of perdition? | Wherefore the Apostle 
 asketh the question saying: ‘ For who made thee 
 to differ?” Where if any one say, my faith, my 
 will, my good works, it is answered him, ‘ For 
 what hast thou that thou hast not received ™.” 
 “For it is certain that we may keep the com- 
 mandments of God if we will; but because the 
 will is prepared by the Lord, (it seems not by 
 ourselves) we must ask of him that we may will 
 as much as is sufficient, that willing we might do. 
 It is certain that we do will when we will, but it is 
 
 he that makes us that we will what is good”.” 
 
 And presently “It is certain that we act, when 
 we act, but it is he that makes us to act, affording 
 most effectual strength unto the will °.” 
 
 “The will is then truly free, when it serves 
 
 neither vice nor sin. 
 
 m Idem, Ep. clxxxvi. (al. 
 
 evi.) ad Paulinum. s. 3. Quod 
 gratia Dei per Jesum Christum 
 Dominum nostrum (quod fides 
 vera et catholica tenet semper 
 ecclesia) pusillos cum magnis 
 morte primi hominis ad vitam 
 secundi hominis transfert, non 
 solum peccata delendo, verum 
 etiam ad non peccandum recte- 
 que vivendum eos qui jam uti 
 possunt voluntatis arbitrio, sic 
 adjuvando, ut nisi adjuvet, 
 nihil pietatis: atque justitiz 
 sive in opere sive etiam in ipsa 
 voluntate habere possimus : 
 “« Deus quippe operatur in nobis 
 etc?” 
 
 Such was given by God; 
 
 n August. de Gratid et 
 Libero Arbitrio ad Valentinum. 
 c. xvi. s. 32.—Certum est enim 
 nos mandata servare si volu- 
 mus: sed quia preparatur vo- 
 luntas 4 Domino, ab illo peten- 
 dum est ut tantum velimus 
 quantum sufficit, ut volendo 
 faciamus. Certum est nos 
 velle, cum volumus, sed ille 
 facit ut velimus bonum. 
 
 ° Idem ibid. Certum est 
 nos facere cum facimus, sed 
 ille facit ut faciamus prebendo 
 vires eflicacissimas voluntati. 
 
Article Tenth. 169 
 
 and being lost by our own depravity, cannot be 
 restored except by him who was able to give it. 
 Accordingly Truth says, ‘If the Son shall make 
 you free, you shall be free indeed.’ But that is 
 the same, as if he said, ‘ If the Son shall save you, 
 then you shall be saved indeed. ».’” 
 
 ARTICLE XI. 
 
 Of the Justification of Man. 
 
 “We are accounted righteous before God only for the 
 ‘merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and 
 *‘not for our own works or deservings; wherefore that we 
 ** are justified by faith only, is amost wholesome doctrine, 
 “and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in 
 ** the Homily of Justification.” 
 
 This Article is principally directed against the 
 Popish doctrine of human merit. The Romanists 
 however, contend that our doctrine of justification 
 virtually accords with their own. They maintain 
 the necessity of good works for justification, and 
 also the necessity of faith; we on the other hand 
 
 P Idem, de Civitate Dei. 1. servit. Tale datumest a Deo: 
 xiv. c. 11. Arbitrium volun- quod amissum proprio vitio, 
 tatis tune est vere liberum, nisi 4 quo dari potuit, reddi 
 cum vitiis peccatisque non non potest: etc. 
 
170 Article Eleventh. 
 
 say that we are justified by faith only, and our next 
 Article asserts that good works are the fruits of 
 faith, and follow after justification; so that we 
 deny that works are in any way the causes of justi- 
 fication. This will be seen more clearly if we pay 
 attention to the use of the word “only” in this 
 Article, “ we are justified by faith only;” now if we 
 are justified by faith only, two things, works and 
 faith, cannot be necessary for justification. 
 
 It may be also remarked as another consequence 
 of the Pelagian heresy, that good works were by 
 them considered meritorious, and the only condi- 
 tions of salvation. The Anabaptists at the period 
 of the Reformation revived this doctrine, and 
 taught that men might deserve heayen by their 
 own righteousness. 
 
 In addition to the question which most obviously 
 arises out of this Article, viz. of justification by 
 faith only, I shall take this opportunity of adducing 
 passages from the Fathers on the doctrine of the 
 Atonement, which was reserved in the Second 
 Article for future consideration. 
 
 “Let us then hold fast to his blessing and let us 
 consider what are the ways of blessedness. Let us 
 look back upon those things that have happened 
 from the beginning. For what was our father 
 Abraham blessed? Was it not because that 
 through faith he wrought righteousness and truth ? 
 Isaac with confidence knowing what was to come, 
 cheerfully yielded himself up for a sacrifice. Jacob 
 with humility departed out of his own country, 
 fleeing from his brother and went unto Laban and 
 
Article Eleventh. Wi 
 
 served him, and there was given unto him the 
 sceptre of the twelve tribes of Israel. 
 
 “Tf any one will distinctly consider them one by 
 one, he will understand the greatness of the gifts 
 that were given by Him. For from him came the 
 Priests and Levites, who all ministered at the altar 
 of God. From him came our Lord Jesus according 
 to the flesh. From him came the kings and 
 princes and rulers in Judah. Nor were the rest of 
 his tribes in any small glory ; God having promised 
 that “‘ Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven *.” 
 They were all therefore greatly glorified and mag- 
 nified, not for their own sake, or for their own 
 works, or for the righteousness that they them- 
 selves wrought, but through his will. And we 
 also being called by his will in Christ Jesus, are 
 justified not by ourselves, neither by our own 
 wisdom or knowledge, or piety, or the works which 
 we have wrought in holiness of heart ; but by that 
 faith by which the Almighty God has justified all 
 men from the beginning, to whom be glory for 
 ever and ever, Amen ?.” 
 
 Polycarp, quoting Ephes. ii. 8., says, “ But be- 
 lieving ye shall rejoice with joy unspeakable, and 
 full of glory, into which many desire to enter, 
 knowing that ‘by grace ye are saved through 
 
 4 Genes. xviii. 17. 
 
 > Crem. Rom. Ep. ad 
 Corinth. s. 31, 32.—Ilarrec ody 
 tMo~acOnoay Kai tueyaddvOnoar, ob 
 bt abréyv, THY Epywy abToy, Tic 
 Otkaompayiac co KaTEpyacavro, 
 GAG Ord TOU OEAfparog adrov. Kat 
 Hpeic ody Oud OeAHparog avrov év 
 
 Xpor@ Inoov edybévrec, ob Ci Eavray 
 OuearotpeOa, ob dé Out Tig HpErsoac 
 copiac, m suvicewc, % EvoEBElac, 7 
 toywy Ov Kareipyacdpeba éy dovdryrTe 
 kapolac: ada Ova THE Tiorewc, Ol HC 
 Tavrac Tovg an’ aiwyoc 6 Tay- 
 ToKpaTwp Oedg tdikalwaer. 
 
172 Article Eleventh. 
 
 faith, not by works, but by the will of God, through 
 Christ Jesus*.” 
 
 “The Lord was not unknown to Abraham, 
 whose day he desired to see: neither was the 
 Father of the Lord unknown to him; for he had 
 learnt from the Word of the Lord, and believed in 
 him : wherefore it was counted to him for righteous- 
 ness* by the Lord. For the faith, which is to- 
 wards the most high God, justifieth man: and 
 therefore he said; ‘I have lift up mine hand unto 
 the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of 
 heaven and earth’. But all these things, they, 
 who are of an eyil mind, endeavour to overturn, 
 on account of one saying, which they do not well 
 understand *.” 
 
 “<For the just shall live by faith*.’ Now this 
 doctrine ‘ that the just shall live by faith, was fore- 
 told by the Prophets*.” 
 
 « Abraham was justified, not by works, but by 
 faith; after the end of life, therefore, it will be of 
 no benefit to men, even if they now do good works, 
 unless they have faith*.” 
 
 Tertullian is speaking of remission of sins, and 
 
 © Porycarp. Ep. ad Philip. 
 s. ].——e«idires Gt: ydoiti ore 
 cerurperss, oix ef Epywy, &AAE 
 Gerjuars Ged, bia Inood Xpic- 
 TOU. 
 
 4 Gen. xv. 6. 
 
 € Gen. xiv. 22. 
 
 f IrenzI adv. Heres. lib. 
 iv. c. 5. s. 5.—Fides enim, que 
 est ad Deum altissimum, justi- 
 ficat hominem. 
 
 = Rom. i. 17. 
 
 
 
 »h Trenzx! adv. Heres. lib. 
 iv. c. 34. s. 2.—Hoc autem, 
 quoniam justus ex fide vivet, 
 per Prophetas predictum fue- 
 rat. 
 
 i Ciem. ALEX. Strom. lib. i. 
 s. 7. p. 338.—Afpaap be, odk 
 2 Eoywv tuawOn, add’ éx wicTEwe. 
 ovdéy ody Sgedoc abrotc pera THY TE- 
 Asuryy rod Biov, Kav svEpyGo wer 
 voy, él yy) TWloTLy EXoLEY. 
 
Article Eleventh. Nike 
 
 of the woman mentioned Luke vii. 38. who washed 
 the feet of Jesus with her tears, and wiped them 
 with the hairs of her head; and then remarks: 
 “But if the incitement to repentance proceeded 
 from her faith, through means of repentance, which 
 was justified by faith, she heard these words, ‘ thy 
 faith hath saved thee‘, from him who had declared 
 by the mouth of Habakkuk’, ‘the just shall live by 
 faith.™” 
 
 Origen denies any merit to works; “I can 
 scarcely persuade myself that there can be any 
 work that can demand a recompense from God as 
 a debt, seeing that our power to do, or think, or 
 speak any thing, proceeds from his free gift and 
 bounty”.” 
 
 “That it is faith alone which profits us; and 
 that we are able to do in proportion as we believe, 
 appears from the book of Genesis, where we find, 
 that ‘ Abraham believed in God, and that it was 
 counted to him for righteousness’ °.” 
 
 And again, he says, “ That the blessing which 
 was given to Abraham belongs to us Christians 
 also. For if Abraham believed in God, and it was 
 
 k Luke vii. 50. quod possit ullum opus esse 
 
 1 Habak. ii. 4. 
 
 m TreRTULL. adv. Marcion. 
 lib. iv. c. 18.—Sed et in poeni- 
 tentiz stimulus ex fide ac- 
 ciderat, per poenitentiam ex 
 fide justificatam, ab eo audiit, 
 fides tua te salvam fecit, qui 
 per Abacuc pronuntiavat, justus 
 et fide sua vivet. 
 
 " OrIGEN. in Ep. ad Rom. 
 lib. iv.c. 1. Vix mihi suadeo 
 
 quod ex debito remunerationem 
 Dei deposcat, cum etiam hoc 
 ipsum quod agere aliquid pos- 
 sumus, vel cogitare, vel prolo- 
 qui, ipsius dono et largitione 
 faciamus. 
 
 ° Cyprian. Testim. ad 
 Quirin. |. iti. c. 43.—Fidem in 
 totum prodesse, et tantum nos 
 posse, quantum credimus, in 
 Genesi— 
 
174 Article Eleventh. 
 
 counted to him for righteousness, then whosoever 
 believeth in God, and liveth by faith, is found 
 righteous?.” 
 
 « Abraham was justified not by works only, but 
 by faith also. For he did many things rightly, 
 but he was never called the friend of God, except 
 after he had believed. And every work of his was 
 made perfect according to faith. Through faith 
 he left his parents, through faith he left his native 
 country, his place of residence, and his name. As 
 therefore he was justified, be ye also justified *.” 
 
 «“ But this is the perfect and only glorying in 
 God, when one is not lifted up with his own 
 righteousness, but acknowledgeth that he wanteth 
 the true righteousness, and that it is by faith only 
 in Christ that he can be justified".” 
 
 «‘ Kyerlasting rest is laid up for them that strive 
 lawfully in this present life, not to be given accord- 
 ing to the debt of works, but exhibited according 
 to the grace of the bountiful God, to such as hope 
 in him*.” : 
 
 Ambrose upon these words, “ His faith was ac- 
 counted unto him for righteousness,” says, “ He 
 speaketh this, because without the works of the 
 
 P Idem, Ep. Ixiii. s. 3. ad 
 Caecilium.—Nam si Abraham 
 Deo credidit, et deputatum 
 est ei ad justitiam: utique 
 quisquis Deo credit, et fide 
 vivit, justus invenitur. 
 
 4 Cyrix. Hieros. Catech. 5. 
 Karélure yoviac Oia ioTw. 
 Karéhixe TraTpioa, Kai ywpay Kat 
 oikiay dua THY ist WoTED ovY 
 
 
 
 éxeivoc tdicawO0n, Kai od OuKwawOyre. 
 
 * Basti. Hom. xxii. de Hum. 
 s. 3.—ricre: dé povy TH is Xpio= 
 Toy dedixarmmevoy. 
 
 § Idem, iz Ps. exiv.s. 5 
 od Kar’ dgeihnua rev tpywy 
 amodedopévn, aNd Kata yapiy Tov 
 peyadodwpov Os0v, Toig sig adroy 
 ENTLKOGL TApEXOMEVN. 
 
 
 
Article Eleventh. 175 
 
 law to every sinner, that is, to every Gentile that 
 believeth in Christ, his faith is counted to him for 
 righteousness, as it was to Abraham. How, there- 
 fore, can the Jews think to be justified by the 
 works of the law, and yet as Abraham was justified, 
 when they see Abraham was not justified by the 
 works of the law, but by faith only? There is no 
 need, therefore, of the law, seeing a sinner is justi- 
 fied before God by faith only*.” 
 
 Chrysostom, speaking of Abraham, says, 
 
 “For what did he lose by not being under the 
 law? Nothing; for faith alone was sufficient for 
 his justification *.” 
 
 And Jerome; “ The faith of Abraham was so 
 great, that both all his old sins should be forgiven, 
 and that it should be taught to be accepted for all 
 righteousness*.” 
 
 « Abraham believed God, and it was counted to 
 him for righteousness ; and so will faith alone suf- 
 fice you also for righteousness’.” And again, 
 
 “But because none is justified by the law, see- 
 ing no one keeps it, it is therefore said, that be- 
 lievers are to be justified by faith only’.” 
 
 At the conclusion of the second Article it was 
 
 * Ampros. in Ep. ad Rom. 
 4.—Non ergo opus est lege, 
 quando impius per solam fidem 
 justificatur apud Deum. 
 
 “ Curysost. in Ep, ad Gal. 
 ¢. iii. v. 6.— aan’ Apkyoey 4 whores 
 els Bixasorvyny air. 
 
 * Hieron. in Rom. 4. Tam 
 magna fuit fides Abrahe ut et 
 
 pristina ei peccata donarentur, 
 et sola pro omni justitia doce- 
 retur accepta. 
 
 Y Idem, ix Gal. 3.—Ita et 
 vobis ad justitiam sola sufficit 
 fides. 
 
 Idem, ibid.—Ideo dictum 
 est quod sola fide justificandi 
 essent credentes. 
 
176 Article Eleventh. 
 
 asserted. that Christ suffered, “to reconcile his 
 Father to us, and to be a sacrifice not only for ori- 
 ginal guilt, but also for actual sins of men.” The 
 consideration of these words, which express the 
 doctrine of the Atonement, was postponed, in order 
 that the history of our Saviour, the reality of 
 which is insisted on in the second, third, and fourth 
 Articles, might not be interrupted. The present 
 Article asserts that we are justified by faith only, 
 in and through the merits of Jesus Christ: the 
 doctrine of the Atonement may therefore be 
 properly considered in this place. In one point of 
 view this doctrine may be said to be opposed to 
 the tenets of the Roman Church, as a belief in the 
 necessity of an atoning sacrifice for the sins of all 
 men, implies a denial of human merit; another 
 point of difference between our Church and the 
 Roman on this subject, will be noticed under the 
 thirty-first Article. 
 
 The Socinians, however, are the chief opposers 
 of this doctrine; they deny that the death of 
 Christ was a sacrifice, maintaining that he suffered 
 only to give men an example, and to furnish such 
 a proof of his mission as could not be given by a 
 common departure out of life *. 
 
 The few following extracts (and they might be 
 multiplied to the size of this volume) will clearly 
 shew that the early Fathers considered the shedding 
 of Christ’s blood to be a sacrifice, or atonement for 
 the sins of mankind ; or, as the Homily on Salva- 
 
 * Hey, Appendix to Art, xi. s. 1. 
 
Article Eleventh. 177 
 
 tion expresses it, that “he for them paid their 
 ransom by his death.” 
 
 Barnabas in a passage, part of which will be 
 found under the second Article, says; “ For this 
 cause the Lord endured to give his body unto 
 death, that we might be sanctified by the remission 
 of sins, that is, by the sprinkling of his blood. For 
 it is written concerning him partly to the people 
 of the Jews, partly to us. But thus he speaks ‘He 
 was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised 
 for our iniquities: with his stripes we are healed. 
 He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a 
 sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened 
 not his mouth *.’?” 
 
 Clemens Romanus says, “‘ Let us look steadfastly 
 to the blood of Christ and see how precious is his 
 blood with God; which being shed for our salva- 
 tion, has obtained the grace of repentance for the 
 whole world °.” 
 
 And Ignatius, having spoken of Christ’s cruci- 
 fixion, says; “ By the fruit of which we are, even 
 by his blessed passion; that he might set up a 
 token for all ages, through his resurrection, unto 
 his holy saints and faithful servants, whether 
 amongst the Jews, or amongst the Gentiles, in one 
 body of his Church. For all these things he 
 
 eeisaian lis 5—7. Scriptum est enim de illo, 
 > Barnasew Ep. Cathol. s. quedamad populum Judeorum, 
 4. Propter hoc Dominus sus- quedam ad nos. Dicit autem 
 tinuit tradere corpus suum in sic. Vulneratus est, ete, 
 exterminium, ut remissione ¢ Crem. Rom. Ep. 1*. s. 7. 
 peccatorum sanctificemur, quod ante, p. 157. 
 est sparsione sanguinis illius. 
 
178 Article Eleventh. 
 
 suffered for our sakes, that we might be saved *.” 
 And in another place of the same Epistle, also be- 
 fore quoted’, he calls “the passion,” “ our resurrec- 
 tion.” 
 
 In two passages before given’ from Justin 
 Martyr, he says that Christ suffered “for the sal- 
 vation of those who believe in him.” And in 
 another place, “The Father of the universe was 
 willing that his Christ should take the curses of all, 
 for the whole human race °.” 
 
 He also -says that Christ was given as a ransom 
 for us: 
 
 “ He gave his own Son a ransom for us, the holy 
 for the wicked, him that was free from evil for the 
 evil, the righteous for the unrighteous, the incor- 
 ruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the 
 mortal; for what else was able to cover our sins, 
 but his righteousness? Wherein is it possible for 
 us wicked and impious creatures to be justified, 
 except in the only Son of God? O sweet recon- 
 ciliation, O untraceable ministry, O unlooked for 
 blessings, that the wickedness of many should be 
 hidden in one righteous man, and the righteousness 
 of one justify many wicked °.” 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria says expressly, that Christ 
 
 4 Tenat. ad Smyrn. s. 1. 2. 
 The passage is given at length 
 under the second Article, ante, 
 p- 65, 66. 
 
 e Ante, p. 52. 
 
 f Ante, p. 66. 
 
 &§ JUSTIN 
 oby Kal Toy éavTod Xpsorov treg 
 Tov tk mavrog yevoug avOpwruwy oO 
 
 Dial-e) 95. a 
 
 Tari rév dhwy rac TavTwY KaTdoac 
 avadéEacOat éBoudAOn.— 
 
 h Idem, Ep. ad Diog. c. 9. 
 Adroc roy tdvoy Yio azédoro Nbrpov 
 drt nudy, Tov dywoy 7p avopwr, 
 Tov dkakoy UTip TOY KaKwy, TOY 
 Oixatoy drip THv adikwy, Tov ad0ap- 
 Tov uTép Tov P0apTGy, Tov abavarov 
 imép THY Ovntov.— 
 
Article Eleventh. 179 
 
 “ gave himself a sacrifice for us .”. And Hippolytus, 
 in a passage before quoted *, speaks of the redemp- 
 tion of our whole race by Christ’s suffering. 
 
 “ You too are to be pitied, who do not acknow- 
 ledge Christ to have been typified in the person of 
 Moses, as an intercessor with the Father, and as 
 offering his own life for the salvation of the 
 people '.” 
 
 The testimony of Athanasius is full and clear ; 
 “It was necessary that what was due from all 
 should be paid; for death was a debt due from all, 
 as I have before mentioned. For this cause princi- 
 pally he came; and on this account, after proof by 
 deeds concerning his divinity, he offered a sacrifice 
 for all, delivering up his temple to death instead of 
 all, that he might make all released and free from 
 the old transgression ™.” 
 
 “‘ By his death salvation came to all, and every 
 creature was ransomed. He is the life of all, even 
 he who like a sheep gave up his own body to 
 death, as a ransom for the salvation of all *.” 
 
 “Since death came by one man, life also came 
 by one man; by one man, namely the Saviour, 
 who voluntarily submitted to death. For remem- 
 ber what he said, ‘I have power to lay down my 
 
 i Ciem. ALEx. ante, p. 68. 
 
 * Hrppor. ante, p. 68. 
 
 1 Tertuuu. adv. Marcion. 
 1. ii. c. 26.—et oblatorem anime 
 suz pro populi salute. 
 
 m AruHanas. de Incarnat. 
 Verb. s. 20. tom. i. p. 64. 
 TovTov Evekey peTa Tac TEpi THC 
 Oedrnroc avrov tx THY Epywy c7ro0- 
 Ssikerc, HOn AovTdY Kai Urip TavTwY 
 
 THY Ovoiay avidepev, avTi TayTwY 
 Tov EauToU Vaby Eig Oavaroy mapad- 
 Sove.— 
 
 . Idem, ibid s. 37. p. 79. 
 kai rp robrov Oavatwr) cwrnpia raat 
 yéyove, kai KTiow Maca NehUTOWTAY 
 ouréc tot 7) TayvTwv Zon Kai 6 we 
 mobBaroy Uréip Tic TaYTWY Cwrnpiag 
 dyripuxov 76 Eavrov oda cig Oava- 
 Toy Tapadovg.— 
 
 N 2 
 
180 Article Eleventh. 
 
 life ; and I have power to take it again°?” But he 
 endured these things, having come for the salva- 
 tion of all men ”.” 
 
 “The mystical Sun of Righteousness is risen 
 upon all, is come for all, has suffered for all, and 
 has risen again for all: he therefore suffered that 
 he might take away the sin of the world 4.” 
 
 ARTICLE XII. 
 
 Of Good Works. 
 
 «¢ Arseit that Good Works, which are the fruits of faith, 
 ** and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, 
 ‘and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are 
 ** they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do 
 ‘* spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; inso- 
 ** much that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently 
 ‘* known as a tree discerned by the fruit.” 
 
 This Article was not amongst those of 1552; 
 but was added in 1562, in opposition to the Anti- 
 nomians, Solifidians, and Gospellers, who denied 
 the necessity of good works. 
 
 Of the following extracts some will shew that 
 
 © John, x. 18. Sol ille justitiz# omnibus ortus 
 
 P Cyriu. Hreros. Catech. est, omnibus venit, omnibus 
 13.— AAW 6 nev radra iméwewey,  passus est, et omnibus resur- 
 iri cwuznoig Ow ravTwr. rexit ; ideo autem passus est, 
 
 4 AmBRosE, Expos. in Ps. ut tolleret peccatum mundi. 
 exvili. s. 57. Mysticus autem 
 
Article Twelfth. 181 
 
 good works are necessary, others that “they do 
 spring necessarily out of a true and lively faith.” 
 
 Clement of Rome pursues the same order as in 
 our Articles: he speaks first of faith, then of good 
 works, as its necessary fruits. Under the preceding 
 Article will be found a long extract on faith*; he 
 continues in the next section as follows : 
 
 «“ What, therefore, shall we do, brethren? Shall 
 we be slothful in well-doing, and lay aside charity ? 
 God forbid that any such thing should be done by 
 us. But let us hasten with all earnestness and 
 readiness of mind, to perfect every good work; for 
 even the Creator, and Lord of all things, him- 
 self rejoices in his own works; by his Almighty 
 power he fixed the heavens, and by his incompre- 
 hensible wisdom he adorned them. He also di- 
 vided the earth from the water, which encompassed 
 it as a secure tower, upon the foundation of his 
 own will, All the living creatures also that are 
 upon it, by his appointment, he commanded to 
 exist. So, likewise, the sea, and all the creatures 
 that are in it, having first created them, he en- 
 closed therein by his power. And above all, that 
 which is most excellent, and greatest of all, man 
 he formed with his holy and pure hands, the cha- 
 racter of his own image. For so God says, ‘ Let 
 us make man in our image, after our own likeness. 
 So God created man, male and female created he 
 them”.’ And having thus finished all these things 
 he commended all that he had made, and blessed 
 them, and said, ‘increase and multiply*’ We see 
 
 * Ante, p. 170-1. » Gen. 1. 26, 27. © Gen. i. 28. 
 
182 Article Twelfth. 
 
 how all righteous men have been adored with 
 good works; wherefore even the Lord himself, 
 having adorned himself with works, rejoiced. 
 Having, therefore, this example, let us, without 
 delay, fulfil his will; with all our strength let us 
 work the works of righteousness *.” 
 
 Having further insisted on good works in the 
 following section, he proceeds : 
 
 “* How blessed and wonderful, beloved, are the 
 gifts of God! Life in immortality! Brightness in 
 righteousness! Truth in full assurance! Faith in 
 confidence! Temperance in holiness! and all these 
 things has God subjected to our understanding. 
 What, therefore, are those things which are pre- 
 pared for them that wait for him? The Creator 
 and Father of spirits, the most holy, he only knows 
 the greatness and beauty of them. Let us, there- 
 fore, strive with all earnestness that we may be 
 found in the number of those that wait for him, 
 that so we may share the promised rewards. But 
 how, beloved, shall this be? If our mind be fixed 
 by faith towards God, if we seek those things that 
 are well-pleasing and acceptable unto him; if we 
 ‘act conformably to his holy will, and follow the 
 way of truth, casting off from us all unrighteous- 
 ness and iniquity, covetousness, strifes, evil man- 
 ners, deceit, whispering, detraction, all hatred of 
 God, pride, and boasting, vain glory and ambition ; 
 
 4 Crem. Rom.Ep.1?.ad Co-  zérne eg’ iypiv yeyevnOijvar’ adda 
 rinth. s. 33. TT} cosy Tonner wpney omevcwpey pera eKTEveiac Kai 7p0- 
 GdaAgoi; dpyjowpey azxd Tie aya- Ovpiac, Tav Epyow ayaboy éEmiredeiv. 
 Qorotac, Kai étykaTaXeizwpev THY —Tdwpev ort To ev Epyouw ayabotc 
 
 
 
 ayarny ; pndapic TovT0 tdoat b Gea- = FAVTEC EKoopNONTaY ot Cikavot. 
 
Article Twelfth. 183 
 
 for they that do these things are odious to God ; 
 and not only they that do them, but also °* all such 
 as approve of those that do them *.’” 
 
 “ Of which nothing is hid from you, if ye have 
 perfect faith and charity in Jesus Christ, which are 
 the beginning and end of life. For the beginning 
 is faith, the end charity; and these two joined in 
 one are of God; but all other things which concern 
 a holy life, are the consequences of these. No 
 man professing a true faith sinneth, nor possessing 
 charity hateth. ‘The tree is made manifest by its 
 fruit ®.’ So they, who profess themselves to be 
 Christians, will be seen by what they do. For it is 
 not the work of an outward profession, but shows 
 itself in the power of faith, if a man be found faith- 
 ful unto the end *.” 
 
 Polycarp says to the Philippians; “ I rejoiced 
 greatly with you, in our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 the firm root of your faith, which was declared 
 from ancient times, remaineth until now, and 
 
 bringeth forth fruit in our Lord Jesus Christ ‘.” 
 
 © Rom. i. 32. 
 
 £ Cxiem. ibid. s. 35.—Id¢ 8¢ 
 torat TovTO, ayamnrol; tidy torn- 
 piypévn yy Otavora Hoy TriorEewo 
 mpoc Tov Osdv, tay txl@nrGpev ra 
 evapeora, Kat ebrrpdcdekra ait, tay 
 émirehnowpey Ta AvHKOVTAa TH dpwopy 
 Bovkyoe: abrov, Kai dkodovOjowpev 
 TH 00~ THC aynOEiac, arroppibayrec 
 a tavray racay aduiay Kai dvo- 
 plav, mrEovetiay, kK. T. Xr. 
 
 & Matt. xii. 33. 
 
 h Ienat. Ep. ad Ephes. s. 
 14.— Aoy) pev miotic, TéAos de 
 ayarn: ra bt dbo ev tvérnre yevd- 
 peva, Osov toriv’ ta Ot GdNa TavTa 
 
 sig Kahocayabiay aKddov0a écriv. 
 Ovdeic rior tmayyeddOpeEvoc apap- 
 TAvEL, OVE AYATHY KEKTHUEVOC, [UCEL. 
 Pavepoy 76 dévdpoy ard Tov Kaprou 
 abrov, obrwc ot émayyeddOpevor 
 Xpioriavoi elvar, Ov wy mpaccovow 
 6gOnoovrat. Ob yap viv érayyediag 
 TO Epyov, adr’ ty duvape riorewc, 
 édy Tig EvpeOy Eic TEAOC. 
 
 1 Porycarv.ad Philipp. s.1. 
 —Ore 9 BeBaia Tig TicTEwo boy 
 pila 2€ apyaiwy karayys\\opévn 
 Xpovwrv, péxor vy Otapéver, Kal Kap- 
 mMopopet cig TOY Kiproy nuwy Incovy 
 Xouorov. 
 
184 Article Twelfth. 
 
 “Whosoever are found not to live as Christ 
 taught, be it known that they are not Christians, 
 though they profess with their tongue the doctrines 
 of Christ. For he hath declared, that not they 
 who only profess his religion, but they who do the 
 works which he hath commanded them, shall be 
 saved *.” 
 
 “ He understandeth all these things, who in- 
 quireth into the wisdom of God, studying to please 
 him by faith, righteousness, and good works '.” 
 
 “ This faith, they that have believed without 
 learning, as to our language they are barbarous, 
 but as to their judgment, custom, and conversa- 
 tion, by reason of their faith, they are very wise, 
 and please God, having their conversation in right- 
 eousness, chastity, and wisdom ™.” 
 
 “ Charity, with love to faith, makes believers ; 
 but faith is the foundation of charity, bringing forth 
 well-doing *.” 
 
 “ Faith, although it be a voluntary consent of 
 the soul, is, however, the worker of good things, 
 and the foundation of a right conduct °.” 
 
 «When we hear it said, ‘ Thy faith hath saved 
 
 k JusTIN. Apol. 14. s. 16. 
 Ot & ay pn) viptoxwyrat BiodyrTec we 
 tdidaze, yrwoitisOwoay pon bvrEc 
 Xouariavoi, Kav NEywour Cid yOrryS 
 Ta Tov Xowrov OwWaypara’ 
 
 1 Teropui.. ad Autolyc. |. 
 li. c. ult. Tatra d€ révra cuvg- 
 ce Tac 0 Enzey Tv cogiay Tov Oeov, 
 kai svapecToy air Cia TicTEWE, Kal 
 Cucatocbyne, Kai ayaGoepyiac. 
 
 m™ TRENzZI adv. Heres. 1. 
 lii. c. iv. s. 2. placent Deo, 
 
 
 
 
 
 conversantes in omni justitia, 
 castitate et sapientia 
 
 2 CiemM. ALEX. Strom. 1. ii. 
 ce. 6. p. 445. ‘H ey aydan vi 
 poe THY TloTw giria Tole TOTO 
 wot 9 6& wioric Edpacpa ayarne 
 ayvrenayovoa THY suzotiay. 
 
 ° Idem, ibid. 1: v. ¢. 13. p. 
 697. “Hdy 8€ 4 xlotic, eb Kah 
 Exovowog Tig wvyne cuyxarabece, 
 GAG toya7ig ayaBGy, Kai Cuwaw- 
 moaytug Gepecoc. 
 
Article Twelfth. 185 
 
 thee®, we do not understand him to say that they 
 will be absolutely saved who believe in any way 
 whatsoever, unless good works also shall follow*.” 
 
 It will be seen that Tertullian in the following 
 passage is arguing against those who thought they 
 could be saved by faith without works, as the fruits 
 of faith ; but the main scope of his argument is to 
 show that certain sins are unpardonable : 
 
 * Tt has been said, ‘ the blood of his Son cleans- 
 eth us from all sin’’ We may, therefore, always 
 sin, and in all manner of ways, if he cleanses us 
 always, and from all sin; or if he does not always 
 cleanse us, he does not even after faith; and if not 
 from all sin, not then from fornication. But with 
 what did he (St. John) begin? He had said before 
 that God is light, and that darkness is not in him, 
 and that we lie if we say that we have fellowship 
 with him, and walk in darkness. ‘ But if, he says, 
 ‘we walk in the light, we have fellowship with 
 him, and the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord cleans- 
 teh us from all sin.’ Therefore, when we walk in 
 the light and sin, and sinning in the light, are we 
 cleansed? By no means; for he who sins is not in 
 the light, but in darkness. Whence, also, he shews 
 how we shall be cleansed from sin, while we walk 
 in the light, in which sin cannot be committed. 
 Therefore he says we are so cleansed, not that we 
 may sin, but because we may not sin. For when 
 
 P Luke, vii. 50. et alibi. Tove Omoc0vy morevoavTag swhh- 
 9 Crem. ibid. 1. vi. c. 14. ceca Eyer adroy éxdeydpeOa tay 
 p. 794. “Oere trav dxoowne PI Kai Ta épya tmaxohov0non. 
 
 "H wriortg cov ctowkév o€, ox aTAWE SUM sya Mere 
 
186 Article Twelfth. 
 
 we walk in the light, but have no fellowship with 
 darkness, we shall be cleansed, sin not being laid 
 aside, but not admitted. For this is the power of 
 the Lord’s blood, that those whom it hath now 
 cleansed from sin, and hath thenceforth placed in 
 the light, it thenceforth makes clean, if they per- 
 severe walking in the light.” 
 
 Tertullian then proceeds to argue that there are 
 some sins which cannot be pardoned after baptism. 
 
 «« And this faith, when it is justified, sticks in the 
 ground of the soul, as a root that hath received the 
 shower into it, that when it begins to be tilled by 
 the law of God, the branches may rise from it that 
 bear the fruit of good works. The root of righte- 
 ousness, therefore, doth not grow from works, but 
 the fruit of works from the root of righteousness, 
 to wit, that root of righteousness, whereby God 
 accepts of righteousness without works, viz., faith'.” 
 
 The following remarks on St. John’s Gospel, vii. 
 24, are expressly to our present purpose: 
 
 “««T said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in 
 your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye 
 shall die in your sins... When did he say unto 
 ‘them ‘Ye shall die in your sins, except when he 
 
 Ss TertTuLL. de Pudicit. c. inde prestet, si in lumine in- 
 
 19.—Incedentes enim in lu- 
 mine, tenebris vero non com- 
 municantes emundati agemus, 
 non deposito, sed non admisso 
 delicto. Hee est enim vis Do- 
 minici sanguinis, ut quos jam 
 delicto mundarit, et exinde in 
 lumine constituerit, mundos ex- 
 
 cedere perseveraverint. 
 
 t OriGEN. in Ep. ad Rom. 1. 
 iv. c. 1. —Non ergo ex operi- 
 bus radix justitiz, sed ex radice 
 justitia fructus operum crescit, 
 illa scilicet radice justitie, qua 
 Deus accepta fert justitiam sine 
 operibus. 
 
Article Twelfth. 187 
 
 said, ‘Ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins*.’ 
 And what is the cause that men die in their sins, 
 except that they do not believe, that Jesus is the 
 Christ? For he himself says, ‘If ye believe not 
 that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.’ But if he 
 that believeth not, that Jesus is the Christ, shall 
 die in his own sins, it is plain that he who dieth not 
 in his sins hath believed in Christ; but he who 
 dieth in his sins, although he says that he believeth 
 in Christ, of a truth hath not believed in him. For 
 if that may be called faith which is without works, 
 such is a dead faith, as we read in the general Epis- 
 tle of James *.” 
 
 “But our works must be lift up into the holy 
 things of God, that is, in clothing the naked, in 
 feeding the hungry, in giving drink to the thirsty, 
 in comforting the afflicted, in helping the oppressed, 
 in loving all. For these things sanctify us in the 
 frailty of our body; these things please God and 
 are holy ’.” 
 
 “The worship of God consists of these two parts, 
 pious doctrine and good works. Neither are doc- 
 trines without good works acceptable to God, nor 
 does he accept works unless they be united with 
 
 u John, viii. 21. TioTEvKEY avTiD’ tay yap NéynTat pev 
 
 * OriGENn. Com. in Evang. iste, xwpic 08 ipyw ruyxary, 
 Joan. tom. xix. s. 6. —E] deg  vekod torw 7 Tovatrn, we tv TH pepo- 
 pu) morebwy, b7v’Inootce 6 Xpistéc = EV LakwBou Extorody aveyvwper. 
 tort, amoOaveirar by raic cpapriae Y Hinar. Hnar in Ps. 
 Eavrov, Ondoy bre 6 pu) droOvnoKwy cxxxili. s. 5. —Hee enim 
 
 tv rai¢ dpapriac airov mexiorevke nos in hac corporis nostri infir- 
 TH XptoTwy, 6 dt axoOvickwy ty raic¢ mitate sanctificant, hee Deo 
 
 apapriat éavrov Kav héyy TioTEbew placent et sancta sunt. 
 Tp Xpior@, we wpd¢ rd adnGEc ov 7rE- 
 
188 Article Twelfth. 
 
 pious doctrines. For what advantage is there in 
 rightly knowing the doctrines concerning God, if 
 you be shamefully guilty of fornication? Again, 
 what good is there in being properly chaste and 
 impiously blasphemous? The knowledge of doc- 
 trines is therefore an acquisition of the greatest im- 
 portance, and there is need of a sober and watchful 
 mind, since many spoil others through philosophy 
 and vain deceit *.” 
 
 “As works are not accepted without faith, as 
 many do what is right for the sake of glory, or 
 from natural disposition, so faith without works is 
 dead. And let no one deceive you by the vain rea- 
 soning of those, who readily grant every thing for 
 the single purpose of adopting impious doctrines, 
 and propose a trifling reward for a trifling thing. 
 Shew therefore faith by works, the produce of your 
 soul, if we have not sown in vain ?.” 
 
 And again, “ Upon this foundation of doctrines 
 build good works, since faith without works is 
 dead; as are works without faith ».” 
 
 “ Knowest thou not, that they who are in their 
 sins, although they live, are dead? but those who 
 are in righteousness, although they die, yet do they 
 live. Nor is this my saying, it is the declaration of 
 
 2 Cyriv. Hrieros. Catech.4. 
 ‘O yap Tic OeoceBetac Tpdz0c, éK Sto 
 TovUTwY CUvéoTHKE, OoypaTwr eoEBaV 
 axouBeiac, kai zpdzewy ayabiv: Kai 
 ovrE Ta OOyparaywpic tpywy ayabwr, 
 eum poodskra Oe@, OUTE TA Ly) ET’ Ev- 
 seBov doypdtwy epya Tedodpeva, 
 mooacexeTat 0 Bsdc- 
 
 4 Grec. Naz. 
 
 
 
 Orat. xxi. 
 
 ‘Qc yap ovK éort ywpic TicTEewe Tpa- 
 Eig Eyxorroc—deikate ody éx THY Ep- 
 yor Thy xiorw, THC xopac bpey 7d 
 yorvipor, ei jr) eic Kevov to7reipaper. 
 
 b Idem, Orat. xli. Aexriy 
 epyatav +o ayabey, ext tovtTw TO 
 Oeperin tay Soypartwey® éxel tiotis 
 yong epywv vexpa, O¢ epya dina 
 Tir EWS, 
 
Article Thirteenth. 189 
 
 Christ who said to Martha, ‘he that believeth in 
 me, though he were dead, yet shall he live*’ Is 
 what I say then a fable? If thou art a Christian 
 believe in Christ : if thou believest in Christ, shew 
 me thy faith by thy works ‘.” 
 
 “It is not sufficient to have the wall of faith, 
 unless faith itself be confirmed by good works °.” 
 
 ARTICLE XIII. 
 
 Of Works before Justification. 
 
 «* Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspi- 
 ‘ration 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 (as the School- 
 ‘“‘ authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather for 
 “that they are not done as God hath willed, and com- 
 **manded them to be done, we doubt not but they have 
 ‘* the nature of sin.” 
 
 The tenets of Pelagius, who denied the necessity 
 of divine grace, are here again condemned ; though 
 this Article should probably be considered as di- 
 
 © Jonu,, Xi. .20. e Hieron. in Isai. c. xxvi. 
 4 Curysosr. ad Pop, An- tom. iii. p. 216. Non enim 
 tioch. Hom. v. Ei Xpiors- sufficit murum habere fidei, 
 aves el, wicteve TH XpictH* ei mic- nisi ipsa fides bonis operibus 
 Tevers TH Xpiotp, Sie tHv egywov  confirmetur. 
 emidesEou pros thy wloriv. 
 
 
 
190 Article Thirteenth. 
 
 rected chiefly against the Church of Rome. In the 
 Rhemish Testament, on Acts x. 2, is the following 
 remark: “such worksas are done before justification, 
 though they suffice not to salvation, yet be accept- 
 able preparatives to the grace of justification :” and 
 afterwards “ such works preparative come of grace 
 also ; otherwise they could never deserve at God's 
 hand, of congruity, or any otherwise, towards jus- 
 tification.” 
 
 Many of the passages given under the tenth and 
 eleventh Articles would equally serve to illustrate 
 this; and as several Articles will exceed the pro- 
 
 posed limits, a few additional extracts must suffice *. 
 “They who are carnal, cannot do the things 
 
 which are spiritual; neither can unbelief do the 
 works of faith °.” 
 
 “ As the wild olive, if it be not grafted, continues 
 useless to the owner, by reason of its wild quality, 
 and as unfruitful wood is cut down, and cast into 
 the fire; so man, who receives not by faith the 
 grafting of the Spirit, continues to be what he was 
 before ; and being flesh and blood, he cannot inhe- 
 rit the kingdom of God °.” 
 
 ® Thereader may be referred 8. Of capkixel Ta mvevpatiKe 
 
 to passages from the following 
 authors given under the tenth 
 and eleventh Articles. Crem, 
 Rom. ante, p. 157. Justin, 159. 
 IrEnzus, 159, Tertuuu. 161. 
 OricEN, 162, 3, 4, and 173, 
 Hinary, 164, Cyrit Hieros. 
 188, Gree. Naz. 188, Am- 
 BROSE, 165, Curysost. 166, 
 Jerome, 169. 
 
 > Ienatu Ep. ad Ephes. c. 
 
 moaoorey ob dvvayras, ovde of myev= 
 PaTiKOl TH CapKiKa, Odden amLoTiCa 
 Th TIS TicTEDS. 
 
 © Iren#z1 adv. Heres. 1. v. 
 Ci XyeSemee sic et homo 
 non assumens per fidem Spiri- 
 tus insertionem, perseverat hoc 
 esse quod erat ante; caro et 
 sanguis existens, regnum Dei 
 hereditate possidere non potest. 
 
 
 
Article Thirteenth. 191 
 
 Cyprian in the following passage calls baptism 
 the death of crime, and life of virtue, and evidently 
 declares that by our natural powers we can do no 
 good thing: “ You surely know, and acknowledge 
 as well as myself, what that death of crime, that 
 life of virtue has either taken away from, or con- 
 ferred upon, us; you know it, nor do I declare it. 
 To speak in one’s own praise is hateful boasting ; 
 however that cannot be boasting, but an expression 
 of gratitude, whatsoever is not ascribed to the 
 virtue of man, but is declared to be of the gift of 
 God : as now not to sin has begun to be the fruits 
 of faith, so the sins that were committed before, 
 were the consequences of human error. Of God, 
 I say, of God comes all the power that we have; 
 thence we live; thence we have strength; thence 
 deriving and conceiving vigour, we have hitherto 
 reached this point, and thereby foresee the signs 
 of the future *.” 
 
 Basil propounds the question, whether it be 
 possible, and a thing pleasing and acceptable unto 
 God, for one that is the servant of sin to perform 
 righteousness, according to the rule of the saints’ 
 piety; and he determines it from several places of 
 Scripture, that it is not, concluding thus, “It is 
 clear that it is altogether impossible and displeasing 
 unto God, and dangerous to him that dares to do 
 it. Wherefore I exhort, as the Lord teacheth, 
 
 4 Cypriani. Ep. ii. s. 2. Dei omne quod possumus; inde 
 ad Donatum.—ut jam non pec- vivimus; inde pollemus ; inde 
 care, coeperit esse fidei; quod sumpto et concepto vigore, hic 
 ante peccatum est, fuerit er- adhuc positi, futurorum indicia 
 roris humani. Deiest, inquam, _prenoscimus. 
 
192 Article Thirteenth. 
 
 ‘ Let us first make the tree good, and then the fruit 
 will be good!’ And let us first make clean the inside 
 of the cup or platter, and then the outside will be 
 wholly clean. And being taught by the Apostle, 
 ‘Let us purify ourselves from all pollutions both 
 of flesh and spirit, and then we shall perfect 
 holiness in the love of Christ, that we may be well 
 pleasing to God, and acceptable to the Lord unto 
 the kingdom of heaven *.’” 
 
 “‘ Clearly shewing,” says Bishop Beveridge, from 
 whom the above passage is taken, “that until we 
 first be good, we can never do good.” 
 
 “ Let us pronounce our sentence against those 
 that do not believe in Christ, and yet think them- 
 selves valiant, and wise, and temperate, and just ; 
 that they may know that there is none can live 
 without Christ, without whom all virtue lies in 
 vice *.” 
 
 « All the life of unbelievers is sin, and there is 
 nothing good without the chiefest good : for where 
 the knowledge of the eternal and unchangeable 
 truth is wanting, there is but false virtue even in 
 the best manners*.” And again : 
 
 _° Basix. de Baptismo. lib. 
 
 nl. q. 7.. ’Ee évvaréy ior Fj 
 
 et temperantes, se putant esse, 
 et justos ; ut sciant nullum abs- 
 
 EvapecToy, 7] EvTPOGOEKTOV OE, TOY 
 apaozia Covdevovra wouty Cuxaiwpa 
 kara zov tic GsocéBaac THY ayiwy 
 Té wavraxacw acdiva- 
 
 
 
 xavova. 
 Tov, Kai awTapicKkoy Os, Kai exuxiv- 
 évvoy TH TOApODYTLCECHAWTaL’ OLo7TED 
 WapakanG, kK. 7. r. 
 
 f Hieron. in Gal. c. 3. 
 Sententiam proferamus adver- 
 sus eos qui in Christum non 
 credentes, fortes, et sapientes, 
 
 que Christo vivere, sine quo 
 omnis virtus in vitio est. 
 
 & Aucustin. de Vera Inno- 
 cent. c. 106. Omnis infide- 
 lium vita peccatum est, et nihil 
 est bonum sine summo bono; 
 ubi enim deest agnitio eterne 
 et incommutabilis veritatis, 
 falsa virtus est etiam in optimis 
 moribus. 
 
Article Thirteenth. 193 
 
 “The man is first to be changed, that his works 
 may be changed: for.if a man remain in that estate 
 that he is evil, he cannot have good works *.” 
 
 “Be it far from us to think that true virtue 
 should be in any one unless he be a just man. 
 And let it be as far from us to think that any one 
 is truly just, unless he live by faith; ‘for the just 
 shall live by faith. And who of those who would 
 be accounted Christians, unless it be the Pelagians, 
 and amongst them perhaps thyself, Julian, only- 
 will say that any infidel is just, will say that a 
 wicked man is just, will say that a man enslaved 
 to the devil is just? Yea, though he were Fabri- 
 cius, though he were Fabius, though he were 
 Scipio, though he were Regulus, with whose names 
 thou thinkest to terrify me, as if we were talking in 
 the old Roman court '.” 
 
 Augustine has also a chapter in his work en- 
 titled The City of God, in which he undertakes to 
 prove, “ that there cannot be true virtuous actions, 
 where there is not true religion.” 
 
 “ For although the mind may seem to rule over 
 the body, and reason over the passions; if the 
 mind and reason itself does not serve God, as God 
 
 h Aveustin. de Verbis justus vere nisi vivat ex fide, 
 
 Evang. Matt. Serm. \xxii. (al. 
 de Verb. Dom. xii.) s.1. Prius 
 est mutandus homo, ut opera 
 mutentur ; sienim manet homo 
 in eo quod malus est, bona 
 opera habere non potest. 
 "Idem, ec. Julian. Pelag. 
 lib. iv. c. 3. Sed absit ut sit 
 in aliquo vera virtus, nisi fuerit 
 justus: absit autem ut. sit 
 
 ‘justus enim ex fide vivit,’ etc. 
 The word “just” in the trans- 
 lation causes some confusion; 
 it might in most places be 
 more properly translated 
 “righteous;” but the word 
 **just” has been adopted in ac- 
 cordance with our Bible trans- 
 lation of the words here quoted 
 
 from Habakkuk, ii. 4. 
 O 
 
194 Article Thirteenth. 
 
 himself has commanded that he should be served, 
 it by no means rightly rules over the body and the 
 passions. For how can the mind be mistress over 
 the body and the passions, if it be ignorant of the 
 true God, and be not subdued to his obedience, 
 but prostituted to the corruption of the most 
 sinful demons. The virtues therefore, which it 
 seems to have of its own, whereby it rules over 
 the body and the passions, so as to acquire or re- 
 tain any thing, if it does not refer them to God, are 
 indeed themselves rather vices than virtues. For 
 although some think that they are true and real 
 virtues, when they are referred to themselves alone, 
 and are not affected for any other account; yet 
 even then are they puffed up and proud; and 
 therefore are not to be accounted virtues, but 
 vices *.” 
 
 K Idem, de Civitate Dei. 1. 
 
 potius quam virtutes. Nam 
 xix. c. 25. Quod non possint 
 
 licet a quibusdam, tune vere et 
 
 abi vere esse virtutes, ubi non 
 est vera religio.—Proinde vir- 
 tutes, quas sibi habere videtur, 
 per quas imperat corpori et 
 Vitiis ad quodlibet adipiscendum 
 vel tenendum, nisi ad Deum 
 retulerit, etiam ips vitia sunt 
 
 honest putentur esse virtutes, 
 cum ad se ipsas referuntur, nec 
 propter aliud expetuntur ; 
 etiam tunc inflate ac superbe 
 sunt ; et ideo non virtutes, sed 
 vitia judicanda sunt. 
 
ARTICLE XIV. 
 
 Of Works of Supererogation. 
 
 “¢ VoLUNTARY Works, besides, over and above God’s 
 ** commandments, which they call Works of Supereroga- 
 ‘tion, cannot be taught without arrogance and impiety ; 
 *‘for by them men do declare that they do not only 
 ** render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but 
 * that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is 
 ‘required ; whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have 
 ** done all that are commanded you, say, We are unprofit- 
 ‘‘able servants.” 
 
 It was not until the twelfth century that the 
 doctrine of works of Supererogation was thought 
 of in the Christian Church. From that time to 
 the present it has been received by the Romish 
 Church, and has proved a most prolific parent of 
 Indulgences. Hence have arisen their doctrines 
 of Pardon, and Invocation of Saints. 
 
 In the Rhemish Testament, on 2. Cor. viii. 14. 
 the doctrine of Works of Supererogation is openly 
 avowed, “ Holy Saints, or other virtuous persons, 
 may in measure and proportion of other men’s ne- 
 cessities and deservings, allot unto them, as well 
 the supererogation of their spiritual works, as those 
 that abound in worldly goods, may give alms of 
 their superfluities, to them which are in necessity.” 
 
 Dr. Hey has well remarked, that “the proofs of 
 
 02 
 
196 Article Fourteenth. 
 
 the eleventh, twelfth, and fifteenth Articles are 
 proofs of this Article.” 
 
 But inasmuch as the doctrine of works of super- 
 erogation was at the same time so prominent, and 
 productive of such pernicious consequences in the 
 Romish Church, it was highly necessary that it 
 should meet with a direct denial in our Articles, 
 and its rejection not be left to mere implication. 
 
 With a view to proof however little need be 
 added to what will be found under the Articles re- 
 ferred to: a few of the strongest passages will suffice. 
 
 St. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, 
 after having urged them to the practise of virtue, 
 proceeds, ‘‘ Abstaining from all wrath, respect of 
 persons, and unrighteous judgment, being far from 
 all covetousness, not easily believing any thing 
 against any, nor over severe in judgment, knowing 
 that we are all debtors in point of Sin *.” 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus remarks on these words 
 ‘If thou wilt be perfect”, “ He was not therefore 
 yet perfect, for nothing is more than perfect °.” — 
 
 I shall have occasion to quote a very strong 
 passage from Tertullian, under the twenty-second 
 Article, on the Romish doctrine of Pardons, which 
 is closely connected with this of works of Super- 
 erogation. In the section which will be found in 
 that place he indignantly denies to the Bishop of 
 Rome the power of granting pardons, and in this, 
 
 @ PotycarP. ad Philip.s.6. salvetur. c. 10. Ei Ores ré- 
 
 Nw ¢ s > ue. , 5 > yy , 
 —eldetes, OTs madvtes Gpeneras esos yeverOar’ ovK apa mw TE- 
 ecpey dpaotias. Revos qv. ovdey yap Teheiav Te- 
 
 b Matt. xix. 2]. AessTeE gay. 
 
 © Chem. ALEX. Quis Dives 
 
Article Fourteenth. 197 
 
 which is the next following section, he proceeds to 
 give his reasons in a strain of most bitter irony’; 
 “ Sufficient be it for a martyr to have wiped away 
 his own sins.—Who looses another’s death by his 
 own, except the Son of God alone? For he freed 
 the malefactor in his very suffermg. For for this 
 purpose he came, that being himself free from sin, 
 and holy in all things, he might be obedient for 
 sinners. Thou, therefore, who dost emulate him 
 in pardoning sins, if thou hast thyself sinned in 
 nothing, by all means suffer for me. But if thou 
 art a sinner, how can the oil of thy torch be suffi- 
 cient both for thee and me*.” In another place he 
 says, “‘ Every one has a right belonging to man, and 
 a natural power to worship that which he shall 
 think right ; nor is any one injured or profited by 
 the religion of another °.” 
 
 “We ought not to glory in any thing, since 
 nothing is our own. For, as we have it in St. 
 John’s Gospel, ‘A man can receive nothing, except 
 it be given him from heaven’’.” John iii. 27. 
 
 “ For no man is able to persuade the devil to let 
 one out of his power, whom he hath once gotten 
 
 4 Tertuuu. de Pudicit. c. quomodo oleum facule ‘tux 
 
 22. Sufficiat martyri propria 
 delicto purgasse.—Quis alienam 
 mortem sua solvit, nisi solus 
 Dei filius? Nam et in ipsa 
 passione liberavit latronem. 
 Ad hoc enim venerat, ut ipse a 
 delicto purus et omnia sanctus 
 pro peccatoribus _ obediret. 
 Proinde qui illum emularis 
 donando delicta, plané patere 
 pro nos. Si vero peccator es, 
 
 sufficere et tibi et mihi poterit? 
 
 © TERTULL. ad Scap. c. 2. 
 Humani juris et naturalis po- 
 testatis est unicuique, quod 
 putaverit, colere ; nec alii obest, 
 aut prodest, alterius religio. 
 
 £ Cyprian Testim.{l. iii.’c. 
 4. In nullo gloriandum quando 
 nostrum nihil sit, in evangelio 
 cata Joannem. Nemo potest, 
 etc. 
 
198 Article Fourteenth. 
 
 into it. And he that cannot make satisfaction or 
 propitiate God for his own sins, how can he do it 
 for another § ?” 
 
 ARTICLE XV. 
 
 Of Christ alone without Sin. 
 
 ‘© CuristT, in the truth of our nature, was made like unto us 
 ‘in all things (sin only except) from which he was clearly 
 ‘void, both in his flesh and in his spirit. He came to 
 “be the Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself 
 “once made, should take away the sins of the world; 
 ‘and sin, as Saint John saith, was not inhim. 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 
 Sonat Se 
 
 Two things are here asserted, first, Christ’s 
 freedom from sin in his human nature; secondly, 
 the sinfulness of regenerate Christians. 
 
 The Socinians consider Christ to have been a 
 mere man, and consequently to have been liable to 
 commit sin. 
 
 The Pelagians maintained that a man may be 
 without sin; and the Antinomians held, that 
 
 &§ Basix. in Ps. xlviii. s. 3. dotvar Ta OcG, mos ty icxtoe 
 —ig ye obde meph rBv iDlwv apao- roiro bmep érépov mpabau ; 
 / 
 THdTwev, oiog TE eott, ebiAacpa 
 
Article Fifteenth. 199 
 
 Christ having fulfilled the law for them, had taken 
 away sin. The latter part of this Article may 
 therefore be considered as directed against these 
 tenets: and also as an addition to the preceding 
 denial of Works of Supererogation taught by the 
 Church of Rome; for having declared that Works 
 of Supererogation cannot be taught without arro- 
 gancy and impiety, we now declare that all, 
 although baptized and born again in Christ, yet 
 offend in many things. 
 
 “If any man say, that the flesh of our Lord dif- 
 fered from ours in this respect, because it com- 
 mitted no sin, neither was guile found in his soul, 
 but that we are sinners, he speaketh rightly *.” 
 
 “ Our Instructor is like unto God his Father, 
 whose Son he is, without sin, blameless, and with- 
 out passion in his soul”.” Again ; “ But he (Christ,) 
 was altogether free from human passions, and 
 therefore is he alone judge, because he alone is 
 without sin; but we, by what strength we have, 
 strive to avoid the least sins °.” 
 
 “The Word alone is without sin, for to sin is 
 natural and common to all *.” 
 
 Tertullian’ says, “ For God alone is without sin, 
 
 a Trenz1 adv. Heres. lib. obo €OTLY W10g avapapTnTOC, ayE= 
 
 v.c. xiv. s. 3. Si quis igitur 
 secundum hoc alteram dicit 
 Domini carnem a nostra carne, 
 quoniam illa quidem non pec- 
 cavit, neque inventus est dolus 
 in anima ejus, nos autem pec- 
 catores, recté dicit. 
 
 > Crem. Axtex. Pedag. 
 lib. i. c, 2. Estey 6 Masdaywryos 
 nay tH Tarp) aired ro Och, 
 
 TiAnn ros, Kat amabys ryy Wuxqy. 
 
 © Idem, ibid.—2:& rovro yap 
 Kah wovos KeITIS, OTE dvancpr yr os 
 peeves” masts e€ aon OVyapic, 5 OTE 
 CAAKITTA Aaordvery fue. 
 
 4 Idem, ibid. lib. iii. ¢. ult. 
 Mavos yap avaKapTnros o Adyos. 
 To prey yp eLapaprdvery mao 
 eugurov Kah Kowey. 
 
200 Article Fifteenth. 
 
 and the only man without sin is Christ, because 
 Christ is also God *.” 
 
 And in another place he speaks of the sinfulness 
 of man: 
 
 “There are some sins which every day we are 
 all liable to run into. For to whom doth it not 
 happen to be ‘angry without cause,’ and to ‘let 
 the sun go down upon his wrath,’ or to strike his 
 neighbour, or freely to rail against him, or to swear 
 rashly, or to break the promises he made in 
 covenants or bargains, or to tell a lie through 
 bashfulness or necessity *.” 
 
 Hippolytus, arguing that the divine nature in 
 Christ was not altered or diminished by the assump- 
 tion of the human nature, says; “ Wherefore also 
 the Word of God, being truly made man as we are, 
 yet without sin, and having acted and suffered hu- 
 manly whatsoever things are incident to our nature, 
 without being sinful, and having for our sakes en- 
 dured to be circumscribed in natural flesh, did not 
 undergo any change, nor did that which is the 
 same with the Father become in any respect the 
 same with the flesh by means of divesture *.” 
 
 And in another place; “ For he, who is always 
 by nature God, by his superinfinite power, becom- 
 ing, as he wished, man without sin, continues to be 
 
 © TerRTULL. de Animd.c.41. omnes simus objecti. Cui enim 
 
 —et solus homo sine peccato 
 Christus, quia et Deus Chris- 
 tus. 
 
 f Tertuuy. de Pudicit. c. 
 19. Quod sint quedam delicta 
 quotidiane incursionis, quibus 
 
 non accidit, aut irasci inique 
 etc? 
 
 & Hrppotyti c. Ber. et Hel. 
 v. i. ce. 1. Ata Kai Ka? qpés 
 GAnPGe yevopevoc dvOpwrocg ywpic 
 apapriac 6 Tov Oeov Adyog, kK. 7. X. 
 
Article Fifteenth. 201 
 
 what he was, with every thing that we conceive of 
 God, and he also continues to be what he was 
 made, with all we can conceive and naturally un- 
 derstand of man °*.” 
 
 “The Saviour himself was the ark made of 
 incorruptible wood; for his incorruptible and im- 
 perishable tabernacle was thus signified, which 
 produced no corruption of sin ; for the sinner makes 
 confession and says, ‘My wounds stink and are 
 corrupt because of my foolishness’ But the Lord 
 was without sin, of incorruptible wood in his hu- 
 man nature, that is, of the Virgin and the Holy 
 Ghost within, and without, the Word of God, as it 
 were covered with the purest gold *.'” 
 
 Origen quotes an objection of Celsus, “The 
 body of God could not be such as your’s is ;” and 
 proceeds to answer it, “ But we say to this, that he 
 took upon himself a body, as from a woman, when 
 he dwelt amongst us in this life, human, and sub- 
 ject to human death: therefore amongst other things 
 we say that he was a great champion on account of 
 men, his human body being tempted in all things as 
 all are ; but not as other men, with sin ; but altoge- 
 ther without sin: for it appears very plain to us, 
 that ‘he did no sin, nor was guile found in his 
 mouth ™, and because he knew not sin, God gave 
 him, as being pure, for all who have sinned ”’.” 
 
 h Idem, ibid. c. 4, SSS 
 
 Kipwc avapaprnrog iv tk Tov aonr- 
 
 VOpEVOC, we nIEANGEV, dvOpwrog ava- 
 paprnroc 
 
 1 Ps. xxxviii. 5. 
 
 K Exodus, xxxvii. 1, 2. 
 
 ' Hiproiyri Fragm. in Ps. 
 xxiii. vol. i, p. 268. “O be 
 
 
 
 
 
 tTwy Eihwy 7d Kara avOpwroy, Tov- 
 rtotw ék Tij¢ TapOévov Kal Tov ‘Aytov 
 Ilvetparoc, Kk. T.d. 
 m [saiah, liii. 9. 
 22. 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 n OriGENn. c. Cels. lib. i. s. 
 
 1 Peter, ii. 
 
202 Article Fifteenth. 
 
 “ All his acts, from his very first coming, are 
 marked by accompanying patience; that in the 
 first place coming down from that heavenly height 
 to earth, the Son of God does not despise putting 
 on the flesh of man, and though he was not him- 
 self a sinner, to bear the sins of others °.” 
 
 “ Wherefore to have nothing of what our adver- 
 sary possesseth is the privilege of the Lord alone, 
 who was partaker with us of his passions, yet 
 without sin?.” 
 
 “« Perhaps it is not without cause, that when we 
 often find in Scripture that men are said to be 
 without complaint, we can find none said to be 
 without sin, but that one alone of whom it is openly 
 said, ‘him who did not know sin’?.” 
 
 And elsewhere he propounds this question, “ Whe- 
 ther not only there is some one of the children 
 of men, but whether there ever could have been 
 any heretofore, or can any be hereafter, who never 
 had or never will have any sin at all?” And he 
 answers immediately, “It is most certain there is 
 none, never was, nor ever will be any such at all, 
 besides the one Mediator betwixt God and man, 
 
 rr? 
 
 the man Christ Jesus*. 
 
 6 2 7 SS . 26 a K le fot. TOD y. c 
 . ——orxets 8, b¢ arbour uplov €oT, TO peTaryavTos ny 
 peTad apapriac, Ga zavTy XYPig Toy aitod Tabyudtay ywols duap= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 apaogriac Tia. 
 ° Cypriani de Bono Pati- 4 AvueusTIN. de Nat. et 
 enti, c. 3. et cum peccator Grat. c. xiv. non invenitur 
 
 ipse non esset, aliena peccata qui sit dictus sine peccato, nisi 
 
 portare. unus solus de quo aperte dictum 
 P Gree. Nyss. in ,Eccl.— est, eum qui non noverat pecca- 
 
 Ais to pydey eoynxevar tay rot tum. 
 
 GYTIKELAEYOU KTNUATAY, ayoD TOD * Idem. de Peccatorum 
 
Article Fifteenth. 203 
 
 And again : 
 
 “If therefore those things be true that we have 
 spoken so largely concerning infants, there neither 
 is amongst the children of men, nor was, nor will 
 be, any without sin, except the one Mediator, in 
 whom propitiation and justification is placed for 
 us, whereby the enmities of our sins being de- 
 stroyed, we are reconciled unto God‘.” 
 
 “ Having read the works I sent lately to you, 
 my dearest son, Marcellinus, concerning the bap- 
 tism of infants, and the perfection of the righteous- 
 ness of man, that none in this life ever did or ever 
 will attain unto, except the one Mediator who 
 suffered human passions in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh, yet without any sin at all.” 
 
 Meritis et Remiss. lib. ii. ec. 
 
 
 
 20. Hunc prorsus preter 
 unum Mediatorem Dei et ho- 
 minum, hominem Christum 
 Jesum, nullum esse, vel fuisse, 
 vel futurum esse, certissimum 
 est. 
 
 S Idem, ibid. mec est in 
 filiis hominum quisquam, nec 
 fuit, nec erit (sine peccato) ex- 
 cepto uno Mediatore in quo no- 
 bis propitiatio et justificatio 
 
 
 
 posita est, per quam, finitis in- 
 imicitiis peccatorum, reconcilia« 
 mur Deo. 
 
 * Idem. de Spiritu et Litera 
 ad Marcellinum, ec. 1. 
 Quod eam nemo in hac vita vel 
 assecutus, vel assecuturus vide- 
 atur, excepto uno Mediatore, 
 qui humana perpessus est in 
 similitudine carnis peccati, sine 
 ullo omnino peccato, etc. 
 
 
 
ARTICLE XVI. 
 Of Sin after Baptism. 
 
 *‘Not every deadly sin, willingly committed after Bap- 
 * tism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable, 
 ‘* 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 
 *‘ siven and fall into sin; and by the grace of God we 
 ‘‘may rise 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 Montanists, Novatians, and Anabaptists 
 denied the efficacy of repentance in certain cases. 
 In our Homilies (on Repentance) the Novatians 
 are expressly referred to, though the Anabaptists, 
 at the period of the Reformation, seem in this 
 Article to have been chiefly aimed at. 
 
 The Calvinists, on the other hand, contended 
 that they who had once received the Holy Ghost, 
 could not be guilty of sin, they considered perse- 
 verance to be the consequence of election, so that 
 the faithful can never fall away. 
 
 These two points must here receive a separate 
 consideration. 
 
Article Sixteenth. 205 
 
 First then, “the grant of repentance is not to be 
 denied to such as fall into sin after baptism.” 
 
 Ignatius having urged the Philadelphians to flee 
 divisions and false doctrines, and to submit them- 
 selves to their spiritual rulers, proceeds, “ For as 
 many as are of God and Jesus Christ, are with 
 their bishop. But as many as having repented 
 shall return to the unity of the Church, they also 
 shall be of God, that they may live according to 
 Jesus Christ. Be not deceived, my brethren; if 
 any one follows one that makes a schism, he does 
 not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks 
 after another opinion, he agrees not with the 
 passion *.” 
 
 Again, “ Where there is division and wrath God 
 dwelleth not; but the Lord forgives all that re- 
 pent, if they repent to the unity of God, and to 
 the council of the bishop?.” 
 
 In the former of these two passages Ignatius 
 says that a schismatic “ does not inherit the king- 
 dom of God;” this therefore may be considered as 
 an instance of a “ deadly sin, willingly committed 
 after baptism ;” and yet he invites such an one to 
 repent and to return to the unity of the Church. 
 
 The passages in Cyprian’s works, that might be 
 adduced in support of the position now before us, 
 are so numerous, that the only difficulty is that of 
 
 ® Ienar. ad Philad.s.3.— ctv peravootow apices 6 Kepins, 
 Et ric oxiZovtt akodovbet, Baciieiav ey pETavonTwoL ets evotnta Oecd, 
 ais 7s s 
 Ocov ob KAnpovopei. Kak cuvedpioy TOU emioKoToD. 
 
 > Idem, ibid. s. 8——Naow 
 
206 Article Siateenth. 
 
 selection. A considerable portion of his long 
 letter to Antonianus respecting the dispute be- 
 tween Cornelius and Novatian, the latter of whom 
 had been irregularly chosen and ordained to the 
 see of Rome, is taken up in refuting the opinion of 
 Novatian’s followers, who maintained that the 
 Church should not grant pardon to those Chris- 
 tians who had lapsed in time of persecution; he 
 says, “ We ought to mourn with those that mourn, 
 and to weep with those that weep, and, as far as 
 we are able, to raise them up again by the aid and 
 consolation of our love, and neither, on the one 
 hand, be over harsh and pertinacious in rejecting 
 their repentance, nor, on the other hand, over 
 ready and easy in hastily conceding the rights of 
 communion. Behold, a brother lies wounded in 
 battle by the adversary. On the one side the 
 devil strives to kill whom he hath wounded; on 
 the other Christ exhorts him, whom he hath re- 
 deemed, not to perish entirely. Which of the 
 two shall we assist, on which side shall we place 
 ourselves ? shall we favour the devil that he may 
 destroy, and, like the priest and Levites in the 
 Gospel, shall we pass by our brother who lies half 
 dead? or as priests of God, and Christ, imitating 
 what Christ both taught and did, shall we snatch 
 the wounded from the jaws of the adversary, that 
 we may reserve him, being cured, for God his 
 
 c? 
 
 judge®. 
 
 © Cyprian. Ep. lii. s. 12. tum possumus auxilio et solatio 
 ad Antonian.——et eos quan- nostre dilectionis erigere, nec 
 
Article Sixteenth. 207 
 
 Shortly afterwards in the same Epistle he says : 
 
 « But I wonder that there are some so obstinate 
 as not to think repentance ought to be given to 
 such as are fallen, or suppose that pardon should 
 be denied to penitents, when it is written, ‘ Re- 
 member from whence thou art fallen, and repent, 
 and do the just works*.’*” 
 
 And again, he quotes Ezekiel xvui. 20. and adds, 
 “Which reading, to wit, and holding, we think none 
 ought to be driven away from the fruit of satisfac- 
 tion and the hope of peace; when we know, ac- 
 cording to the faith of the divine Scriptures, God 
 himself being the author and exhorter to it, sinners 
 are compelled to ask repentance; and pardon and 
 indulgence are not denied to the penitents*” 
 
 Again, “ But seeing we find none ought to be 
 prohibited from acting repentance; and that to 
 such as deprecate and pray for the mercy of the 
 Lord, according to that wherein he is merciful and 
 holy, peace may be granted by his priests, the 
 sighs of the sorrowful are to be admitted, and the 
 fruit of repentance is, not to be denied to such as 
 prieve®.” 
 
 adeo immites et pertinaces ad 
 eorum peenitentiam retunden- 
 dam, nec iterum soluti et faciles 
 ad communicationem temeré 
 laxandam. 
 
 @ Rey. 1, 5. 
 © Cypriani Ep. lii. s. 14. 
 ad Antonian.——Miror autem 
 
 quosdam sic obstinatos esse, ut 
 dandam non putent lapsis pce- 
 nitentiam, aut poenitentibus 
 
 existiment veniam denegan- 
 dam, ete. 
 
 f Idem, ibid. s. 19. ne- 
 minem putamus a fructu satis- 
 
 
 
 * factionis et spe pacis arcendum, 
 
 cum sciamus——veniam atque 
 indulgentiam peenitentibus non 
 denegari. 
 
 & Idem, ibid. s.20.—Quod si 
 invenimus a poenitentia agenda 
 neminem debere prohiberi, et 
 
208 . Article Siaxteenh. 
 
 “In the choice of evils, it is rather to be chosen 
 that a man having obtained baptism should be 
 again in sin, than that he should end his life void 
 of grace. For sin, indeed, may perhaps have 
 pardon and mercy, whereof good people have 
 great hope; but salvation is altogether forbidden 
 to the other by a certain and determinate sen- 
 tence ty; i 
 
 Chrysostom’s language is sufficiently strong on 
 this point: he says that Judas, if he had lived, and 
 persevered in his repentance, might have been 
 saved. “ That he might have been saved, if he 
 had lived, is plain from those that crucified our 
 Saviour. For if he saved those that lifted him up 
 on the cross, and, when he was on the cross itself, 
 besought the Father, and asked for pardon for 
 their so great wickedness, it is manifest that he 
 would also have received the traitor with all kind- 
 ness, if he had shewn his repentance in a becoming 
 manner; but he, being overwhelmed with exces- 
 
 i» 
 
 sive grief, was not able to persevere in the remedy’. 
 
 Nam pec- 
 
 deprecantibus atque exoranti- 
 bus Domini misericordiam, se- 
 cundum quod ille misericors et 
 pius est, per sacerdotes ejus 
 pacem posse concedi, admit- 
 tendus est plangentium gemi- 
 tus, et peenitentie fructus do- 
 lentibus non negandus. 
 
 h Grea. Nyss, Orat. adv. 
 eos qui differunt Baptismum. 
 In electione malorum magis 
 est eligendum, ut salutare la- 
 varcum assecutus rursus sit in 
 peccato, quam ut grati# ex- 
 
 pers vitam finiat. 
 catum quidem veniam fortasse 
 consequetur aut clementiam, 
 cujus magna est spes apud 
 bonos ; alteri autem est omnino 
 vetita salus ex certa et definita 
 sententia. 
 
 i Curysost. Hom. de Pe- 
 nitentid, x. “Ori yap ei ely, Kat 
 avroc tc W0n dy, Ondoy ik TOY CTav- 
 pwodyrwy* si yap Tove Emi TOY CTaV- 
 poy avrov avaBiBacavrac iowoe, Kat 
 iy ait® TH oravpp wy mapEKa)et 
 rov Tartpa, kai svyyvwpny avroic 
 
Article Sixteenth. 209 
 
 Chrysostom then refers to the parable of the 
 prodigal son, and proceeds : 
 
 “ T have adduced this parable in order that you 
 may learn, that there is remission of sins com- 
 mitted even after baptism, if we consider the mat- 
 ter. I mention this not that I may lead you to be 
 indolent, but that I may draw you back from de- 
 spair ; for despair works us more evils than indo- 
 lence. This son, therefore, bears the image of 
 those that fall after baptism ; that he does repre- 
 sent those that have fallen after baptism, is evident 
 from this, that he is called a son; for no one is 
 called a son without baptism; and moreover he 
 dwelt in his father’s house, and shared all his fa- 
 ther’s substance ; but before baptism it is not al- 
 lowed us to take what is our father’s, nor to receive 
 our inheritance: so by means of all these things, 
 the condition of those that believe is shadowed 
 out.” 
 
 And in another place he says, “ As it is easy to 
 be baptized by water, so is it easy for the soul to 
 repent: the malefactor did not require a long 
 
 ATE TOU TOAUHPATOC, EvVONAOY OTL Kai 
 Tov mpoddvra, ei voup TY TpooNH- 
 Kovre THY peTavoay éredeibaro, peTa 
 maone av ebpeveiac tdtkaro’ aN’ 
 EKELVOC OUK VETKETO Eppetvat TP pap- 
 pak, Ty TEpiocoripg omy Kararro- 
 OEic. 
 
 Kk Idem, ibid. Tadryy d€ thy 
 mapaBodyy mponyOnyv eimety, wa 
 paOnre, Ore Kal THY pera 7d Bar- 
 Tiopa dwaprnparwy toriv apeoic, tay 
 Tpocéywpev® éyw Ot ovK iva Eic pa- 
 Oupiay tuBarw, aX twa amd aro- 
 yvoctws anayayw Kai yao xEipova 
 
 Tic paOupiag Hpac H amoyvwote éo- 
 yalerat kaka: odroc Toivur 6 Wwe, Ei- 
 Kova TOY pera TO ouTPdY PépeL TrE- 
 cévTwy* bre d& rode pera 7d Bar- 
 Tioua Taparecsvrac Ondoi, dAov 
 éxetOev’ ide yap Aéyerary ovdeic Oé 
 bwWe Banrisparocg av KAnOEin ywpicr 
 kai ry otkiay O& WKE THY Tarpyay, 
 Kaira Tarppa Ouveiparo ravra* 7p0 
 62 Barricparog obx Eore Tarppa da- 
 Beiv, obdé d&EacPar Kdnoovopiar’ 
 Core Cid TavTwY Hpiv TovTwy, Td 
 TOY TLOToY aiviTTETaL Taypa. 
 
 Pp 
 
210 Article Sixteenth. 
 
 time ; the martyrs have been crowned in a mo- 
 ment; but if we have committed deadly sins, and 
 which do not deserve pardon, since we have saving 
 remedies let us not despair; for not to have fallen 
 is difficult, but when one has fallen, not to rise 
 again, is diabolical and damnable'.” 
 
 “ But if any one think that then the word is 
 spoken against the Holy Ghost, when it is spoken 
 by him to whom his sins are already forgiven by 
 baptism, let them consider that even from such, by 
 the holiness of the church, the place of repentance 
 is not taken away ™.” 
 
 “ For if ignorance only obtained pardon, and 
 ignorance is not accepted but only before a man be 
 baptized, not only if he speak a word against the 
 Holy Ghost after baptism, but also if he speak 
 against the Son of Man, and moreover if he defile 
 himself with fornication, homicide, or any other 
 sin or fault after baptism, he cannot be cured by 
 repentance. Which such as hold, are excluded 
 from the catholic communion, and it is judged that 
 they cannot be partakers of God’s mercy so long 
 as they continue in that cruelty ”.” 
 
 ! Curysost. Hom. lxxvii. de m Avueust. Exposit. Epist. 
 Peenitent. et.Continent. et Vir- ad Rom. inchoate, s.16. Quod 
 ginitate. “Qonep eixody ets Sl Quisquam tunc putat verbum 
 BarrisOijva cic VOwp, odrwe Evicohdy dici adversus Spiritum Sane- 
 tore Td peravonoa Puynv' ove éée- tum, cum ab eo dicitur cui jam 
 On Xpdvov6AHorTHG ot waprupecéy per baptismum dimissa sunt 
 dxepaiw iorepaveOnoar ei dt aoby- peccata, attendant nec talibus 
 yvwora Kai pic Odvaroy nuapryn- per Ecclesiz sanctitatem au- 
 Kaper, txovTec Ta owrnpra gappaka ferri poenitentiz locum. 
 po) arroyvapev" od yap 70 Teceiv " Idem, ibid. Si enim sola 
 tore xahew ov, GAG TO TEsdvTa 4) jgnorantia veniam meretur, et 
 dvaornvat, caravixoy Kat odeOproy. ignorantia non accipitur nisi 
 
Article Sixteenth. A111 
 
 “ But the love of our neighbour, that is, the 
 love of man, even unto the love of our enemy, the 
 Lord himself commendeth to us; and we see how 
 many that are baptized both acknowledge them to 
 be true, and reverence them as the commands of 
 the Lord. But when they undergo the enmities of 
 any one, they are so inflamed with the desire of 
 revenge, that they burn with such flames of hatred, 
 that they cannot be appeased though the Gospel 
 itself be read and recited to them; and the churches 
 are full of such men already baptized; which, not- 
 withstanding, spiritual men will not cease in a bro- 
 therly way to admonish, and, with the spirit of 
 meekness they constantly instruct, that they would 
 be ready to meet and resist such temptations, and 
 that they would love rather to reign in the peace 
 of Christ, than to rejoice in the oppression of an 
 enemy; which would be done in vain, if there 
 was no hope of pardon nor cure of repentance left 
 for such sins °.” 
 
 Secondly. ‘“ 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 rise 
 again, and amend our lives.” 
 
 antequam quisquam fuerit bap- 
 tizatus, non solium si adversus 
 Spiritum Sanctum, sed etiam 
 si adversus Filium hominis post 
 baptismum dixerit verbum, et 
 omnino si qua fornicatione, vel 
 homicidio, vel ullo flagitio aut 
 facinore, post baptismum sese 
 maculaverit, non potest poeni- 
 tendo curari: quod qui sense- 
 
 runt, exclusi sunt a commu- 
 nione catholica, satisque judi- 
 catum est eos in illa crudelitate 
 divine misericordie participes 
 esse non posse. 
 
 ° Idem, ibid. Quod in- 
 aniter fieret si talium peccato- 
 rum nulla spes venie, nulla 
 peenitentiz medicina remane- 
 ret. 
 
 
 
 p2 
 
212 Article Sixteenth. 
 
 This part of the Article is connected with the 
 former question, though it opposes the errors of a 
 different sect; the one denying the possibility of 
 sinning in certain cases; the other admitting the 
 possibility of sinning in the same cases, but deny- 
 ing any place of forgiveness, or possibility of re- 
 pentance. All the foregoing extracts from the 
 Fathers, therefore, which admit the grant of re- 
 pentance, by implication admit also the possibility 
 of sinning after grace given. 
 
 This second question is also closely connected 
 with the doctrine of predestination and election, 
 which will next come before us; but as it will be 
 more convenient to keep but one point in view 
 under the next Article, viz. the way in which the 
 foreknowledge of God can be reconciled with free 
 will in man, the question of irresistible grace may 
 be now considered. 
 
 Bishop Tomline has, in his “ Refutation of Cal- 
 vinism,” so fully collected the belief of the Fathers 
 on this point, that I cannot do better than select 
 from his work some from amongst those passages 
 which more immediately bear on the present ques- 
 tion ; especially as no reasonable person, who has 
 studied the Fathers, can doubt that he has repre- 
 sented their tenets fairly and truly. 
 
 The first part of the following passage from 
 Clemens Romanus has been already given in proof 
 of the doctrine of the Atonement”. 
 
 “ Let us look steadfastly at the blood of Christ, 
 
 P Ante, p. 177. 
 
Article Sixteenth. 213 
 
 and see how precious his blood is in the sight of 
 God; which, being shed for our salvation, has ob- 
 tained the grace of repentance for all the world. 
 Let us search into all ages, and learn that our 
 Lord has in every one of them given opportunity 
 for repentance to all such as were willing to turn 
 unto him 4.” 
 
 This passage, it is true, does not say that those 
 who have received grace, can afterwards fall from 
 grace given, but it certainly does oppose the par- 
 tial doctrine of irresistible grace. 
 
 “God therefore has given good, and they who 
 work it shall receive glory and honour, because 
 they worked good, when then had in their power 
 not to work it: but those who do not work it, will 
 receive the just judgment of God, because they 
 have not worked good when they had it in their 
 power to work it. But if some men were bad by 
 nature, and others good, neither the good would 
 deserve praise, for they were created so, nor would 
 the bad deserve blame, being born so. But since 
 all men are of the same nature, and able to lay 
 hold of and do that which is good, and able to re- 
 ject it again, and not do it, some justly receive 
 praise, even from men, who act according to good 
 laws, andmuch more from God; and obtain deserved 
 testimony of generally choosing and persevering in 
 that which is good; but others are blamed, and 
 receive the deserved reproach of rejecting that 
 which is just and good. And therefore the Pro- 
 
 4 Ciem. Rom. Ep. 1?. c. 7. ante p. 157. n. +. 
 
214 Article Sixteenth.’ 
 
 phets exhorted men to do justice, and perform 
 good works 4.” 
 
 After quoting several passages of Scripture, 
 Irenzeus adds, “ All these things shew the free will 
 of man, and the counsel of God, exhorting against 
 disobedience, but not forcing our wills. For if any 
 one should be unwilling to follow the Gospel, it is 
 permitted him, although it is not expedient. For 
 disobedience to God and loss of good, are in the 
 power of man, but they cause no small injury and 
 mischief. And on this account St. Paul says, ‘ All 
 things are lawful but all things are not expedient’, 
 referring both to the liberty of man; on which ac- 
 count all things are permitted, God not compelling 
 man; and by the expression ‘not expedient,’ shewing 
 that they should not abuse liberty for a cloak of 
 maliciousness, for this is not expedient. And again 
 he says, ‘Speak every man truth with his neigh- 
 bour’ ;’ and ‘ Let no corrupt communication pro- 
 ceed out of your mouth; neither filthiness, nor 
 foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not conve- 
 nient, but rather giving of thanks*’ And, ‘ For 
 ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light 
 in the Lord; walk as children of light; not in 
 rioting and drunkenness ; not in chambering and 
 
 9 IrenNzI adv. Heres. 1. iv. 
 ce. xxxvii. s. 1, and 2.—ézeidy 
 ob TaYTES THS AUTIS erot GUoEws, 
 
 \ ~ c ‘ > x 7 
 Taon Oecd ob pev enasvodyras, Kab 
 2£7 SEE ee s \ 
 aklas Tuyyavoues paprupiag, Kak 
 To Kadod Kabcrhav exAoyys Kal 
 
 durdpevol Te Katacyely kal mpakas 
 \ > \ ‘ > 4 / 
 To ayaboy, Kat Ouyamevor Tar 
 amoBanrely avtd, kal pn wornous 
 XA ~ 
 Oikaing Kak map ayOpodnos ois 
 . / 
 EDYOMOVIAEVTIS, Kab TOAD mpoTEpay 
 
 eminovns’ of 0€ KaraiTioyTas, Kat 
 aklas tuyyavovos Cnuiac K. T. d. 
 rl Core vi. 12: 
 s Eph. iv. 25. 
 t Eph. iv. 29, and v. 4. 
 
Article Sixteenth. 215 
 
 wantonness; not in strife and envying; and such 
 were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are 
 sanctified in the name of the Lord*’ If then it 
 were not in our power to do or not to do these 
 things, what reason had the Apostle, and much 
 more our Lord himself, to exhort us to do some 
 things and to abstain from others? But because 
 man is of a free will from the beginning, and God of 
 a free will, in whose likeness man was made, advice 
 is always given him to keep the good, which is 
 done by obedience to God. And God has pre- 
 served to man a will free, and in his own power, 
 not only in works, but also in faith, saying, ‘ Ac- 
 cording to your faith, be it unto you*: shewing 
 that the faith of man is his own, because he has his 
 own will.” 
 
 And shortly afterwards ; “If you shall not be- 
 lieve in him, the cause of imperfection will be in 
 you, who did not obey, but not in him who called. 
 For he sent to call to the marriage ; but they who 
 did not obey, deprived themselves of the royal 
 supper. The power of God therefore is not 
 wanting; for he is able of stones to raise up 
 children to Abraham; but he who does not obtain 
 it, is the cause of his own imperfection. Nor does 
 the light fail because men blind themselves; but 
 that remaining as it is, those who are blinded are 
 in darkness from their own fault, the light not en- 
 
 “ Eph. v. 8. Rom. xiii. 13. yap mdvra 1d adrekotowy ém- 
 AC ors va. 1/2: eikyug: tov ayOpdmov, Kalb od 
 
 * Matt. ix. 29. cupPovrevtikey tov Ocoi—amo- 
 
 Y Irenar adv. Heres. 1. ToemoyTOs prev TOY amebely aut, 
 Iv. ¢, xxxvii.s. 3.and4. Tatra arr uy Bralonevov.— 
 
-216 Article Sixteenth. 
 
 slaving any one by necessity ; nor God forcing, if 
 any one should not be willing to avail himself of 
 his (God’s) power. Those, therefore, who desert 
 the light given by the Father, and transgress the 
 law of liberty, have deserted it from their own 
 fault, having been made free, and endowed with 
 free will *.” 
 
 “To whom will the Lord say, ‘ Your’s is the 
 kingdom of heaven*.’ It is your’s, if ye be willing, 
 who have the power of choosing the things which 
 belong to God: it is your’s, if ye be willing only 
 to believe, and to obey those brief instructions 
 which have been preached to you?.” 
 
 “ Moreover, because the soul, having substance 
 and life in itself, when it departs out of this world, 
 will be disposed of according to its merits, either 
 enjoying the inheritance of eternal life and bliss, if 
 its conduct shall have procured this for it, or suf- 
 fering eternal fire and punishment, if the guilt of 
 its sins shall have thrust it into that condition; 
 and because there will be a time of the resurrection 
 of the dead, when this body, ‘ which is sown in 
 corruption, will be raised in incorruption ; and that 
 which is sown in dishonour, will be raised in 
 
 2 Idem; l. iv. c. xxxix. s. 3: 
 Si autem non credideris ei, et 
 fugeris manus ejus, erit causa 
 imperfectionis in te, qui non 
 obedisti, sed non in illo qui 
 vocavit.—pyjte Tod Qwrds per’ 
 avayKns SovdkayoyobyTes TiIva, AqTE 
 Tov Oect Pia Goprevov, ef xy OeAat tig 
 KATHOK EY ATOD THY TEXVHY. 
 
 a Matt. v. 3. and 10. 
 
 > Cirem. ALEX. Cohort. ad 
 Gent, c. 10. p- 79. Tin 
 rargnoes Kupios, tyav eorw 74 
 Bacircla tay otpavav. tuoy ert, 
 eay Oernonte, TOY mpd Tov Oeoy 
 Thy Tooaiverw erxyKkiTov’ Suoy, 
 cay OcAnonte micTeVoaL [Aavoy, Kat 
 Th cuvtonlg Tov Kypvyparos 
 eres bat. 
 
Article Sixteenth. 217 
 
 glory°;’ this also is settled in the doctrine of the 
 Church, that every rational soul has free will, and 
 that it has to contend against the devil and his 
 angels, and the powers which oppose it, because 
 they strive to burden it with sins; but we, if we 
 live rightly and prudently, endeavour to rescue 
 ourselves from this burden. Whence, consequently, 
 we may understand, that we are not subject to ne< 
 cessity, so as to be compelled by all means to do 
 either bad or good things, although it be against 
 our will. For if we be masters of our will, some 
 powers, perhaps, may urge us to sin, and others 
 assist us to safety: yet we are not compelled by 
 necessity to act either rightly or wrongly *.” 
 
 “But because the Apostle sometimes does not 
 ascribe to God that the vessel is to honour or dis- 
 honour, but refers the whole to ourselves, saying, 
 ‘If a man therefore purge himself from these, he 
 shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet 
 for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good 
 work * ;’ and sometimes he does not attribute it to 
 ourselves, but seems to refer every thing to God, 
 saying, ‘ Hath not the potter power over the clay, 
 of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, 
 and another unto dishonour.’ These expressions 
 are not contradictory: they are reconcileable, and 
 one perfect sense may be derived from them; for 
 
 © | Cor. xv. 42, 43. voluntatis. Unde et consequens 
 
 * Oricen de Princip. 1. i. est intelligere, non nos neces- 
 Pref. s. 5.—Est et illud defi-  sitati esse subjectos, ut omni 
 nitum in ecclesiastica predica- modo etiamsi nolimus vel mala 
 tione, omnem animam rationa-. vel bona agere cogamur.— 
 bilem esse liberi arbitrii et ¢ 2 Tim, ii. 21. 
 
218 Article Sixteenth. 
 
 neither does our free will without the instruction of 
 God, nor does the instruction of God, compel us to 
 make a proficiency, unless we ourselves contribute 
 something to the good: neither our free will with- 
 out the instruction of God, and the exercise of this 
 privilege of free will, causing any one to be to ho- 
 nour or dishonour; nor the will of God alone 
 making any one to honour or dishonour, unless he 
 has some ground of difference, (namely) our will 
 inclining towards what is good, or what is bad °*.” 
 And again shortly afterwards ; “ For it is not the 
 same thing to have the power of conquering and to 
 conquer, as the Apostle himself has pointed out in 
 this very guarded expression; ‘ God will make a 
 way to escape, that ye may be ad/e to bear it *” not 
 that ye may bear it. For many do not bear it, but 
 are overcome by the temptation. God grants not 
 that we may bear it, for then, it seems, there would 
 be no struggle; but that we may be able to bear it. 
 But we make use of that power which is given us, 
 to enable us to conquer, according to our free will, 
 either with energy, and then we conquer; or slug- 
 gishly, and then we are overcome. For if it were 
 entirely given to us in every case to conquer, and 
 by no means to be overcome, what cause of contest 
 
 © OriGEN. de Princip. 1. iii. Tod 29’ ni, rowdvro¢ cig Tyujy 7H 
 c. i. s. ult. ovre TO ep’ nydy etc driiay yevio0ar Tia obre TOU 
 Xupic Tig ExioTHpNe TOU OEov, ovTE imi TP Oep povov KatacKevdlovToc 
 1 ertoThpn Tov Oeov rooKkdrrew hac eS TYLJY 7 cig ATYsiay Td, tay pop 
 dvayxdlea, tay pu) Kai ypeic ti 76 UAV Td Srapopac OX THY HpEeTeoay 
 dyaQy 7 ovvecdywper ovTE Tov ig’ Tpoaipeow Kivovcay emt Ta XElpova, 
 Hy xXwpic THC eLoTHUNe Tov @eov H tri Ta Kpeirrova. f 
 Kal Tig KaraxpHoEewe TOU Kar’ akiay PNUCorsxala: 
 
 
 
Article Sixteenth. 219 
 
 would remain to him who could not be overcome ? 
 or what would be the merit of victory, where there 
 is not the power of resisting and conquering? But 
 if the possibility of conquering be equally afforded 
 to us all, but it remains in our own power how we 
 use this possibility, whether with energy or slug- 
 gishly, the conquered will be justly blamed, and 
 the conqueror justly rewarded ¢.” 
 
 “Tf the day rises equally to all, and if the sun 
 shines upon all with even and equal light, how much 
 more does Christ, the true sun and day, give the 
 light of eternal life in his church, with impartial 
 equality. Of which equality we see that a symbol 
 was displayed in the Exodus, when the manna de- 
 scended from heaven, and prefiguring future things, 
 pointed out the food of heavenly bread, and the 
 meat of Christ who was to come. For there, with- 
 out any discrimination, either of sex or of age, a 
 gomar was equally gathered by each _ person. 
 Whence it appeared, that the favour of Christ, 
 and the heavenly grace hereafter to follow, are 
 equally divided to all, without any regard to the 
 difference of sex, without any discrimination of 
 age, without any respect of persons; that the gift 
 of spiritual grace is poured upon all the people of 
 
 & OriGcEN. de Princip.1.iii.  bitrii facultatem aut industrié 
 Callas. os A Deo autem  utimur, et vincimus; aut seg- 
 datur, non ut sustineamus;  niter et superamur. Si enim 
 alioquin nullum jam videretur totum nobis hoc detur ut omni 
 esse certamen: sed ut sustinere genere superemus, et nullo mo- 
 possimus. Ea autem virtute, do vincamur, que jam superest 
 que nobis data est, ut vincere causa certandi ei qui vinci non 
 possimus, secundum liberi ar- _ potest ? 
 
 
 
 
 
220 Article Sixteenth. 
 
 God. The same spiritual grace, which is received 
 in an equal degree by believers at their baptism, is 
 evidently afterwards either diminished or increased 
 by our own conversation and conduct; as in the 
 Gospel the seed mentioned by our Lord is sown 
 equally, but according to the variety of the soil, 
 some is wasted, and some increases to thirty-fold, 
 or sixty-fold, or an hundred-fold *.” 
 
 And Lactantius says : 
 
 “ We of every sex, race, and age, enter upon this 
 heavenly journey, because God, who is the guide 
 of this way, denies immortality to no human being 
 who is born into the world i.” 
 
 ““He was without falsehood who said, that ‘ All 
 things work together for good to them that love 
 God*. For God is abundant in doing good; but 
 he expects the sincere free will of every one. 
 Therefore the Apostle added, saying, ‘to them who 
 are called according to his purpose.’ The existence 
 of a sincere purpose makes you called; for if you 
 have your body here, and not your mind, it profit- 
 
 1%” 
 
 eth nothing’. 
 
 » Cypriani Ep. lxxvi. ad 
 Magnum.s. 10. —Unde appa- 
 rebat Christi indulgentiam et 
 celestem gratiam, postmodum 
 secuturam, equaliter omnibus 
 dividi sine sexus varietate, sine 
 annorum discrimine, sine ac- 
 ceptione persone, super omnem 
 Dei populum spiritalis gratiz 
 munus infundi. Plane eadem 
 gratia spiritalis, que equaliter 
 in baptismo a credentibus su- 
 mitur, in conversatione atque 
 
 actu nostro postmodum vel mi- 
 nuitur vel augetur. 
 
 i Lacrant. 1. vi. de Vero 
 Cultu ec. 3. quia Deus, 
 qui ejus vie dux est, immorta- 
 litatem nulli homini nato negat. 
 
 Kk Rom. viii. 28. 
 
 1 Cyrit. Hreros. Pref. 
 Catech, me gimeves d€ Exdio= 
 Tov Thy yyytiay mpoakoersy" q 
 modberis ynrtia otoa, KAyTOV cE 
 move” Kay yap Ts cbpa ade exe, 
 hy d€ Sicivoray uy erggs, oDdev aperz. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article Seventeenth. 291 
 
 “«‘ Know that baptism forgives past sins, and does 
 not secure future righteousness, which is guarded 
 by labour, and industry, and diligence, and always, 
 above all things, by the mercy of God; so that it 
 belongs to us to ask, to him to give that which is 
 asked ; to us to begin, to him to perfect; to us to 
 offer what we can, to him to complete what we 
 cannot ™.” 
 
 ARTICLE XVII. 
 
 Of Predestination and Election. 
 
 ‘* PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting 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 damnation those 
 ‘* whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to 
 ** bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels 
 ‘* made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued 
 ** with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according 
 ‘© to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: 
 ** they through grace obey the calling: they be justified 
 ‘* freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be 
 ‘¢ made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus 
 
 m Hreron. Dial. adv. Pe- non futuram servare justitiam, 
 lag. 1. iii. p. init. tom. iv. pars. que labore, et industria, ac di- 
 2% p. 532. Hoc scito, baptis- ligentia, et semper super om- 
 mum preterita donare peccata, nia Dei clementia custoditur.— 
 
2922 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 *‘ Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at 
 ** length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting feli- 
 *olty,. 
 
 “* As the Godly consideration of Predestination, and 
 ** our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and un- 
 ** speakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in 
 ** themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortify- 
 ** ing 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 because it doth fervently kindle their love 
 ** towards God; so, for curious and carnal persons, lack- 
 *‘ ing the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their 
 *“ eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most 
 ** dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them 
 *‘ either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most 
 ** unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. _ 
 
 ** Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises, in 
 ** such wise, as they be 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.” 
 
 There is so much difference of opinion amongst 
 the members of our own Church, as to the meaning 
 of this Article, that I shall not pretend to say, as 
 has been done in former Articles, what errors it 
 was intended to oppose. And though I find less 
 difficulty in arriving at a distinct and definite per- 
 suasion on the doctrine here expressed than I do 
 on other points, yet as the object of this work is 
 not to express my own opinions, but to give those 
 of the Fathers of the Church, I shall abstain from 
 offering any remarks of my own, and select only 
 
Article Seventeenth. 293 
 
 some of the strongest passages from the Fathers 
 prior to Augustine. The Pelagian controversy led 
 him to make use of expressions which might be 
 urged in support of the doctrine of absolute predes- 
 tination ; but as a few extracts, either way, would 
 not fairly represent his opinions, and as they could 
 not be arrived at, (if they could be ascertained with 
 any precision at all,) without entering at length into 
 the controversy which first led him to speak strongly 
 on the subject, it seems advisable to pass him over 
 altogether. But, inasmuch as almost all the pas- 
 sages here adduced are opposed to the Calvinistic 
 doctrine of absolute predestination, it may seem to 
 some that the extracts are partially made, and with 
 a view, notwithstanding the above profession of im- 
 partiality, to represent my own view of the ques- 
 tion ;—to which accusation, should it be made, the 
 omission of Augustine as an authority may give 
 weight. I can only again repeat that such omis- 
 sion is made solely from the difficulty of represent- 
 ing that Father’s opinions within the brief limits of 
 two or three pages. 
 
 “ Let us be spiritual, a temple perfect unto 
 God ; as far as is in our power let us cherish the 
 fear of God, and earnestly strive to keep his com- 
 mandments ; that we may rejoice in his righteous 
 judgments. The Lord judges the world without 
 respect of persons. Each one will receive accord- 
 ing to what he does. If he be good, goodness goes 
 before him; if evil, the reward of wickedness follows 
 him. Let us raise ourselves, lest now that we are 
 called we should indolently sleep in our sins, and 
 
294 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 the Evil one obtaining power over us, should exert 
 himself and shut us out from the kingdom of the 
 Lord. And moreover ponder upon that, when you 
 see so many signs and wonders performed amongst 
 the people of the Jews, and yet the Lord deserted 
 them; Let us attend therefore lest we should ex- 
 perience the fulfilment of that Scripture ‘many 
 are called, but few chosen *.’ »” 
 
 Clemens Romanus and Ignatius, in some of their 
 Epistles, address the Churches to which they wrote 
 as being “ called,” “ predestinated before the world 
 began unto eternal glory,” and “ holy elect.” 
 
 « The Church of God which is at Rome to the 
 Church of God which is at Corinth, called and 
 sanctified by the will of God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ *.” 
 
 “ Tgnatius, who is also called Theophorus, to 
 the Church which is at Ephesus in Asia, deservedly 
 happy, being blessed through the greatness and 
 fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before 
 the world began, that it should be always unto an 
 enduring and unchangeable glory; being united 
 and chosen through actual suffering, according to 
 the will of the Father ‘%.” 
 
 a Matt. xxii. 14. 
 
 > BarnaBz Epist. s. 4. p. 
 60. Simus spiritales, simus 
 templum consummatum Deo: 
 in quantum est in nobis, medi- 
 temur timorem Dei, et custodi- 
 amus mandataillius. Dominus, 
 non aceepta persona, judicat 
 mundum. Unusquisque secun- 
 dum que facit, accipit: si fuerit 
 bonus, bonitas eum antecedit ; 
 
 si nequam, mercesnequitiz eum 
 sequitur. 
 
 © Ciem. Rom. Ep, ad Co- 
 rinth. s. 1. ‘H ?Exkaynola tov 
 Oc0d ) TapotKovoa ‘Pony, Ty "EK- 
 KAyoia Tov Osod Tagouotoy Ko- 
 pwOov, KAnToIc, HytaopEvorg Ev Oe- 
 Ajpare Oeov 
 
 4 Ienat. Ep. ad Ephes. s. 1. 
 ‘Iyvartoc, 6 Kai Osopdpoc, Ty Ebdo- 
 ynpevy ev peyéOer Ocod marpdc my- 
 
 
 
 
 
Article Seventeenth. 295 
 
 ** Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the 
 holy Church which is at Tralles im Asia, elect, 
 worthy of God, having peace through the flesh, 
 and blood, and passion, of Jesus Christ *.” 
 
 And Polycarp uses expressions very similar; he 
 begins his Epistle to the Philippians as follows : 
 “] rejoiced greatly with you in our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that ye have received the images of his 
 true love, and have conducted, as behoved you, 
 those who were fastened in bonds, becoming saints, 
 which are the crowns of those who are truly chosen 
 by God and our Lord: and that the root of your 
 faith, which was preached in ancient times, remains 
 firm to the present time, and brings forth fruit to 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘ who suffered himself to be 
 brought even to death for our sins, whom God 
 hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death. 
 Whom, having not seen, ye love; in whom, though 
 you see him not, yet believing ye rejoice with joy 
 unspeakable and full of glory'’ Into which many 
 desire to enter, knowing that ‘ by grace ye are 
 saved *,’ not by works, but by the will of God, 
 through Jesus Christ ".” 
 
 Justin Martyr, after proving from the prophecies 
 in the Old Testament that Jesus is the promised 
 Messiah, proceeds to answer an objection that may 
 
 
 
 Pwparl, TH Teowpiopévy 70d aidvwv akobéw. 
 Out mavrog sig ddéav mapdpovor, £ Acts, ii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 8. 
 arpextov, ivwpivny, Kai tKdedey- & Eph. ii. 8. 
 
 pévnv tv 7abe adynOig, tv Oedn- 
 part rov ILarpic—ry ’ExxAnoia—. 
 © Idem ad Trall. s.1. *Syd- 
 Tioc—tkkAynoia ayia, TH ovoy ty 
 Todd\d\sow ric ‘Aciac, txdexTy Kai 
 
 » Potycarp. Ep. ad Phi- 
 lip. s. l.—d rid ear Siadjuara 
 TOY AANOH6 bro Oecd, Kai Tod Kv-~ 
 plov nay exrhereypevov'— 
 
 Q 
 
296 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 be made, viz. that if God had predestined the fu- 
 ture, free will would be taken away : 
 
 “ But that no persons may suppose, from what 
 I have now said, that I am asserting that the 
 things which do happen must by fatal necessity 
 come to pass, because I have said they are fore- 
 known, I will explain this also. That retribution and 
 punishment, as well as rewards, will be given to 
 every one according to his works, we have learnt 
 from the Prophets, and declare to be true. Since, 
 if this were not so, but all things came to pass by 
 a fatal necessity, then there is nothing at all in our 
 power. For if it is fated that one man is to be 
 good and another wicked, then neither is the one 
 ‘to be praised, nor the other blamed. And again, 
 if mankind hath no power by free choice to flee 
 the evil and to choose the good, they are not to 
 blame for any actions of what kind soever. But 
 that men do both act rightly and fall by their own 
 free choice, we thus prove. We see the same man 
 acting differently at different times; but if it were 
 fated that he should be either bad or good, he 
 would not be capable of acting so differently, nor 
 could he change so frequently. Neither in that 
 case would some be good and others bad, for we 
 should represent fate as the cause of the evil, and 
 working contrary to itself; or we must hold the 
 before-mentioned opinion to be true, that virtue 
 and vice are nothing, but that actions are to be 
 accounted good or bad in opinion which, as true 
 reason shews, is the greatest impiety and injustice. 
 But we say that this is irreversibly fated, that upon 
 
Article Seventeenth. 297 
 
 those who choose the good, the merited rewards 
 shall be bestowed, and in like manner on those 
 who choose the contrary, the merited punishment. 
 For God did not make man as other things, trees, 
 for instance, and four-footed beasts, without the 
 power of doing any thing of their own choice ; 
 since he would not be deserving of reward or 
 praise, if he did not of himself choose the good, 
 but were so made; nor if he were bad could he 
 justly meet with punishment, if he were not such 
 by his own fault, but were not able to become in 
 any respect different from what he was made.” 
 Our author then proceeds to prove his position 
 from Scripture ; “ And these things the Holy pro- 
 phetic Spirit taught us, saying by Moses, that God 
 thus spake to the man who was first created ; 
 “« Behold, before thy face is good and evil, choose 
 the good‘”” He then quotes several verses from 
 Isaiah* to the same purpose, observes that Plato 
 had taken the same opinion from Moses, and con- 
 cludes his argument in these words; “So that 
 when we say that things which were about to come 
 to pass have been foretold, we do not assert that 
 they are done by a fatal necessity ; but that God, 
 foreknowing what things would be done by all men, 
 and having determined within himself that he would 
 reward every man according to his deeds, declared, 
 by the prophetic Spirit, that they should obtain 
 from him such retribution as their actions deserved, 
 in this way always leading the human race to re- 
 
 ? Deut. xxx. 15, 19. k Isaiah, i. 16—20. 
 Qua 
 
228 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 flection and remembrance, shewing also his care 
 and providence for them '.” 
 
 And in his Dialogue with Trypho he reconciles 
 the foreknowledge of God with the free will of 
 man : 
 
 « But that you may have no pretence for saying, 
 that Christ must needs have been crucified, or that 
 there must be in our generation some that trans- 
 gress, and that it could not happen otherwise, I 
 have already in few words observed, that God, 
 willing that angels and men should follow his will, 
 chose to put it in their own power to do righteous- 
 ness, giving them reason whereby they might know 
 by whom they are created, and through whom they 
 have their being, not being before, and making a 
 law that they should be judged by him, if they did 
 any thing contrary to right reason. And we men, 
 as also the angels, shall by ourselves be convicted 
 of having done evil, if we do not timely repent. 
 But if the word of God foreshews that some, as 
 well angels as men, will certainly be punished, be- 
 cause he foreknew that they would be unchange- 
 ably wicked, he foretells these things; but God 
 did not by any means make them be such. Where- 
 fore, if they shall repent, all, who desire, are able 
 to obtain mercy from God, and the Word declares 
 
 1 Jusrin. Apol.1*.s 43, 44. 
 “Orwe O& wn TiWEc éK THY TpOdEedEY- 
 péivoy d¢ npdyv, Sofacwot Kal’ ét- 
 pappnévnc avayKkny pdoKew pac Ta 
 ywopeva yivecOat, te rou mpoeTeiy, 
 Tpoeyywopéva, Kai TOTO Cvadvoper. 
 et O& Elwapto t pavdoy f a7rov- 
 
 
 
 Oaioy sivat, ok ay Tore THY tvay- 
 tiwy Oekrikoe Hv, Kai mAELoTaKic 
 pereriOero 
 
 -—— wore 0 papév TEeTpopnTEeva0a 
 Ta pé\Aovra yivecOar, ob dua TO Et- 
 Pappévng avayxy modrrecBar déyo- 
 bev! —— 
 
 
 
Article Seventeenth. 229 
 
 them blessed, saying, ‘ Blessed is he to whom the 
 Lord shall not impute sin™.’” 
 
 In the preceding Article a passage was adduced 
 from Irenzus opposed to the doctrine of irresistible 
 grace; the continuation, which is applicable to our 
 present subject, is as follows; “ But God, fore- 
 knowing all things, has prepared fit habitations for 
 both ; to those who seek the light of incorruption, 
 and run to it, kindly giving that light which they 
 desire ; but for others, who despise it, and turn 
 away from it and avoid it, and, as it were, blind 
 themselves, he has prepared darkness suitable to 
 persons who dislike light; and upon those who 
 will not be subject to it, he has inflicted appro- 
 priate punishment °.” 
 
 In another place he speaks of, “ being predestin- 
 ated according to the prescience of the Father °.” 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, in the words of St. Peter?, 
 speaks of the Christians generally, as chosen or 
 elect ; ‘“‘ We are consecrated to God for the sake 
 of Christ; we are a chosen generation, a royal 
 priesthood, a holy nation ‘.” 
 
 «i mans hoe quod concupiscunt 
 lumen: aliis vero id contem- 
 
 m Idem Dial. c. 141. 
 
 62 6 N6yoc Tov Oeov TpopHnVEL Tav- 
 
 
 
 Two Tivdce Kai ayyéouce Kai avOpe- 
 move KohagOncecOat péddovrac, Cr6re 
 Tpotyivwckey adrod¢ aperaPsAnrove 
 yevncopévove movnoodc, mpoeime 
 Tavra, aN ovy bre adbrobe 6 Bede 
 Towvrouc éroincey.—— 
 
 " TREN#1, I. iv. c.xxxix. s.4. 
 Deus autem omnia presciens, 
 utrisque aptas preparavit habi- 
 tationes : eis quidem qui inqui- 
 runt lumen incorruptibilitatis, 
 et ad id recurrunt, benigné do- 
 
 nentibus, et avertentibus se ab 
 eo, et id fugientibus, et quasi 
 semetipsos excecantibus, con- 
 gruentes lumini adversantibus 
 preparavit tenebras. 
 
 cSidems I?ve} les? Ie 
 pradestinati secundum presci- 
 entiam Patris. 
 
 P 1 Pet. ii. 9: 
 
 4 Cirem. Alea. Cohort. ad 
 Gent. c. iv. p. 52.—Hyeis 3 
 YeV0G TO EKMEKTOY, K. T. A, 
 
 
 
 
 
230 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 “* But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews 
 indeed a stumbling-block ; because, knowing the 
 prophecy, they do not believe the event ; but unto 
 the Greeks foolishness ; for they who profess them- 
 selves to be wise, consider it as a fable, that the 
 Son of God should speak in a human form, and 
 that God should have a Son, and that he should 
 suffer. From whence the prejudice of self-opinion 
 over-persuaded them to disbelieve. For the coming 
 of our Saviour did not make men foolish, and hard- 
 hearted, and unbelieving, but wise, and easy to be 
 persuaded, and moreover believers. But they who 
 were unwilling to believe, by separating themselves 
 from those who voluntarily obeyed, were proved to 
 be unwise, and unbelievers, and foolish; but unto 
 them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, 
 Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 
 —And being wise, they were in much greater fault 
 for not believing the preaching, for the choice and 
 adoption of the truth are voluntary.—All men, 
 therefore, being called, those who were willing to 
 obey were denominated The Called. For with God 
 there is no injustice. Thus those of either race 
 who believed, were ‘ a peculiar people.’ And in the- 
 Acts of the Apostles you find this expression ; 
 ‘Then they that [gladly] received his word, were 
 baptized" ;’ but those who were not willing to be- 
 lieve, evidently alienated themselves. To these the 
 prophecy says, ‘If ye be willing and obedient, ye 
 shall eat the good of the land‘; shewing that it 
 
 * Acts, ii. 4]. § Isaiah, i. 19. 
 
Article Seventeenth. 931 
 
 rests with ourselves whether we will accept or 
 reject '.” 
 
 Origen having strongly insisted on the free will 
 of man, and that our actions are therefore deserv- 
 ing of praise or blame, continues ; “ If, therefore, 
 innumerable motives to virtue and vice, and to 
 what is becoming and unbecoming, be preserved to 
 us, the result must necessarily be known to God 
 with other things before they happen, from the 
 creation and foundation of the world; and every 
 thing which God preordained in consequence of 
 what he saw would be in our power, he must have 
 preordained consistently with the exercise of our 
 free will in every instance, both what would take 
 place according to his providence, and what would 
 happen from the future relation of things; the pre- 
 science of God not being the cause of events which 
 were future, and which depended upon our own 
 free will. For if we were to suppose that God did 
 not foreknow what would happen, we should not 
 the less do some things and will others *.” 
 
 Celsus, having objected that our Saviour having 
 foretold that Peter would deny him, and that Judas 
 would betray him, was himself the cause of these 
 things coming to pass ; for that if our Saviour was 
 
 ' Ciem. Strom, 1.1. c. 18. 
 p- 370, 371.—Ildyrey toby dy- 
 Operwy KexXnpévwy, ot braKkovoa 
 PouhnOévrec, KXyrot wvopacOncay 
 od ydo tow dducia Tapa TH OE. 
 
 * OriGeEn. de Orat. c. 6.— 
 kai éy maow oic moodvardocera 6 
 Ode akodovOweg we EWpaKe, TEpI 
 EkdoTov toyov tHv td Huiv mpodia- 
 
 rérakrai kar akiay éxaorp Khare 
 TOV tp Huiy 7d Kai amd THe mpo- 
 volag abr amayrnobpevoy, e7r Oe 
 kai Kard Tov élopoy Toy toopévwy 
 oupBnobpevoy* obyxi TIC TpOyVwTEwWE 
 Tov OEov airiac ywopévne Toig ioo- 
 pévowg riot, Kai tx THY ed’ Hiv KaTa 
 THY Oppay HuoY évepynOnoopévore. 
 
232 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 God, these things must of necessity happen : Origen 
 answers, “ Celsus thinks that that which was fore- 
 told by a certain foreknowledge, therefore came to 
 pass, because it was foretold; but we do not admit 
 this, and we say that he who foretold was not the 
 cause of that which was about to happen, because 
 he declared beforehand that it would happen ; but 
 that which was about to happen, since it would 
 happen, although not foretold, gave occasion to 
 him who foreknew it to declare it beforehand. And 
 this is the whole that takes place in the foreknow- 
 ledge of him that foretells ; that is to say, it being 
 possible that a certain thing should happen, and it 
 being also possible that it should not happen, this 
 particular one will be that of the two which will 
 happen. Nor do we say that he who foreknows 
 is the cause that it is possible for a thing to happen 
 or not to happen, as if he were to say some such 
 thing as this; ‘this must by all means come to 
 pass, and it is impossible that it should happen 
 otherwise *.’” 
 
 “<The ungodly are froward even from their 
 mother’s womb ; as soon as they are born, they go 
 astray, and speak lies’.’ Thus Esau was froward 
 from his mother’s womb, when it is announced that 
 the elder shall serve the younger, even before he 
 was born; God not being ignorant of the future 
 will, when the speaking of lies, and error of life, 
 
 x Idem, c. Cels. 1. ii. c. 20. av, kai pun) Ocoriabiy, riyy airiay re 
 —apeic b& roto ov diddyTEc gapév  Tpoyltyv@oKovTe TapecynKevar Tov 
 obyt Toy Oeoricavra airioy eivat Tou add TpOELTTELY 
 
 toopévou, emet TooEtTEY avTO yEVN- yY Ps, lvii. 3. 
 obmEVOY, GAG TO EgdpEVOY, EDOpEvOY 
 
 
 
Article Seventeenth. 233 
 
 are from the mother’s womb; he himself rather 
 knowing this, than any one being born to the ne- 
 cessity and nature of sin. And that it might not 
 be possible to impute the fault to their origin, he 
 reproaches them with the crime of previously hard- 
 ening their will against obedience. ‘ They are as 
 venomous as the poison of a serpent, even like the 
 deaf adder that stoppeth her ears; which refuseth 
 to hear the voice of the charmer, charm he never. 
 so wisely’.’ The excuse of a certain natural neces- 
 sity m crimes is not admitted. For the serpent 
 might have been innocent, who himself stops his 
 ears that they may be deaf?.” 
 
 “The Lord Jesus came to save all sinners; it 
 was right that he should shew his will, even with 
 respect to the ungodly; and therefore it was right 
 that he should not pass over even him who was to 
 betray him; that all might observe, that in the 
 choice of his traitor, he displayed a sign that all 
 were to be saved. Nor had either Adam reason to 
 complain that he received the command, or Judas 
 that he was chosen. For God did not impose upon 
 the one the necessity of transgression, or upon the 
 other that of treason; because both might have 
 abstained from sin, if they had preserved that which 
 they had received. Finally, he knew that all the 
 Jews would not believe, and yet he said, ‘I am not 
 come except to the lost sheep of Israel.’ There- 
 
 * Ibid. Iviii. 4, 5. genito naturamque peccati.— 
 * Hivar. Tr. in Ps. lvii. Non excusatur quedam neces- 
 s. 3.—— ipso potius hoc sciente,  sitas naturalis in crimine. Nam 
 
 quam aliquo ad necessitatem — serpens innocens esse potuisset. 
 
2934 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 fore there is no fault in him who commands, but 
 there is sin in him who transgresses. And as far as 
 was in God, he shewed to all that he desired to 
 deliver all. I do not, however, say that he did not 
 know that there would be transgression; nay, I 
 assert that he did know it”.” 
 
 In another place he is commenting on our Sa- 
 viour’s answer to the request of the mother of 
 Zebedee’s children; “ To sit on my right hand, 
 and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be 
 given to them for whom it is prepared of my Fa- 
 ther®.” Ambrose observes, “Christ added, ‘ for 
 whom it is prepared,’ that he might shew, that the 
 Father is not wont to attend to petitions, but to 
 merits, because God is no respecter of persons. 
 Whence also the Apostle says, ‘ Whom he did 
 foreknow, he also did predestinate*;’. for he did 
 not predestinate before he foreknew, but he pre- 
 destinated the rewards of those whose merits he 
 foreknew °.” 
 
 « Although Scripture declared that Christ would 
 be crucified, and although divine Scripture men- 
 
 b AmprosE de Paradiso, |.i. 
 c. vill. s. 39. Venerat Dominus 
 Jesus omnes salvos facere pec- 
 catores, etiam circa impios os- 
 tendere suam debuit volunta- 
 tem. Et ideo nee proditurum 
 debuit preterire ; ut adverte- 
 rent omnes, quod in electione 
 etiam proditoris sui servando- 
 rum omnium insigne pretendit, 
 nec in eo lesus est, vel Adam, 
 quia mandatum accepit, nec 
 Judas, quia electus est ——Et 
 
 quod in Deo fuit, ostendit om- 
 nibus quod omnes voluit li- 
 berare. Nec tamen dico quia 
 prevaricationem uesciebat fu- 
 turam, immo quia sciebat ad- 
 sero. 
 
 © Matt. xx. 23. 
 
 4 Rom. viii. 29. 
 
 © AmpBroseE de Fide 1. v. c. 
 vi. s. 82, 83.—non enim ante 
 predestinavit, quam presciret, 
 sed quorum merita prescivit, 
 eorum premia predestinavit. 
 
Article Seventeenth. 235 
 
 tioned the sins which would be committed by us in 
 the latter days, yet no one of us who commit sins 
 can find an excuse, by producing the testimony of 
 Scripture, foretelling that these things would hap- 
 pen. For we do not those things because Scrip- 
 ture foretold them; but Scripture foretold them 
 because we were about to do them, through the 
 foreknowledge of God ‘.” 
 
 Chrysostom commenting on the 138th Psalm 4, 
 in which David praises God for his providence, 
 says; “Since many who are more obtuse in their 
 understanding, and who have little sense, say 
 many things of this kind, that God hath elected 
 one man, and hath loved another, and hath hated 
 a third, and that therefore one man has proved to 
 be wicked, and another virtuous, he corrects such 
 opinions of theirs, and convinces them from their 
 actions, and adducing proof from their deeds, he 
 shews that such a man was upright even before he 
 performed those actions, in order that they may 
 understand the power of his foreknowledge; and 
 he adds the proof from their actions, in order that 
 those foolish persons may not say, that any parti- 
 cular man was such because it was foretold he 
 should be so. Consider also how Paul shews the 
 very same thing, when he says, ‘ For the children 
 being not yet born, neither having done any good 
 or evil, that the purpose of God according to 
 
 f Errpuan. adv. Heres. 1. quod facturi eramus, Scriptura 
 ill. Her. xxxviii. c. 6.——Ne- __ predixit, ob antecedentem Dei 
 que enim quod Scriptura pre-  videlicet cognitionem. 
 dixerat, iccirco ea facimus ; sed 4 In our version, cxxxix. 
 
236 Article Seventeenth. 
 
 election might stand, not of works, but of him that 
 calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve 
 the younger.’ For it is not necessary to wait the 
 end of their deeds, but even before they are done, 
 He knows, who will and who will not be wicked *.” 
 
 And in another place, giving a reason for the 
 doubtful expressions used in Jeremiah, xxxvi. 3. 
 “ It may be that the house of Judah will hear all 
 the evil which I purpose to do unto them :” Chry- 
 sostum says that if it had been expressly foretold 
 as the fact proved, they will not hear, some might 
 have said, “‘ God foretold it, and therefore it must 
 needs be; which they often say of Judas. ‘He 
 foretold, they say, ‘ that he would be the traitor, 
 and therefore he was the traitor. What folly, 
 what impudence is this! for foreknowledge, O 
 man, is not the cause of wickedness; far from it; 
 it does not make those things that will happen, of 
 necessity to happen, it only foretells that they will 
 happen. He was not the traitor because Christ 
 foretold it; but Christ foretold it, because he was 
 about to be the traitor*.” 
 
 Jerome commenting on Jeremiah xxvi. 3. ‘If 
 so be they will hearken, and turn every man from 
 
 ¥ Curysost. in Ps.cxxxviil. Tne tyévero. “Q tije avoiac, & THe 
 —Otte ried Qeiras ayaycivas  varsxuvTiac oude yap i) Tpsyrucce, 
 avipwxt, THC Tovnpiac airiay py 
 yévoirg? ov yao tor avayxacTiKH 
 Tov pAdrAGrTwy EcecBar, GAG Tpoy- 
 YWOTK] Lovoy oUK éxEhy WOOEITEV 
 6 Xpwsroc, Gia rovro EyevETO exsivoc 
 xpotorne” aN ixsily xpodorne 
 Epedre yevecOa, dua rovro zp0cizEr 
 © Xpis7Gc. 
 
 zey evyev Te TEC, GAK Kai TOS 
 zovTay Gidey auras Toy Qavhey Kal 
 Toy OU TOLOUTOY ECT ULEVEY» 
 
 s Curysost. Hom. de Pro- 
 phet. Obscuritate —Iva py 2é- 
 yout THVECS Ort ZooEizEY O @sac, xai 
 wavrwe ta yevecBar GO wei TOU 
 "Iovda héEyoust” zpoEtze, GNSL”, ore 
 mpotorne Ecrat, kai Gua rovro =pod0- 
 
Article Seventeenth. 237 
 
 his evil way,’ says, “‘ The doubtful expression ‘ if 
 so be,’ cannot suit the majesty of the Lord, but he 
 speaks after our manner, that free will may be pre- 
 served to man, lest from God’s prescience, man 
 should be compelled to do, or not to do, a thing, 
 as by necessity. For a thing does not happen, 
 because God knew it would happen; but because 
 it would happen he knew it, being endowed with 
 prescience of the future ‘.” 
 
 In another place he remarks on these words 
 from Jeremiah, and similar expressions in Ezekiel, 
 ii. 4, 5. and Luke xx. 13. ‘God speaks these 
 things in the manner of a person doubting, that he 
 may point out the free will of man; lest the fore- 
 knowledge of future evil or good should make that 
 immutable which God knew would happen. For 
 it is not necessary that we should do what he 
 foreknew, because he knew it would happen; but 
 because we were about to do it, by our own free 
 will, he, as God, knew it would happen °.” 
 
 * Hreron. in Jerem.c. xxvi. p. 711.—Non enim quia ille 
 
 v. 3. p. 653.—Non enim ex eo 
 quod Deus scit futurum aliquid, 
 idcirco futurum est; sed quia 
 futurum est, Deus novit, quasi 
 presciens futurorum. 
 
 " Idem in Ezek. c. iii. v. 3. 
 
 ventura cognoscit, necesse est 
 nos facere quod ille prescivit ; 
 sed quod nos propria voluntate 
 sumus facturi; ille novit fu- 
 turum quasi Deus. 
 
ARTICLE XVIII. 
 
 Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the name 
 of Christ. 
 
 ** Tuey also are to be had accursed that presume to say, 
 ** that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which 
 ** he professeth: so that he be diligent to frame his life 
 ** according to that law, and the light of nature. For 
 ‘** Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of 
 ** Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.” 
 
 It has been usual with those who have classed 
 our Articles under several divisions to consider the 
 first five as containing the Christian doctrines con- 
 cerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; 
 the three following as establishing the rule of Faith; 
 and the next ten as relating to Christians as indi- 
 viduals; and the remaining twenty-one, to them as 
 members of a religious society. This eighteenth 
 Article therefore was placed in the third division ; 
 but it seems to me rather introductory to the fourth, 
 if it may not be considered as constituting the be- 
 ginning of the fourth division. 
 
 The nine preceding Articles declared the true 
 and catholic doctrine in opposition to the various 
 errors of persons professing themselves Christians : 
 
Article Eighteenth. 239 
 
 this Article, though probably it was intended against 
 some erroneous opinion held by Christians, seems 
 rather to prepare the way for those which follow ; 
 as if it had been said, “it is not sufficient, for sal- 
 vation, that a man belong to any religious society, 
 for he can be saved by no other name than that of 
 Jesus Christ :” this point being settled, the nine- 
 teenth Article proceeds to shew how the true 
 Church of Christ is constituted. 
 
 “ Let us not then be insensible of his goodness, 
 for should he have dealt with us according to our 
 works we had not now had a being. Wherefore 
 having become his disciples, let us learn to live ac- 
 cording to the rules of Christianity, for whosoever 
 is called by any other name besides this, he is not 
 of God*.” 
 
 “ Let not any one be deceived. Both the beings 
 which are above the heavens, the glorious order of 
 Angels, and the invisible as well as visible powers, 
 unless they believe in the efficacy of the blood of 
 Christ, are obnoxious to judgment ?.” 
 
 “He is the door of the Father, by which Abra- 
 ham, and Isaac, and the prophets, and the Apostles, 
 and the church all enter*.” And again, in a passage 
 already quoted at length, “ without him we have 
 not the true life “.” 
 
 @ Tenat. ad Magnes. s. 10. © Idem, ad Philadelph. s. 8. 
 05 yun GAKw dvonats Kaderrar  Adtos dy Ovpa rod Ilarpic, ov As 
 
 
 
 Theoy TovToV, ovK erty TOD Oecd. eicepyovrar "ABpanu, Kai loud, 
 > Idem ad Smyrn. s. 6. x. 7.4. 
 cay py miorevowow elo Td 4 Ante, Art. ii. ad Trall. 
 
 
 
 z ~ 
 
 aina Xoorob, xaxelvors Kplows éo- 8. 9. 
 / 
 
 Tiv. 
 
240 Article Eighteenth. 
 
 Justin assures his opponent that his being de- 
 scended from Abraham will be of no avail unless 
 he has faith in Christ, and proceeds thus, ‘“‘ Where- 
 fore cutting off this hope from your minds, you 
 must strive earnestly to know in what way you 
 may attain unto remission of sins, and to the hope 
 of the inheritance of the good things that have 
 been promised. But there is no other way than 
 this, that acknowledging this Christ, and being 
 washed with that baptism, which was preached by 
 Isaiah, for the remission of sins, you may hencefor- 
 ward live without sin °.” 
 
 And Cyprian says, “ There is no coming to the 
 Father but by his Son Jesus Christ; as appears 
 from what he says in the Gospel according to John ; 
 ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no man 
 cometh unto the Father, but by me*.’*” 
 
 “‘ But because God is merciful and kind towards 
 his creatures, he sent him (Christ) to those very 
 persons whom he hated, that the way of salvation 
 might not be for ever shut against them; but that 
 he might give them a free power to follow God, 
 that they might obtain the reward of life, if they 
 did follow him, which many of them do, and have 
 done: and that through their own fault they might 
 incur the punishment of death, if they should reject 
 
 4 Justin. Dial. c. 44. — £ Cyprian. Testim. ad Qui- 
 ots d€ otk GAAn, 7 alry, wa rod- rin. |. iii. c. 24. Non posse ad 
 toy toy Kowortoy emiyvavtes, Kat Patrem pervenire, nisi per Fi- 
 Aovedmevor To Uxeo agecews duap- lium ejus Jesum Christum, in 
 civ bi Hoalov xypuybev rAcvtpiv, LEvangelio xara Joannem; Ego 
 ayapaptntas homey Cnonre. sum via, veritas, ete. 
 
 € John, xiy. 6. 
 
Article Nineteenth. 241 
 
 their King. Therefore he ordered him to be born 
 again among them, and of their seed, lest if he had 
 been a stranger, they might out of their law have 
 set up a reasonable pretence for not receiving him ; 
 and at the same time that there might be no nation 
 upon earth, to whom the hope of immortality was 
 denied *.” 
 
 ARTICLE XIX. 
 
 Of the Church. 
 
 ** THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faith- 
 ** ful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, 
 **and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to 
 ‘* Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity 
 “* are requisite to the same. 
 
 ** As the Church of Hiérusalem, Alexandria, and An- 
 *‘ tioch, 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 first part of this Article having given a de- 
 finition of “the visible Church of Christ ;” the 
 
 8 Lacrant. |. iv. de Verd unt, atque fecerunt, et culpa 
 Sap. c. 11. sed daret his suain poenam mortis incurrerent 
 liberam facultatem sequendi si regem suum repudiassent.— 
 Deum, ut et premium vite —simul, ut nulla omnino gens 
 adipiscerentur, si secuti fuis- esset in terra cui spes immor- 
 sent, quod plurimi eorum faci-  talitatis negaretur. - 
 
 R 
 
 
 
242 Article Nineteenth. 
 
 latter asserts that certain particular Churches have 
 erred. But the object of this assertion is to destroy 
 the claim of Infallibility to which the Church of 
 Rome pretends. It is not laid down generally that 
 every particular Church is liable to err, for that 
 would not so directly affect the Church of Rome ; 
 but the general principle of liability to error is cer- 
 tainly included in the particular assertion. The 
 particular errors alluded to are specified in some of 
 the subsequent Articles, and as that Church had 
 not fallen into them in the first several centuries, it 
 seems unnecessary here to shew that the Church of 
 Rome did err during the period to which these ex- 
 tracts are limited. Neither need it be shewn that 
 the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch have erred. - 
 But it will be sufficient to adduce a few passages 
 in support of the first assertion here made, leaving 
 the proof of the fallibility of the Church of Rome 
 to those Articles in which the particular errors of 
 that Church are considered. 
 
 With regard to the first point contained in this 
 Article, it may be observed, that “the visible 
 Church, in its most extensive sense, may include 
 all persons who are or have been, by outward pro- 
 fession, Christians, whether they have or have not 
 believed all the doctrines, or obeyed all the precepts, 
 of the Gospel.” This may be called the visible Ca- 
 tholic Church. But in this Article the “ visible 
 Church is used in a more limited sense, and com- 
 prehends only the Christians of one country or city, 
 or of one persuasion *.” 
 
 4 TomLIne on this Article. 
 
Article Nineteenth. 243 
 
 The Church of Rome considers itself to be the 
 only true Christian Church, and professedly denies 
 salvation to all who differ from it; though it may 
 be worth while to observe, that in the creed of pope 
 Pius IV., article Twenty-third, it is admitted that 
 there are other particular Churches; the words are, 
 “IT acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Roman Church, the mother and mistress of a// 
 Churches.” 
 
 All that seems now to require proof is that the 
 early Christians considered each body or congrega- 
 tion of Christians to constitute a particular Church, 
 and so part of the visible Catholic Church. The 
 marks of a true Church which constitute the defini- 
 tion, do not require proof; it will be sufficient, if 
 our Church shall be proved to retain the same doc- 
 trines, and to administer the sacraments agreeably 
 to the practice of the primitive Churches. 
 
 Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp, in 
 writing epistles to the several Churches, address 
 them as separate Churches, in the same sense as 
 the expression ‘ visible Church’ is used in this Ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 “ The Church of God which is at Rome, to the 
 Church of God which is at Corinth >.” 
 
 “« Tonatius,—to the Church of Ephesus in Asia‘°.” 
 
 “ Tonatius,—to the Church among the Trallians 
 in Asia *. 
 
 > Crem. Rom. cited ante, p. 4 Idem, ad Trail, s. | ante, 
 224. p: 225. 
 
 © Ienar. ad Ephes. s. 1. 
 ante, p. 225. 
 
244 Article Nineteenth. 
 
 Tertullian affords us a passage expressly to the 
 purpose, and gives uniformity and truth of the 
 doctrine as the marks of a true Church: “ The 
 Apostles having obtained the power of the Holy 
 Ghost which was promised them, in order to work 
 miracles, and to speak boldly, in all utterance ; 
 and having first borne their testimony to the faith 
 in Jesus Christ throughout Judea, and planted 
 Churches there, went afterwards into other parts 
 of the world, and published the same doctrine of 
 the same faith to the Gentiles; and so proceeded 
 to found Churches in every city; from which 
 afterwards other Churches borrowed and still con- 
 tinue to borrow the off-shoots of their faith, and 
 the seeds of their doctrine, that so they might 
 become Churches. And by this means they also 
 are reputed Apostolical, as being the offspring of 
 the Apostolical Churches. Every kind of which 
 must be accounted of according to its original. 
 And therefore so many and great Churches are 
 nothing else but that primitive one, from which all 
 the rest proceed. Thus they are all primitive, and 
 all Apostolical, whilst they all agree in one and 
 the same truth; whilst there is amongst them a 
 communication of peace, and an appellation of 
 brotherhood, and a league of hospitality ; which 
 rights are no otherwise to be preserved inviolable, 
 than by an uniform delivery of the same doctrine*.” - 
 
 € Tertuuy. de Prescript. traducem fidei et semina doc- 
 Heret.c. 20.—et proindeeccle- trine, cater exinde ecclesie 
 sias apud unamquamque civi- mutuate sunt, et quotidie 
 tatem condiderunt, 4 quibus mutuantur, ut ecclesia fiant: 
 
Article Nineteenth. 24.5 
 
 In the greater part of this passage I have 
 adopted the translation which is given in the 
 English version of Welchman, but cannot agree 
 with the translator, in rendering ejusdem sacra- 
 menti traditio “ participation of the same holy 
 sacrament.” ‘Tertullian is speaking of that one 
 rule of faith which alone can be true, and which 
 was delivered by the Apostles to the Churches 
 which they planted, and from them to others; 
 the mention of the holy sacrament is quite foreign 
 to the occasion. Those who are acquainted with 
 the Latin Fathers know that sacramentum is con- 
 stantly used by them for “ doctrine.” 
 
 Traditio I have purposely translated “delivery,” 
 in order not to entangle myself in this place ina 
 dispute about traditions. The passage in Tertullian 
 that immediately follows the above, will be found 
 under the sixth‘ Article, and there the meaning of 
 this word is canvassed. 
 
 In a subsequent part of the same work Tertullian 
 speaks of different Churches as distinct, and at 
 the same time speaks of the liability of particular 
 Churches to fall into error : 
 
 “If therefore it is incredible, either that the 
 Apostles had not a perfect acquaintance with all 
 the Christian doctrines, or that they did not deliver 
 
 ac per hoc et ipse Apostolic 
 deputantur, ut soboles Aposto- 
 licarum ecclesiarum. Omne 
 genus ad originem suam cen- 
 seatur necesse est. Itaque tot 
 ac tantz ecclesie una est illa ab 
 Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. 
 Sic omnes prime, et omnes Apos- 
 
 tolice, dum una omnes probant 
 unitatem ; communicatio pacis, 
 et appellatio fraternitatis, et 
 contesseratio _hospitalitatis ; 
 qu jura non alia ratio regit, 
 quam ejusdem sacramenti una 
 traditio. 
 * Ante, p. 101. 
 
246 Article Nineteenth. 
 
 to all the whole system of faith; let us see whether 
 the Apostles did not simply and fully teach; but 
 the Churches, through their own fault, received 
 otherwise than the Apostles taught. All those 
 minute and captious objections you may find ad- 
 vanced by the heretics. They lay hold of those 
 Churches, which were rebuked by the Apostle, ‘O 
 foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you®? and 
 ‘Ye did run well, who did hinder you"? Again, 
 at the very beginning, ‘I marvel that ye are so 
 soon removed from him that called you unto the 
 grace of Christ to another Gospel‘ So to the 
 Corinthians it was written, ‘that they were yet 
 carnal, to be fed with milk, and not yet fit for 
 meat *, ‘who thought that they knew something, 
 when yet they knew nothing, as they ought to 
 know’.’ Since they object to the Churches, when 
 they were rebuked, let them trust to them when they 
 are reformed. At all events let them acknowledge 
 those, on account of whose faith and knowledge 
 and conversation the Apostle rejoices and gives 
 thanks"; which however communicate in the 
 rights of one discipline with those that were 
 rebuked ".” 
 Lactantius says. 
 
 8 Gal. iii. : tolos plenitudinem predica- 
 h Gal. v tionis, vel non omnem ordinem 
 i Gal. i. aa regule omnibus edidisse: vi- 
 K ] Cor. iii: 1, 2. deamus ne Apostoli quidem 
 11) Gor. viii. 2. simpliciter et plené, ecclesiz 
 
 ™ Rom. i. 15. and xv. 14. 
 
 " TerTuLL. de Prescript. 
 Heret. c. 27. Si ergo incre- 
 dibile est, vel ignorasse Apos- 
 
 autem, suo vitio, aliter accepe- 
 rint, quam Apostoli prefere- 
 bant. 
 
 
 
Article Nineteenth. 247 
 
 ‘But because every assembly of heretics think 
 themselves principally to be Christians, and that 
 their’s is the catholic Church; we must know, that 
 that is the true Church, wherein there is confession 
 and repentance, which wholesomely cures the sins 
 and wounds, to which the frailty of the flesh is 
 subject’.” He had just before said; “ For when 
 they are called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valen- 
 tinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or Arians, 
 or the like, they cease to be Christians, who, 
 bearing the name of Christ, have assumed human 
 and external appellations. The only catholic 
 Church therefore is that which retains true wor- 
 ship ?.” 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem explains the meaning of the 
 confession of belief ‘‘in one holy Catholic Church.” 
 It will be seen that he speaks of the Church of 
 Christ as one, and yet that there were many true 
 Churches all members of the one invisible Church. 
 
 “*And in one holy Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church,’ of which much might be said, but I will 
 now touch upon it briefly. It is therefore called 
 Catholic, because it is extended over the whole 
 world, from one extreme of the earth to the other, 
 and because it teaches catholically and fully all 
 the doctrines which should come to the knowledge 
 of man, about things visible and invisible, heavenly 
 and earthly : and because it brings all men, whether 
 
 ° Lacranr. de Verd Sap.  subjecta est imbecillitas carnis, 
 l. iv. c. ult.—sciendum est,  salubriter curat. 
 illam esse veram (ecclesiam) in P Idem, ibid. —Sola igitur 
 
 qua est confessio, et peenitentia, _ catholica ecclesia est, que verum 
 que peccata et vulnera, quibus cultum retinet. 
 
948 Article Nineteenth. 
 
 governors or the governed, whether nobles or pri- 
 vate persons, into obedience unto holiness; and 
 because it catholically cures and heals every kind 
 of sin, both those committed by the soul and those 
 by the body, and contains within it every kind of 
 virtue, by whatever name it be called, in deeds and 
 words, and all kinds of spiritual graces. And it is 
 aptly called the Church because all are called and 
 assemble together, as the Lord speaks in Leviticus; 
 ‘Gather thou all the congregation together unto 
 the door of the tabernacle of the congregation 4 
 But after that the Jews, on account of the plots 
 contrived against the Saviour, were cast off from 
 grace, the Saviour set in order a second Church of 
 the nations, which is our holy Christian Church ; 
 of which he said to Peter; ‘ Thou art Peter, and 
 upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it’. But of 
 both these David prophecying, spake plainly ; of 
 the first that it should be cut off, «I have hated 
 the congregation of the wicked ‘,’ but of the second, 
 which should be built, he says in the same Psalm, 
 ‘Lord I have loved the beauty (habitation) of thy 
 house t’ and immediately afterwards, ‘In the con- 
 gregations will I bless thee, O Lord" For when 
 this one was cast off, then the Churches of Christ 
 were multiplied over the whole world.—But since 
 the name Ecclesia is given to different things, as 
 it is written of the multitude assembled in the 
 
 4 Levit. viii. 3. * Ibid, 8. 
 * Matt. xvi. 18. “ Ibid, 12. 
 
 eS PSexXVINO: 
 
Article Nineteenth. 249 
 
 theatre of the Ephesians, “‘ And when he had thus 
 spoken, he dismissed the assembly (Ecclesia) ;’ and 
 any one might say correctly and truly that the 
 conventicles of heretics, such as the Manicheans, 
 and others, constitute an assembly (Ecclesia) of 
 the wicked, therefore the faith has, in order to your 
 security, commanded you to say, ‘And in one 
 Catholic Church,’ that you may avoid their foul 
 conventicles, and ever continue in the holy Catholic 
 Church, in which also you were regenerated. And 
 if you go into strange cities, enquire not merely, 
 where is the Lord’s house ; for all the heresies of 
 the ungodly, presume to call their dens the Lord’s 
 houses. Nor ask merely where is the Church, 
 but where is the Catholic Church: for this is the 
 peculiar name of this holy Church which is the 
 mother of us, and the bride of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ the only-begotten Son of God *.” 
 
 x Cyrit. HMieros. Catech. olKouprerng ai Tov Xpicrov mAy= 
 18.—Tijs yao ev rH lovdale psig = Ovvovewy exKAnoion.— 
 amoprnbeions, Kata maons TIS 
 
ARTICLE XX. 
 
 Of the Authority of the Church. 
 
 ** Tue 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 any thing that is con- 
 *“* trary 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 any 
 ‘thing against the same, so besides the same ought it 
 ** not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of 
 * salvation.” 
 
 The preceding Article having described in what 
 the Church consists ; the present declares generally 
 what power and authority it possesses. 
 
 But it is important to observe that the word 
 “ Church” seems in this place to have a more ex- 
 tensive signification than in the nineteenth Article. 
 Dr. Hey says*, “If all Christians are united, it 
 means the Catholic Church of one generation ; if 
 not, it means any particular Church, which can 
 properly be called a Church.” This explanation 
 may be considered as tolerably correct, though it 
 would perhaps be more proper to say that “the 
 Church” here includes both the Catholic or Uni- 
 versal Church collectively, and all particular 
 Churches separately forming a part of the Catholic 
 
 a See Art. xx. s. 2. 
 
Article Twentieth. 951 
 
 Church. This definition will exclude, or certainly 
 not include, voluntary societies of Christians which 
 have separated themselves from the Apostolic 
 Churches; for it is difficult to discover any grounds 
 for their power to decree rites and ceremonies, or 
 for any authority they can have in controversies 
 of faith. 
 
 The least correct expression in Dr. Hey’s de- 
 finition, unless it be cautiously interpreted, is that 
 of “the Catholic Church of one generation.” If 
 limitéd to new subjects of controversy, the expres- 
 sion is unobjectionable, for as Scripture truth must 
 always be one and the same, a decision of the 
 Catholic Church, in a former generation, on any 
 question of doctrine, is binding on the Church 
 throughout all generations, provided only that it is 
 according to the written word of God. So that 
 whenever an ancient heresy, which has been al- 
 ready determined by a preceding General Council, 
 is revived, the Catholic Church of one generation 
 cannot treat it as a subject of controversy, but 
 must act on the prior decision. 
 
 From the present condition of the Church it 
 seems scarcely possible that a General Council 
 should be assembled in these days; so that if a 
 particular Church, constitutionally forming a part 
 of the Church Catholic, should fall into heresy, the 
 course pursued in former times, of the condemna- 
 tion of such heresy by all the component parts of 
 the Catholic Church, seems impracticable, and 
 therefore particular or national Churches can only 
 refuse them communion. Ifa heresy arises within, 
 
952 Article Twentieth. 
 
 without extending throughout, a particular Church, 
 then such Church may decide the question, and 
 its decision should be considered to have great 
 weight and influence, and should be received, un- 
 less there is strong and irresistible proof that the 
 decision is erroneous. 
 
 Having thus given a general explanation of the 
 meaning of the Article, we may proceed to remark, 
 that the first part of the Article has reference to 
 the Puritans, who, at the period of the Reforma- 
 tion, carried their hatred to the Church of Rome 
 to such an extent, as to object to all appointed 
 ceremonies; and therefore our Church declares 
 that “ the Church hath power to decree rites and 
 ceremonies.” 
 
 The Romanists maintained that the Church is 
 infallible, and such infallibility having been denied, 
 at least to particular Churches, in the preceding 
 Article, it became necessary to determine its au- 
 thority in controversies of faith. This is done in 
 the second place, but with the re-assertion of the 
 paramount authority of Scripture, as the rule by 
 which all controversies must be determined. Again, 
 the Church of Rome did then, as it still does, en- 
 deavour to identify itself with the Universal Church, 
 and denied to any other particular Church, not 
 in communion with Rome, any authority what- 
 soever. 
 
 For the purpose of illustration or proof, the two 
 assertions, first, of the power of the Church to de- 
 cree rites or ceremonies, and secondly, its authority 
 in controversies of faith, may be put together, for 
 
Article Twentieth, 253 
 
 almost all the great general and provincial councils 
 were assembled for both purposes. 
 
 The first general Council, held at Nice A. D. 
 325, and of which some account has been given 
 under the eighth Article, is conclusive on the 
 point : though, were it necessary, all the general, 
 and the many provincial councils held at various 
 times and places, might be referred to. 
 
 What passed at the Council of Nice is so well 
 known, that it is unnecessary to quote the very 
 words at length. Suffice it to observe, that a ques- 
 tion of faith was there determined ; viz. the divinity 
 of Christ, and that he is of one substance with the 
 Father ; secondly, the time of celebrating Easter 
 was settled, which is a mere rite or ceremony; and. 
 moreover, twenty canons were enacted for the 
 better ordering of the Church. 
 
 It is an undisputed fact that the decisions of this 
 and the following general councils were recognised 
 by the Catholic Church throughout the world; and 
 it is equally certain that the decisions of provincial 
 councils were recognised, as far, at least, as their 
 authority extended. But the opinions of individual 
 writers may be subjoined in further proof of the fact. 
 
 Eusebius, speaking of the Nicene Council, says, 
 “ The question being raised concerning the most 
 holy feast of Easter, it seemed by common consent 
 to be right that all, in all places, should celebrate 
 it on the same day.” 
 
 : > Euses. in Vita Constan- yevoevns Cnrncews, edoe Kowa 
 tini, 1. iii. c. 17. "Evba Kad mepl yuan KaADS exer ml psdig NEES 
 TIS TOU Marya aywrdrys eoptis Tavtras Tos dnavraxou emiTeAel. 
 
254 Article Twentieth. 
 
 And Athanasius says; “ The Nicene Council 
 was gathered together by reason of the Arian 
 heresy, and on account of the feast of Easter; be- 
 cause the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians 
 differed from us, and celebrated it at the same time 
 that the Jews do the Passover °.” 
 
 And in the same letter he says, “ But thanks be 
 to the Lord, that as concerning the faith, so also 
 concerning the holy feast, we were all of one 
 mind *.” 
 
 And in another place, “ For the faith which the 
 Council confesseth in writing is the faith of the 
 Catholic Church °.” 
 
 And Augustine, speaking of the much contested 
 question, whether heretics should be re-baptized 
 or not, refers to the authority of the Church. 
 “* Although no certain example of this thing can 
 be adduced out of the canonical Scriptures, yet in 
 this very thing we uphold the truth of the same 
 Scriptures, when we do that which pleaseth the 
 whole Church, which the authority of the Scrip- 
 tures themselves commandeth; that, since the 
 holy Scripture cannot deceive, whosoever fears to 
 be deceived in the obscurity of this question, let 
 him consult the same Church concerning it, which, 
 without any ambiguity, the holy Scripture demon- 
 strates '.” 
 
 © Atruanas. Ep. ad Epis- 
 cop. African. ‘H péyv yao bic 
 ‘ > ‘ oo SS X Q 
 thy “Aperavny aipersy Kab dice TO 
 maoya cvynxOn, K. T. As 
 
 4 Idem, ibid. ’AAA& yapis TH 
 Kugig, dowep wept ths TicTEws, 
 ovTws Kal mepl tg aylas Eopris 
 
 yeyove cunpavia. 
 © Idem in Syn. Nic. c. Her. 
 Arian. Decret. “Hy yao 4 ctvo- 
 Dog eyypapus amorsyyce, mloric 
 aut THs KAaBOAIKTS ExKANTIas earl. 
 f Auaust. c. Cresc. Gram- 
 mat. |. i. c. 33. Proinde, quam- 
 
ARTICLE XXI. 
 
 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 together, (forasmuch as they be an assem- 
 ** bly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit 
 *“and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have 
 ** erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore 
 ‘‘ 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 authority of General Councils is here rather 
 limited, than declared; and therefore, though the 
 Church of England, recognises that authority within 
 the limits here laid down, it seems unnecessary in 
 this place to shew that herein ours agrees with the 
 primitive Churches. 
 
 That General Councils are liable to err and have 
 erred, need not be proved. No one can deny it; 
 unless it can be shewn that a direct contradiction 
 is no contradiction at all. 
 
 vis hujus rei certum de Scrip- 
 turis canonicis non proferatur 
 exemplum, earundem tamen 
 Scripturarum etiam in hac re a 
 nobis tenetur veritas, cum hoc 
 facimus, quod universe jam 
 placuit Ecclesix, quam ipsarum 
 Scripturarum commendat au- 
 
 toritas; ut, quoniam sancta 
 Scriptura fallere non potest, 
 quisquis falli metuit hujus ob- 
 scuritate questionis, eandem 
 Ecclesiam de ill& consulat, 
 quam sine ulla ambiguitate 
 sancta Scriptura demonstrat. 
 
256 Article Twenty-first. 
 
 The last point asserted in this Article, that 
 “things ordained by them, as necessary to salva- 
 tion, have neither strength nor authority, unless it 
 may be declared that they be taken out of Holy 
 Scripture,” is sufficiently illustrated by the extracts 
 from the Fathers given under the sixth Article. 
 
 It only remains then to shew that General Coun- 
 cils may not be gathered together without the 
 commandment and will of princes. 
 
 Many National and Provincial Councils were as- 
 sembled before the time of Constantine the Great, 
 but no General one, until the Nicene Council was 
 called together by his authority, in the year 325. 
 
 Eusebius says of Constantine: “He, having 
 mustered the army of God to himself, gathered to- 
 gether an cecumenical synod, by his honourable 
 letters commanding the bishops from all places to 
 hasten together °.” 
 
 And Socrates says; “The emperor therefore 
 seeing the Church troubled with these two things, 
 gathered together an cecumenical synod, summon- 
 ing by his letters the bishops from all places to 
 meet at Nice, a city of Bithynia”.” 
 
 And the Council itself acknowledged the empe- 
 ror’s authority, thus writing to the Church of Alex- 
 andria, “ Seeing that by the grace of God, and the 
 command of the most holy emperor, that gathered 
 
 a Euses. de Vita Constant. >» Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1. i. 
 1. iii. c. 6. cUvadey oiKoume= cUvodoy oiKoUpLEviK TY 
 wKhY TUvVEKvETEL, THEVDELY aTaYTAa-  ouvEKpdTE, TOUS TavTaxbeY ExtOKO- 
 yibev rods emickirovs ypaduyacr  Touc Cid ypapparwy cic Nikaway THC 
 TIUNTIKOLS TOOKAAUIAEYOC. Bubvviac azayvriga TapaKkadGy. 
 
 
 
 
 
Article Twenty-first. 257 
 
 us together from several cities and provinces, this 
 great and holy Council is met at Nice *.” 
 
 The second General Council met at Constanti- 
 nople in the year 381, by command of Theodosius 
 the Great; ‘‘ The emperor without delay calls toge- 
 ther a Council of bishops of his faith, to confirm 
 the faith established at Nice and to ordain a bishop 
 for Constantinople *.” 
 
 The third was assembled at Ephesus in the year 
 431, by command of Theodosius the younger; and 
 the fourth at Chalcedon in 451, by the emperor 
 Marcion ; but as these bring us down lower than 
 the period to which our proofs are limited, it will 
 suffice to refer to authorities °. 
 
 The above historical proofs of the fact, and the 
 recorded admissions of the Councils themselves are 
 enough to shew that from the time of Constantine, 
 the first Christian emperor, the authority of princes 
 was not questioned by the primitive Church. But 
 I will subjoin three individual testimonies in sup- 
 port of this Article. 
 
 Chrysostom, shortly after his banishment from 
 Constantinople, wrote a circular letter to Innocent 
 bishop of Rome, Venerius bishop of Milan, and 
 Chromatius bishop of Aquileia, in which he requests 
 of them to write to the East, declaring that the 
 
 © Idem, 1. i. c. 9. "Ereid& 6 Baoredoimepbipevoc stvodoy tris- 
 
 TiC TOV Oeov yapiToc Kai Tov Oeopt-  KOTWY TIS avTOU TidTEWS avyKAXEL, 
 Aecrdrov Baciitwe Kwyvorarrivov, k.T.X. 
 suvayayovroc Hpac tx Svapdpwy 7o- € Vide Concil. Ephes. ad 
 
 NeyTe Kai tmapxiwy, peydry cai Imperat. Evagr. |. i. c. 3. et 
 ayia civocog iv Nuxaig auvexpornOn. Act. Concil. Chalced. 
 4 Idem, l. v.c. 8. Mydev dé 
 
 S 
 
258 Article Twenty-first. 
 
 measures taken by his enemies against him were 
 illegal ; this letter contains one expression which 
 bears directly on this Article; he says, “I was again 
 invited to the city and the church, from which I had 
 been unjustly expelled, and was accompanied by 
 more than thirty bishops, and a public officer who 
 was sent by the most pious emperor for this pur- 
 pose: but Theophilus immediately fled; and for 
 what reason ?—because when I entered, I entreated 
 the most pious emperor to assemble a council for 
 the punishment of those things that had been 
 done *.” 
 
 And Jerome says, ‘“ Answer, I desire thee, the 
 council by which he was excommunicated, in what 
 city was it? Tell the names of the bishops, pro- 
 duce the sentences of the subscriptions, either their 
 diversity or agreement. Teach us, who were con- 
 suls that year, what emperor commanded this synod 
 to be gathered together °.” 
 
 Lastly, Socrates writes ; “‘ We often mention the 
 emperors in our history, because from the time that 
 they became Christians, the affairs of the Church 
 depended on them, and the greatest Councils both 
 were and still are gathered together by their com- 
 mand ”.” 
 
 f Curysost. Ep. in Inno- 
 cent. Episc. Rome. ————— 
 eiodyTec Tapskahovpey TOY Feoguréa- 
 rarov Baciéa, avyodoy cuvayayew 
 cic Exduciay TOY yeyEevnpévwr. 
 
 & Hieron. Apol. 2. adv. 
 Ruffin. Doce qui eo an- 
 
 
 
 no consules fuerint, quis impe- 
 rator hane synodum jusserit 
 congregari ? 
 
 h Socrat. Hist. Eccl. 1. v. 
 proem. 
 cuvdda TH avToY yyoOun yeysvac, 
 TE Ka) yivovTaus. 
 
 kal de weyioras 
 
 
 
ARTICLE XXII. 
 
 Of Purgatory. 
 
 ** Tue Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, 
 ** worshipping and adoration, as well of Images as of Re- 
 * liques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing 
 *‘ vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of 
 ** Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” 
 
 Five doctrinal errors of the Church of Rome are 
 here repudiated, as grounded upon no warranty of 
 Scripture. Each must be noticed in its turn; but 
 the Articles of the creed of pope Pius IV. may be 
 placed together. 
 
 The nineteenth and three following articles of 
 that creed are as follows : 
 
 “T constantly hold, that there is a Purgatory, 
 and that the souls detained therein, are helped by 
 the suffrages of the faithful. 
 
 “ Likewise, that the saints, reigning together 
 with Christ, are to be honoured and invocated ; 
 that they offer prayers to God for us, and that 
 their relics are to be venerated. 
 
 “I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, 
 and of the Mother of God, ever a Virgin, and also 
 of the other saints, are to be had and retained, and 
 that due honour and veneration are to be given to 
 them. 
 
 s 2 
 
260 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 “T also affirm, that the power of Indulgences 
 was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use 
 of them is most wholesome to Christian people.” 
 
 First, then, Of Purgatory. 
 
 It must be admitted that the practice of praying 
 for the dead was by no means uncommon in the 
 third century. It is mentioned in several places by 
 Tertullian and Cyprian, and appears from several 
 of the ancient liturgies. At what period the doc- 
 trine of Purgatory arose is not so easy to determine. 
 Nor can we expect to find any passages in the early 
 Fathers condemning or even alluding to such a doc- 
 trine, inasmuch as they only thought of two states 
 after this life. Augustine is one of the first who 
 speaks of Purgatory as a third state, and by no 
 means pretends that there is any warrant of Scrip- 
 ture for receiving it as a Christian doctrine. He 
 says in one place’, that “it does not seem incred- 
 ible ;” and in other places he expresses himself very 
 doubtfully. 
 
 In a passage presently given at length, Cyprian 
 says; ‘‘ There is no confession in hell °.” 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the resurrection 
 of the dead, of the future judgment, and of some 
 texts of Scripture bearing on those points, but 
 perverted from their proper meaning, says : 
 
 “For if he says ‘ The ungodly shall not rise 
 again in judgment‘, the meaning is, that they 
 
 @ Auaust.ad Dulcitii Quas- Exomologesis apud inferos non 
 tion, 1. est. 
 b Cyprian. Ep. li. s. 11. © Ps.i.16: 
 
Article Twenty-second. 261 
 
 shall not in judgment, but they shall in condem- 
 nation: for God stands not in need of much en- 
 quiry ; but coinstantaneously with the resurrection 
 of the ungodly, punishment will overtake them. 
 And if he says, ‘ The dead shall not praise thee, O 
 Lord *:’ this shews, that in this life only we have 
 an appointed time for repentance and remission of 
 sins, for which they that reap the benefits of it 
 will praise thee *. For it is not permitted to those, 
 who have died in their sins, to praise God, as 
 receiving good from him, but they have only to 
 lament: for praise is the part of those who give 
 thanks, but lamentation of those that are tor- 
 mented. The righteous therefore shall then offer 
 up praises; but they that have died in their sins, 
 have no time left for confession. For consider 
 the consequence of that sentence, ‘ He that goeth 
 down to the grave shall come up no more *?’ for it 
 is written ‘he shall not come up, he shall return 
 no more to his own house*.’ But when the whole 
 world shall have passed away, and every house 
 have been destroyed, how shall he return to his 
 own house, when the earth no longer remains ».” 
 If Cyril had entertained the Romish doctrine of 
 Purgatory, he could not have made use of such 
 language as the above; he speaks only of two 
 states after this life ended, and at all events ex- 
 
 ae Pa cxv. 17. XViii. of yey obv Blas tere 
 © Ibid, 18. aivatow, of O€ TeheuT_raytes ey 
 f Job, vii. 9. Gynapthass, Kaspoy Aauroyv e£o.0- 
 & Ibid, 10. hoynrews ovy, exouar. 
 
 h Cyriz. Hieros. Catech. 
 
262 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 pressly denies the possibility of obtaining pardon 
 in the next world, by means of any after-act. 
 
 Secondly, of Pardons. 
 
 In the primitive Churches very severe penalties 
 were inflicted on those who had been guilty of any 
 sins, whether public or private; these penalties 
 chiefly consisted of a temporary or continual denial 
 of communion with the Church, to the offender, 
 with the addition of various acts of penance to be 
 done or suffered by him, in token of repentance 
 and submission. ‘The Council of Nice, as a matter 
 of Church discipline, gave the bishops power to re- 
 lax or remit these punishments: but in the eleventh 
 century the Roman see claimed to itself the power 
 of granting pardons or indulgences either as the 
 rewards of meritorious actions, or in consideration 
 of a sum of money, and these indulgences they 
 pretended would deliver the purchaser from Pur- 
 gatory, either for a limited time or entirely. The 
 foundation of these pardons, however, was laid in 
 the Romish doctrine of works of supererogation ; 
 that Church holds that “‘ many holy men have suf- 
 fered more for God and righteousness’ sake than 
 the guilt of the temporal punishment, which they 
 were obnoxious to for faults committed by them, 
 could exact';” and that these good deeds form a 
 common treasure, which the Church has power to 
 apply for the satisfaction of the sins of others. 
 
 “T hear also that an edict has been put forth, 
 and that indeed a peremptory edict. The chief 
 
 1 Beiuarm. de Indulgent. 
 
Article Twenty-second. 263 
 Pontiff truly, the Bishop of Bishops says, ‘I absolve 
 those, who have done penance, from the sins of 
 adultery and fornication.’ O edict to which Bonum 
 factum cannot be prefixed *.” 
 
 Cyprian is speaking of those who had joined in 
 the heathen sacrifices in time of persecution: part 
 of the passage has been given a few pages back, 
 the whole is as follows; “ Aid must be given in 
 their last moments to those that have sacrificed, 
 because there is no confession in hell, nor can any 
 one be urged to repentance by us, if the fruits of 
 repentance be taken away. If the battle shall 
 come first, being strengthened by us, he will be 
 found armed for the battle, but if infirmity shall 
 burn within him before the battle, he departs with 
 the consolation of peace and communion : for we 
 do not forejudge the judgment of the Lord; but 
 that, if he shall find the repentance of a sinner full 
 and just, he may then ratify what has been here 
 determined by us: but if any one shall have de- 
 ceived us by a feigned repentance ; God, who is 
 not mocked, and who sees into the heart of man, 
 may judge concerning those things which we had 
 not well discovered, and the Lord may correct the 
 
 1” 
 
 sentence of his servants '. 
 
 K TertTuu. de Pudicit, c. 
 1. Audio etiam edictum esse 
 propositum, et quidem peremp- 
 torium ; Pontifex scilicet Max- 
 imus, Episcopus Episcoporum 
 dicit; Ego et mechie et 
 fornicationis delicta poenitentia 
 functis dimitto. O edictum cui 
 adseribi non poterit, Bonum 
 
 factum. Edicts usually had pre- 
 fixed to them these words, 
 Bonum factum est edicta ut 
 servetis mea. See PuLaurt. in 
 Penulo. 
 
 1 Cyprian Ep. lii. ad An- 
 tonium de Cornelio et Nova- 
 tiano. s. 11.—neque enim pre- 
 judicamus Domino judicaturo, 
 
264 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 “Let no one deceive himself; the Lord alone 
 can have mercy. Pardon to sins, which have been 
 committed against him, he alone can grant, who 
 bore our sins, who suffered for us, whom God gave 
 for our sins. Man cannot be greater than God: 
 nor can the servant remit or pardon by his indul- 
 gence, that more grievous offence which has been 
 committed against the Lord. Let not this also be 
 added to the crime of the lapsed, that he should 
 forget the prophecy, ‘Cursed be the man that 
 trusteth in man.’ The Lord must be entreated; 
 the Lord must be appeased by our own satisfac- 
 tion; who has said that he will deny those that 
 deny him, who alone hath received all judgment 
 from the Father.” ‘ 
 
 “We believe indeed that the merits of martyrs, 
 and the works of just men avail much with our 
 Judge; but that will be, when the day of judg- 
 ment shall come, when after the fall of this age 
 and world, his people shall stand before the 
 judgment-seat of Christ. But if any one with 
 premature haste, is so rash as to think that he can 
 grant to any remission of sins, or dares to rescind 
 the Lord’s precepts, so far is he from benefiting, 
 
 mn > 
 
 that he injures, the lapsed”. 
 
 quo minus si peenitentiam ple- servorum sententiam emendet. 
 
 nam et justam peccatoris inve- 
 nerit, tune ratum faciat quod 
 a nobis fuerit hic statutum ; si 
 vero nos aliquis poenitentiz si- 
 mulatione deluserit; Deus {qui 
 non deridetur, et qui cor ho- 
 minis intuetur, de his quae nos 
 minus perspeximus judicet, et 
 
 ™ Idem, de Lapsis. s. 14.— 
 Veniam peccatis, que in ipsum 
 commissa sunt, solus potest ille 
 largiri, qui peccata nostra por- 
 tavit, qui pro nobis doluit, quem 
 Deus tradidit pro peccatis 
 nostris. Homo Deo esse non 
 potest major: nec remittere 
 
Article Twenty-second. 265 
 
 Athanasius urges Christ’s power of forgiving 
 sins, as a proof of his divinity : 
 
 “ How, if the Word was a creature, could he 
 loose the sentence of God, and pardon sin, it being 
 written by the Prophets, that this belongs to God; 
 for ‘ who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth 
 iniquity, and passeth by transgressions"? ‘For God 
 said, ‘ Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou re- 
 turn®:’ so that men are mortal; how then was it 
 possible that sin should be pardoned by created 
 beings ? but the Lord himself did pardon them ?.” 
 
 And Ambrose says: ‘ This cannot be common 
 to any man with Christ to forgive sins. This is 
 the prerogative of Christ alone, who took away 
 the sins of the world ‘.” 
 
 And Chrysostom: ‘ For no one can pardon sins 
 
 tr” 
 
 except God alone’. 
 
 Thirdly, Worshipping and adoration of Images. 
 
 Though almost all those passages in the early 
 Christian writers, which denounce the worship- 
 ping of images, were directed against the Heathens, 
 
 aut donare indulgentia sua 
 
 9 AmBrosE. Ep. lxxvi. ad 
 servus potest, quod in Domi- 
 
 Studium. Non _ potest hoc 
 
 num delicto graviore com- 
 missum est.— 
 
 Micah, vii. 18. 
 
 © Genes. iii. 19. 
 
 P ATHANAS. c. Arian. Oral, 
 iii. las 8¢, éfmep xricpa qv 6 
 Mayas, thy anopacy tod Ocod 
 Aicas Suvaris qv, Kal aqeivas rhy 
 dpaptiayv, yeypappevou magce tois 
 Toaparars, ort TovtTe Oecd éoTi— 
 TOs yao oly te Ay mapa Toy 
 yernt ay rvOqvas Thy dpaptiay ;— 
 
 cuiquam hominum cum Christo 
 esse commune, ut peccata con- 
 
 donet. Solius hoc munus est 
 Christi, qui tulit peccatum 
 mundi. 
 
 * Curysost. in 2 ad Cor. 
 Hom. vi. s. 4, Ovvels yao od= 
 vata aplievar apaptias, eb pH 
 pdv0g 6 Oeds. 
 
 » 
 
266 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 yet it is clear that they considered the use of them 
 in the Christian Church to be forbidden ; for this 
 was one of the things with which the Heathens 
 reproached them, that they had no images. In the 
 fourth century the painting the walls of churches 
 with pictures was condemned by the Council of 
 Eliberis*: “It pleases us to have no pictures in 
 Churches, lest that which is worshipped should be 
 painted on the walls.” In the fifth century images 
 seem to have been introduced; and in the eighth 
 arose the famous controversy about breaking of 
 images. Different Popes have taken different 
 sides of the question, but the Council of Trent, as 
 we have seen, decrees that “ due honour and ve- 
 neration are to be given to them.” 
 
 “Can you deny with your tongue, what you 
 confess with your hand? pull down in word what 
 you build up in deed? Can you preach one God, 
 who make so many? the true God, who make 
 false Gods? I make them, he says, but I do not 
 worship them. As if there were any other reason 
 for which he dares not worship them, than that 
 for which he ought not to make them, viz. ; that 
 in both cases it is an offence against God. More- 
 over you do worship them, in making them that 
 they may be worshipped. But you worship them 
 not with the breath of any vile smell, but with 
 your own: not with the life of some purchased 
 
 t» 
 
 animal, but with your own soul *. 
 
 s Can. xxxvi. destruere, quod facto struis? 
 t Tertu.t. de Idololatrié. Unum Deum predicare,quitan- 
 c. 6. Potes lingua negasse, tos efficis? verum Deum predi- 
 quod manu confiteris? Verbo care, qui falsos facis ¢ Facio (ait 
 
Article Tweniy-second. 267 
 
 Celsus objected, that the Christians, in worship- 
 ping one who was dead, acted like “the Getz, who 
 worshipped Zamolxis, the Cilicians who worshipped 
 Mopsus, the Acarnani who worshipped Amphilo- 
 chus, the Thebans who worshipped Amphiaraus, 
 and the Lebadians who worshipped Trophonius.” 
 “ Here, too,” says Origen, “I will convict him of 
 having without good reason compared us to those 
 people above mentioned: for they erect temples 
 and statues to the deities whom he has enume- 
 rated ; but we have rejected from our worship of 
 the Deity any honour that may be derived through 
 such means, as more suited to evil spirits, who are 
 consecrated, I know not how, in some place, which 
 they have chosen, or have been led there by some 
 mystic rites and magical incantations, and, as it 
 were, fix there their habitation; and we worship 
 Jesus, who has withdrawn our mind from every 
 sensible object, as not only liable to corruption, 
 but as of necessity to be corrupted, and has led us 
 to give honour to Him who is God over all, with 
 upright lives and with prayers, which we offer up 
 through him, who is, as it were, midway between 
 Increated and created nature, and who gives to us 
 blessings from the Father, and as a priest carries 
 our prayers to Him who is God over all *.” 
 
 quidam) sed non colo. Quasi 
 
 nidoris alicujus, sed tuo proprio; 
 ob aliam causam colere non 
 
 nec anima pecudis impensa, 
 
 audeat, nisi ob quam et facere 
 non debeat, scilicet ob Dei of- 
 fensam utrobique. Imo tu 
 colis, qui facis ut coli possint. 
 Coli autem non spiritu vilissimi 
 
 Ape yey 
 sed anima tua. 
 
 U ORIGEN. c. Cels. 1. iii. sg. 
 34.—oi fey yao veas Ka) ayan~ 
 pata KatTecKevacay Toic KaTEI- 
 Aeyprevorc’ queis OE Thy Bide TOY 
 
268 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 And again; “ We do not honour images, that, 
 as much as in us lies, we may not fall into the sus- 
 picion that these images are other Gods *.” 
 
 Cecilius had objected to the Christians that 
 they worshipped a guilty man and the Cross. 
 Minutius Felix, in the person of Octavius, answers, 
 “ Of a truth that man is miserable, all whose hope 
 rests upon a mortal man ; for his whole help is 
 put an end to when the man is dead. The 
 Egyptians indeed choose for themselves a man to 
 worship, they propitiate him only, they consult 
 him on all occasions, they slay victims to him, and 
 he, who to others is a God, to himself is certainly 
 a man, whether he will or no: for he cannot 
 deceive his own conscience, though he cheats 
 another’s. To princes and kings also, not as to 
 great and distinguished men, as would be proper, 
 but basely as to Gods, a false adulation is offered, 
 for to an illustrious man honour with more truth, to 
 the best man love with more acceptance, should be 
 given. So they call upon their deity, they offer 
 up prayers to their images, they implore his genius, 
 that is, his spirit, and it is safer for them to 
 forswear themselves by the genius of Jove, than of 
 their king. Crosses also we neither worship nor 
 pray to. You who consecrate wooden Gods, 
 worship perhaps wooden crosses, as parts of your 
 Gods. For these very ensigns and banners, and 
 
 , . Se ee ~ 2 ~ 3: S Baan ‘ 
 TOMUTOY TINY AYEAOYTES ATO TOV Ov TIUAQMEY CE TH AYANUATA Kas 
 
 
 
 5 ~a a © ~ 
 Getov (5 apuclevtay parrcy Oas- Ore TO en TO Gov ep” Hiv KaTa~ 
 tn ‘ 4 ~ 
 povsoss, ) .reOjmauey toy wintew cis xorm by THY aEpi Tou 
 , 
 *Inoooy.— civar TH ayarhuata Geods Erepouc: 
 
 x Idem, ibid. 1. vii. s. 66. 
 
Article Twenty-second. 269 
 
 the standards in your camps, what else are they 
 but gilded and emblazoned crosses? Your trophies 
 of victory not only resemble the appearance of a 
 simple cross, but also of a man fixed to it ¥.” 
 
 «What can be more ridiculous than that man 
 should be a manufacturer of God? Scripture 
 usually calls idols an abomination ; hence the 
 statue, that stands in the temple, is called the abo- 
 mination of desolation; for it says, ‘When ye 
 shall see the abomination of desolation stand in 
 the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him under- 
 stand) ;’ for when he led them away from being 
 stupified with awe of sensible objects, he forbad 
 them to make any image whatsoever; and he 
 called this an abomination, in order to withdraw 
 them as far as possible from impiety: for to 
 abominate, is to hate a thing excessively as being 
 impure and unholy. This abomination, therefore, 
 is said in the Scriptures to deserve our hatred and 
 detestation ; and such is every idol. ‘And they 
 worshipped that which their own fingers have 
 made; and the mean man boweth down, and the 
 great man humbleth himself’. For as the worship 
 of God raises men on high, so their worship 
 humbles him and brings him down *.” 
 
 ¥Y Minucu Fericis. Ocray. 
 p- 34. ed Lugd. Bat. 1652.— 
 Cruces etiam nec colimus nec 
 oramus—tropa vestra victricia 
 non tantum simplicis crucis 
 faciem, verum et aflixi hominis 
 Imitantur. 
 
 * Isaiah, ii. 8, 9. 
 
 @ Curysost. in Esai. cap. 
 li. Ti yap dv yévarro Katayehac-= 
 Torepay GAAo, % bray avOpwmos 
 Oy pesoupryas Y Qcot ;— Ered) yap 
 autos amnyaye ToD meds tH 
 aicOnra entoncbar, amnyspevoev 
 avroig may eLeKivicua mornras.— 
 
270 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 Fourthly and lastly, Of Reliques, and Invocation 
 of Saints. 
 
 The expression in the creed of pope Pius IV. 
 that the reliques of saints “are to be venerated,” is 
 a cautious one; but, whatever that may mean, the 
 practice of the Romanists has extended and does 
 still extend to adoration and worshipping. The 
 early Christians, as will be seen from the subjoined 
 extracts, shewed the utmost respect to the bodies 
 and to the memories of those who had suffered 
 martyrdom in the cause of Christianity. They 
 carefully collected their remains, and buried them 
 with solemnity and honour, and held their religious 
 assemblies at the places where the bodies were 
 buried. The professed object of this, as well as 
 of their celebrating certain festival or saints’ days, 
 was to shew their love for their departed brethren, 
 and to encourage themselves to the imitation of 
 their virtues and constancy. 
 
 The worship of reliques and the invocation of 
 saints are so closely connected, that in order to 
 avoid multiplying of subdivisions, the passages 
 from the Fathers, in both points, may be placed 
 together. 
 
 «Tf, as reason hath taught us, we are to give 
 credit to any one of those who have introduced 
 particular sects, among the Greeks or Barbarians ; 
 how much more should we believe in him, who is 
 God over all? and in him who teaches us, that he 
 only is to be worshipped? and to look upon other 
 things, either as if they did not exist, or existing in- 
 
Article Twenty-second. 271 
 deed, and deserving of honour, but not of worship, 
 and adoration » ?” 
 
 «But let us see in what way Celsus, who pro- 
 fesses that he knows all things, calumniates the 
 Jews, saying, ‘ that they worship Angels, and follow 
 after witchcraft, in which Moses instructed them.’ 
 For in what part of the writings of Moses he has 
 found the lawgiver enjoining the worship of Angels, 
 let him shew, who professes to know the affairs of 
 Christians and Jews. And how witchcraft is to be 
 followed by those who receive the law of Moses, 
 and have read that commandment; ‘ ye shall not 
 cleave to enchanters, to be polluted by them *’ *.” 
 
 In this place Origen clearly puts the worshipping 
 of Angels on the same footing with witchcraft. 
 
 In the Declaration of the Church of Smyrna, 
 which is to be found in Eusebius, is the following 
 passage : 
 
 “ Not knowing, that neither can we ever leave 
 Christ, who suffered for the salvation of all those, 
 who out of mankind were to be saved, neither can 
 we worship any other. For we adore him as the 
 Son of God; but we love the Martyrs as we ought 
 to love them, as being the disciples and imitators 
 
 P Oricen. c. Cels. |. i. c. 26. p. 344. Tot yap ray 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mile TOG OUYL WAaANoY TH em 
 Tao Oe, Kai TP OwWaoKovTt TovUTOY 
 povoy Ogiy otBew, ra dé Nowra, Hroe 
 O¢ py) OVTA, 7 WC OYTa piv, Kai TYAS 
 Gkia, od piv Kai mpockuyncEewe Kai 
 oeBacpov, 
 
 € Levit. xix. 31. 
 
 @ ORiGcEN. c. Cels., 1;.i...c. 
 
 yeapparwy Mwivctwc eipe toy vopo- 
 Oérny mapadwWovra atBev ayyéXoue, 
 Aeyétw O EayyedOpevoe eidévar ra 
 Xpioriavoyv Kai “lovdaiwys ric be 
 kai yonréla, mapa roic mrapadezap- 
 évolg TOY Mwiaéwe vopovtariv, avey- 
 VWKOOL Kai TO" Toig Eraotbotc, kK. T. X. 
 
272 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 of our Lord, and for the sake of their unshaken af- 
 fection, to their King and Master °.” 
 
 Augustine, in the preceding chapter to that 
 which is quoted below, had shewn that the hea- 
 thens worshipped only men who were dead; he 
 now declares “ what degree of honour Christians 
 pay to the martyrs.” 
 
 “We do not erect temples, nor constitute an 
 order of priests, nor rites nor sacrifices to the mar- 
 tyrs ; because not they, but their God, is our God. 
 We honour indeed their memories as the saints of 
 God, who until their death fought for the truth, 
 that true religion might be made known, and false 
 and feigned superstitions overcome, but if any others 
 before them had thought the same, they were silent _ 
 through fear. But who ever heard the priest of 
 the faithful, standing at the altar that was built 
 even over the holy body of the martyr, in honour, 
 and for the worship of God, say in his prayers, ‘ I 
 offer sacrifice unto thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian;’ 
 when it is offered in memory of them to God, who 
 made them both men and martyrs, and advanced 
 them to the fellowship of his holy angels unto hea- 
 venly honour; that at that festival we might both 
 give thanks to God for their victories, and that we 
 might ourselves, by the renewal of their memories, 
 be encouraged to endeavour after such crowns and 
 glories, calling upon the same God for help. What- 
 ever religious observances therefore are used at the 
 
 e Euses. Hist. 1. iv.c. 15.  dyarGpev aéiwe, tvexa ebvoiag avv- 
 oa Wh rors 8€ maprupas,  TepBAITou Tod cic Tov iduoy Baovéa 
 we pabnrag Tov Kupiov kai pypnrac, Kai dacKador. 
 
 
 
273 
 solemnities of martyrs, are ornaments to their me- 
 mories, not rites or sacrifices to the dead, as unto 
 Gods. And those that bring their banquets thither, 
 which however is not done by the better Christians, 
 and in most countries there is no such custom at 
 all—yet such as do so, when they have laid them 
 down, they pray, and take them away, to eat them 
 or to bestow on those that are in need; they wish 
 that these things may be sanctified to themselves, 
 
 through the merits of the martyrs, in the name of 
 the martyr’s God *.” 
 
 Article Twenty-second. 
 
 ARTICLE XXIII. 
 
 Of Ministering in the Congregation. 
 
 ** Tr is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office 
 ** of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the 
 “‘ congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to 
 “execute the same: and those we ought to judge lawfully 
 
 £ August. de Cwvit. Dei, 1. sanctum corpus martyris ad 
 
 viii. c, 27. De modo honoris, 
 quem Christiani martyribusim~ 
 pendunt. Honoramus sane 
 memorias eorum, tanquam 
 sanctorum hominum Dei, qui 
 usque ad mortem corporum 
 suorum pro veritate certarunt 
 Quis autem audivit ali- 
 quando fidelium stantem sacer- 
 dotem ad altare etiam super 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dei honorem cultumque con- 
 structum, dicere in precibus, 
 Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, 
 vel Paule, vel Cypriane ; cum 
 apud eorum memorias offeratur 
 Deo, qui eos et homines et 
 martyres fecit, et sanctis suis 
 angelis coelesti honore sociavit. 
 
 
 
Q74 Article Twenty-third. 
 
 ** 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. 
 
 This Article asserts two particulars; first, that it 
 is unlawful for any person to assume to himself the 
 authority of performing any public act of an eccle- 
 siastical Minister, without Orders, or a regular and 
 lawful appointment. The second part defines, in 
 very general terms, what constitutes a lawful call 
 or appointment. 
 
 It will be seen that the early Fathers constantly 
 speak of those who ministered having received a 
 regular commission to do so. Unless the Wal- 
 denses in the twelfth century may be considered 
 an exception, it was not until the period of the 
 Reformation, that the right of ministering in the 
 congregation without the authority of Bishops was 
 pretended to by any. But then, in consequence of 
 the Bishops, in some countries abroad, refusing to 
 ordain those who were separating from the Roman 
 Church, they had resort to ordination by Elders. 
 Socinus was one of the first to insist that any as- 
 sembly of Christians had a right to form themselves 
 into a separate Church, and that any person might 
 minister by general consent of the members. This 
 notion has been adopted by various classes of dis- 
 senters. Against such, therefore, it may be consi- 
 dered that this Article is directed. 
 
 On the second particular, as to what constitutes 
 a lawful call or appointment, Bishop Burnet says, 
 “The Article does not resolve this into any par- 
 
Article Twenty-third. 275 
 
 ticular constitution, but leaves the matter open 
 and at large, for such accidents as had happened, 
 and such as still might happen. They who drew it 
 had the state of the several Churches before their 
 eyes, that had been differently reformed; and al- 
 though their own had been less forced to go out 
 of the beaten path than any other, yet they knew 
 that all things among themselves had not gone 
 according to those rules that ought to be sacred in 
 regular times.” 
 
 I have inserted the above from Bishop Burnet as 
 the concession of a very able divine of our Church ; 
 but though the Article does not here define what 
 constitutes a lawful call and appointment to the 
 ministry, yet the Church of England ever upheld 
 the necessity of an Apostolical succession, and Epis- 
 copal ordination. For, to use the expressions in- 
 troductory to our ordination services, ‘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, which of- 
 fices were evermore had in such reverend estima- 
 tion, that no man might presume to execute any 
 of them, except he were first called, tried, exa- 
 mined, and known to have such qualities as are 
 requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer, 
 with imposition of hands by lawful authority. And 
 therefore, to the intent that these orders may be 
 continued, and reverently used and esteemed, in 
 the United Church of England and Ireland, no 
 man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful 
 
 cig 
 
276 Article Twenty-third. 
 
 Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the United Church of 
 England and Ireland, or suffered to execute any of 
 the said functions, except he be called, tried, ex- 
 amined, and admitted thereunto, according to the 
 form hereafter following, or hath had formerly 
 Episcopal consecration or ordination *.” 
 
 From the following extracts it will be seen, that 
 not only was a regular appointment to the ministry 
 deemed indispensably necessary in the primitive 
 Churches, but that the several orders and degrees 
 now maintained amongst us were considered by 
 them to be according to the Apostolic rule. 
 
 “Wherefore it becomes you also, not to use 
 your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth; 
 but to yield all reverence to him, according to the 
 power of God the Father; as also I perceive that 
 your holy presbytery do, not regarding his, to all 
 appearance, youthful ordination ; but as prudent in 
 God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but 
 to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. 
 It behoves you, therefore, in honour of him who 
 wills it, to obey your bishop, without any hypo- 
 crisy. Because it is not that any one deceives the 
 bishop, whom he sees, but affronts Him that is in- 
 visible. For whatsoever of this kind is done, the 
 account is not with man but with God, who knows 
 the secrets of our hearts. 
 
 “Tt is therefore fitting not only to be called 
 Christians, but to be so: as some call, indeed, their 
 bishop by that name, but do all things without 
 
 4 Preface to the Ordination Services. 
 
af ol 
 
 Article Twenty-third, Q77 
 
 him. But such do not seem to me to have a good 
 conscience, seeing they are not firmly gathered 
 together according to the commandment ?.” 
 
 And again in the sixth section the several orders 
 of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are distinctly 
 mentioned, and their several degrees pointed out : 
 
 “ Forasmuch, therefore, as I have, in the per- 
 sons before mentioned, seen all of you in faith and 
 charity, I exhort you that you study to do all 
 things in a divine concord, your bishop presiding 
 in the place of God, your presbyters in the place 
 of the council of the Apostles, and your deacons, 
 most dear to me, being entrusted with the ministry 
 of Jesus Christ, who, before all ages, was with the 
 Father, and appeared in the end °.” 
 
 “ It is fitting that you should by all means glo- 
 rify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you; that by 
 a uniform obedience, ‘ ye may be perfectly joined 
 together in the same mind, and in the same judg- 
 ment; and may all speak the same things concern- 
 ing every thing’: that being subject to your bishop 
 and the presbyters, ye may be wholly sanctified’.” 
 
 > Ienat. ad Magnes. s. 3, 4. 
 Kai tpiv 0 mpéret pr) cvyxpacba 
 TH nAuKia TOU EtcKé7rov, aa Kara 
 Sivaputy Ocod Tarpoc wacay évrpo- 
 Thy abrp arrovipew, Kaloo Eyvwy 
 kai todcg aylove mpecButépouc, ov 
 TpooeArnporac THY parvopévny vEew- 
 Tepucny Tak, aN’ we Ppovipouc ty 
 OE svyxwoovyrag airy’ ovK abr 
 6t, G\Ad rw Marpi "Insod Xprorov 
 Tp Tavrov’ EriKdry.—lpérov oby 
 éorw py povoy KkadticOar Xproria- 
 vovd¢ adda kai elyav’ WoTEp Kal TWEC 
 ‘Exiskoroy piv kadovow, xwoic 6é 
 avrov mayvra Tpaccovo* ot ToOLOVTOL 
 
 6& obk edouvEtdnrot pot eivar paivor- 
 Ta : 
 
 © Idem, ibid. s. 6.—rgoxaOy- 
 pévov rov “Emtoxdmov eic rémov 
 O00, Kai THY TpecBuTEowY Eic TOTOV 
 cuvedpiov THY ’AmocTO\wy, Kai TOY 
 Ovaxévwv, rdv éyol yuxurarwy, 7E- 
 miorevpévwy dvacoviay "Incov Xpio- 
 TOU 
 
 a WiCor: 1.210. 
 
 © Ienat. ad Ephes. s. 2.— 
 twa triragcbpevae TY “Exuoxo7ty, 
 Kal Tp) ToEsBuTEpip, KaTa TAaYTAa ITE 
 Hy vacpévor. 
 
 
 
 
 
278 Article Twenty-third. \ 
 
 And again in the third section, “ Forasmuch as 
 charity suffers me not to be silent respecting you, 
 I have therefore first taken upon me to exhort you, 
 that ye would run together according to the will of 
 God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, 
 is the will of the Father, as the bishops appointed, 
 unto the utmost bounds of the earth, are by the 
 will of Jesus Christ. 
 
 “ Therefore it becomes you to run together ac- 
 cording to the will of your bishop, as also ye do. 
 For your famous presbytery, worthy of God, is so 
 fitted to the bishop, as the strings are to the harp. 
 Therefore in your concord and agreeing charity 
 Christ is sung; and ye are individually the chorus, 
 that so being all consonant in the sameness of 
 mind, and taking up the song of God, ye may in 
 unity with one voice, sing to the Father by Jesus 
 Christ; to the end that he may both hear you, 
 and perceive by the things that ye do, that ye are 
 members of his Son. Wherefore it is profitable 
 for you to live in an unblameable unity, that so ye 
 may always have a fellowship with God “.” 
 
 “He that is within the altar is pure ; but he that 
 is without, that is, that does any thing without the 
 bishop and presbyters, and deacons, is not pure in 
 his conscience®.” 
 
 And in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, he 
 
 
 
 f Idem, ibid. s. 3, 4. as & Idem, ad Trall.s.7. — 
 kai ot ’Eioxotot oi kara Ta mépara = 6. Ywols Emioxsnov kai mpecButepiov 
 dpiobévrec tv Inood Xowrod yropy Ka) diakivey rpdocwy TH, obtos" ob 
 sioty. “Obey rpérer dpiy cuvtpixew Kabaods eotw Tz cuverdqcer. 
 
 Ty Tov 'Extskéxov yvepy, O7Ep Kai 
 TOUITE. 
 
 
 
Article Twenty-third. 279 
 
 shews that the presbyters derived their authority 
 from the bishop : 
 
 “Tt is not lawful either to baptize or celebrate 
 the eucharist without the bishop; but that which 
 he allows is well-pleasing to God".” The expres- 
 sion, “‘ without the bishop,” clearly means, without 
 the consent or authority of the bishop. 
 
 «Since then these things are manifest unto us, it 
 will behove us, looking into the depths of the divine 
 knowledge, to do all things in order, whatsoever 
 the Lord has commanded us to do. He has com- 
 manded us to perform our offerings and services at 
 their appointed seasons ; and that they be not done 
 rashly or disorderly, but at certain determinate 
 times and hours. And where and by what persons 
 he will have them performed, he has ordained by 
 his supreme will: that so all things being piously 
 done unto all well-pleasing, they may be acceptable 
 unto his will. They therefore who make their of- 
 ferings at the appointed seasons are accepted and 
 blessed ; because obeying the commandment of the 
 Lord, they do not err. For to the Chief Priest are 
 given his proper services, and to the Priests their 
 proper place is appointed, and to the Levites apper- 
 tain their proper ministries, and the layman is con- 
 fined within the bounds appointed to laymen.” 
 
 Clemens, having made further allusions to the 
 services of the Jewish priests, continues the same 
 subject in the forty-second section. 
 
 “The Apostles have preached to us from our 
 
 5 Idem, ad Smyrn. s. 8. ov, cite Barrie, sre ayanny 
 Ovx ebay dori yopic toh "Emicks- rarely. — 
 
280 Article Twenty-third. 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God; Christ 
 therefore was sent by God, and the Apostles by 
 Christ. So both were orderly sent according to 
 the will of God. For having received their com- 
 mand, and being fully assured by the resurrection 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, and being confirmed in 
 faith by the Word of God, with the fulness of the 
 Holy Spirit, they went abroad publishing that the 
 kingdom of God was at hand. Preaching therefore 
 through countries and cities, they appointed their 
 first-fruits, having proved them by the Spirit, to be 
 bishops and deacons of such as should afterwards 
 believe. Nor was this any new thing, for in times 
 long past it was written concerning bishops and 
 deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain 
 place, ‘I will appoint their overseers in righteous- 
 ness, and their ministers in faith:’ *.” 
 
 He alludes in the next section to the mode in 
 which Moses put a stop to the emulation that arose 
 among the twelve tribes concerning the priesthood, 
 and then continues : 
 
 “So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that there should be contentions on 
 account of the Episcopacy. For this cause therefore, 
 having received a perfect foreknowledge, they ap- 
 pointed the above-mentioned persons, and besides 
 gave directions for the future, how, when they 
 
 i Isaiah, lx. 17. 
 
 k Curm. Rom. ad Corinth. 
 s. 40, 42. Tlod re kai dia 
 Tivwv érireciabat Oder, arog WpioEV 
 TPUTEpTaTy avrov BovdrHoer tv’ datwe 
 RAVTA yivopeva ty EvOoKNOEL, EVTOT- 
 
 
 
 Oexra ein, TY OedXhpare avrou 
 Kard ywpac ody Kai 7édeWc Kn0vC- 
 sovrec, Kabioravoy Tac amapyac 
 aizGy, Ooxyacavres Ty mrvevpart, 
 tic "Emtokdmove Kai dvakdvove Taev 
 pisddNOvTwy ToT EvELY.—— 
 
 
 
Article Twenty-third. 281 
 
 should die, other approved men should succeed to 
 their ministry. Wherefore we do not think that 
 those may be justly thrown out of their ministry, 
 who were either appointed by them, or afterwards 
 by other eminent men, with the approval of the 
 whole Church; and who have with all lowliness 
 ministered to the flock of Christ peaceably, and 
 without self interest, and have for a long time” re- 
 ceived good witness from all. For it will be no 
 small sin in us, if we cast off those from their 
 bishopric, who without blame and holily fulfil the 
 duties of it. Blessed are those presbyters who, 
 having finished their course before these times, 
 have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolution ; 
 for they have no fear, lest any one should remove 
 them from the place now appointed for them. But 
 we see how you have put out some, who lived re- 
 spectably among you, from the ministry, which by 
 their innocence they had adorned'.” 
 
 Irenzeus gives a catalogue of the bishops who 
 successively governed the see of Rome from the 
 Apostles to his own time, and says: 
 
 “ The blessed Apostles founding and setting in 
 order the Church, gave the bishopric to Linus, for 
 the government of the Church ™.” 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of St. John, 
 says, “ When, after the death of the tyrant, he had 
 
 1 Tdem, ibid. s. 44. A:& rav- 
 THY OvY THY aiTiaY TOdyYWoW EiAn- 
 goreg Tedelay, KartoTnoay Tove 
 Tpoepnpévoue, Kai pera) émivopyny 
 Oedwxacw brwe tay KousnOdorw, dta- 
 OeEwvrar trepor Sedokiysacpévor cv- 
 Spec, THY Aetroupyiayv ai’ray.—— 
 
 m JRENAI, I. iil. c. iii. s. 3. 
 Oeuekuwooavrec ody Kai vikodopn- 
 oayrec ot paxapir AméaroXo 7))y tK- 
 kd\yoiav, Any riyv Tig emoKkomic 
 Netroupyiay évexeipioay. 
 
282 Article Twenty-third. 
 
 returned from the isle of Patmos, to Ephesus; 
 being often invited, he went to visit the neigh- 
 bouring regions, in some places to ordain bishops, 
 in others to set in order whole Churches, in others 
 to set apart such men for the clergy, as were sig- 
 nified to him by the Holy Ghost °.” 
 
 Again he mentions the three orders; ‘ There 
 are here in the Church the different degrees or 
 progressions of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in 
 imitation, I think, of the angelical glory °.” 
 
 Tertullian accuses the heretics of entirely neg- 
 lecting the Church discipline, and says, “ One man 
 is a bishop to day, another to-morrow; he is a 
 deacon to day, who to-morrow will be a reader; 
 he is a presbyter to day, who to-morrow will be a 
 layman; for they impose the offices of the priest- 
 hood even upon the laymen ?.” 
 
 “The right of baptizing belongs to the chief- 
 priest, who is the bishop ;—and after him, to 
 presbyters and deacons, yet not without the au- 
 thority of the bishop, for the honour of the Church, 
 in the preservation of which consists the Church’s 
 peace %.” 
 
 Episcopus, cras alius: hodie 
 diaconus, qui cras lector ; hodie 
 presbyter, qui cras__lacius. 
 Nam et laicis sacerdotalia 
 munera injungunt. 
 
 2 Crem. ALEX. Quis Dives 
 salvetur. c. 42. p. 959. —éxov 
 pey emickinous Katacticey, Grov 
 d€ GAas exkAnolas Apparoy, omrov 
 Be KAnpoY, Eva yé Tia KAngdcoy 
 
 bro Tod TvEUpATos THLALYoyEVOY. 
 
 ° Idem. Strom. 1. vi. ec. 13. 
 "Evei Kai at ivravéa cara rHy 
 "ExeAnciay apoxorai, éxtcxézwyr, 
 mpecButépwy, Crakédvwy, pyunpara, 
 oipat, “Ayyeducie Coéne. 
 
 P TerruL. de Prescript. 
 Heret. c. 41. Alius hodie 
 
 4 TERTULL. de Bapt. c. 17. 
 Dandi quidem habet jus sum- 
 mus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. 
 Dehince presbyteri et diaconi, 
 non tamen sine Episcopi auc- 
 toritate, propter Ecclesie ho- 
 norem. Quo salvo, salva pax 
 est. 
 
Article twenty-third. 283 
 
 In another place he mentions this distinction of 
 order to have been settled by the Apostles : 
 
 “ The order of bishops, when it is traced up to 
 its original, will be found to have St. John for one 
 of its authors *.” 
 
 To these passages from Tertullian might be 
 added another very forcible one, in which he 
 insists on the necessity of maintaining the Aposto- 
 lical succession. As that passage alluded to wili 
 be found under the thirty-seventh Article, it need 
 not be given here 
 
 In the primitive Churches the bishops alone had 
 power to ordain the inferior clergy, and that power 
 they never committed to the presbyters. By the 
 fourth Council of Carthage the presbyters were 
 allowed to assist, but not to ordain or to pronounce 
 the benediction : 
 
 “ When a presbyter is being ordained, and the 
 bishop is blessing him, and laying his hand upon 
 his head, all the presbyters also, who are present, 
 may lay their hand upon his head near the hand 
 of the bishop *.” 
 
 “The order of bishops begets fathers to the 
 Church, but the order of presbyters not being able to 
 do this, begets sons by the regeneration of baptism‘.” 
 
 * Idem, adv. Marcion,1.iv. presentes sunt, manus suas 
 
 e. 5. Ordo Episcoporum ad 
 originem recensus, in Johannem 
 stabit auctorem,. 
 
 * Conc. Carthag. 4. can. 3. 
 Presbyter eum ordinatur, Epis- 
 copo cum benedicente, et ma- 
 num super caput ejus tenente, 
 etiam omnes presbyteri, qui 
 
 Juxta manum Episcopi super 
 caput illius teneant. 
 
 ‘ EpipHan. Heres. 1. iii. 
 Her. 75. 's. 4. Tlarépas yap 
 yevvg TH ’ExxAnsia: 1) Ot warépac 
 py Ovvapevy yevigy, dua rie Tov 
 Aourpov Tahiyyeveciag Tecva yevvE 
 7H) ExkAncia. 
 
284 Article Twenty-third. 
 
 Hence bishops derived their title of “ father of 
 fathers,” an honour by no means peculiar of the 
 bishop of Rome. 
 
 And Chrysostom says: “ Bishops and presbyters 
 differ not much from one another; for presbyters 
 receive the office of preaching, and govern the 
 Church: and the same qualifications that the 
 Apostle requires in Bishops, are required in 
 presbyters also; for Bishops are superior to them 
 only in the power of ordination, and in this thing 
 only seem to be superior to presbyters *.” 
 
 And Jerome asks: What does a Bishop more 
 than a presbyter, setting aside the business of or- 
 dination *?” 
 
 It was at the same time an acknowledged prin- 
 ciple of the primitive Churches, that all the in- 
 ferior clergy, presbyters, and deacons, derived their 
 authority from their Bishops. Thus Jerome says: 
 
 “ Thence it comes, that neither presbyter nor 
 deacon has a right to baptize without the autho- 
 rity of the Bishop’.” And in the same work he 
 says, “ That is not a Church, which has not 
 
 Zz 
 
 priests ”. 
 
 u Curysost. in 1 Tim. c. Evagr. Quid enim facit, ex- 
 
 3. v. 8. Hom. xi. init. ’Ov ord 
 pécov ait@y Kai Toy tmioKOTWY 
 kai yap Kai avroi dWackaXiay siciv 
 avadedeypévor, Kal TpocTacliay THC 
 éxkAnoiac, Kai ad Epi émicKOTWY 
 time, Ta’Ta Kat TpEcBuTEpoc ap- 
 porres Ty yap yElpoTovia povy 
 SrrepByKact, Kai TOUT povoy OoKovct 
 mAEoverTely Tove TpEcBuTEpOUC. 
 
 x Hieron. Ep. 85. ad. 
 
 cepta ordinatione, Episcopus, 
 quod presbyter non facit ? 
 
 ¥ Idem, Dial. c. Lucifer. 
 p- 139. Inde venit, ut sine 
 jussione Episcopi, neque Pres- 
 byter, neque diaconus, jus 
 habeant baptizandi., 
 
 2 Idem, ibid. p. 145. Ee- 
 clesia non est, que non habet. 
 
 _ sacerdotes. 
 
ARTICLE XX‘V. 
 
 Of speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue 
 as the people understandeth, 
 
 “Tt is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, 
 ‘*and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have public 
 “prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments, in 
 ‘*a tongue not understanded of the people.” 
 
 In the primitive Church, the liturgies used in 
 Europe were either Greek or Latin, the former in 
 the Eastern, the latter in the Western Church. 
 These were at that time the two prevailing lan- 
 guages. It is unnecessary to trace the history of 
 the adoption of liturgies in other languages, but it 
 will be sufficient to shew that the public services 
 were conducted in a language, which the people 
 could understand. 
 
 The Council of Trent* pronounces an anathema 
 on those who say, that Mass ought to be celebrated 
 in the vulgar tongue; but orders the Pastors to 
 make frequent explanations of what is said at 
 Mass. The result is, that with the Romanists it is 
 not improper for those who understand Latin, to 
 understand the services, but it is improper for 
 
 * Sess. 22. cap. 8. and Canon 9. 
 
286 Article Twenty-fourth. 
 
 those who do not understand Latin, to know what 
 they are doing; unless they may pretend that that 
 language, because it was not used by the Apostles, 
 was held sacred by them. 
 
 “On the day which is called Sunday, there is an 
 assembly of all those who live either in cities, or in 
 the country; and the books of the Prophets, or 
 the writings of the Apostles, are there read, as long 
 as time will permit. When the reader has done, 
 he who presides in the assembly makes a dis- 
 course, in which he admonishes and exhorts us 
 to imitate and practise the fine things we have 
 heard. Then we all rise up with one consent, and 
 send forth our prayers to God°.” 
 
 It is not possible to read the following passage 
 from Tertullian without coming to the conclusion, 
 that it was deemed necessary to perform the 
 public services of the Church in a language under- 
 stood by the people. 
 
 “We assemble ourselves together, that being 
 formed into an army, if I may so speak, we may 
 force God with our prayers; and this violence is 
 acceptable to God. We pray also for the em- 
 perors, for their ministers, and for the powers of 
 this world, for peace, and for the retarding the end 
 of the world. We meet also to read the Holy 
 Scriptures, according as the emergency of our pre- 
 sent wants requires, either to instruct or remind us 
 of our duties.—We assuredly nourish our faith 
 by these sacred oracles, we raise our hope, we 
 
 > Justin. Apol. 1.c. 67.——érera aucraucba Kowa mavtes, Kas 
 LUKAS TEUTOMEY. 
 
Article Twenty-fourth. 287 
 
 strengthen our confidence, at all events we enforce 
 discipline by the constant repetition of the divine 
 commandments: in the same place also exhorta- 
 tions, reproofs, and divine censures are given. 
 And our judgments are given with great weight, 
 as by those who are assured that they are under 
 the eye of God*.” 
 
 But Origen affords us the most express testi- 
 mony on this point: “‘ The Greeks in the Greek 
 language, the Romans in the Roman language, and 
 so every one prays in his own tongue, and praises 
 God according to his power; and the Lord of all 
 tongues hears them praying with all their several 
 tongues*.” 
 
 “When we stand up to pray, my dearly beloved 
 brethren, we ought to watch, and attend to our 
 prayers with our whole heart. All carnal and 
 worldly thoughts should be discarded, and the 
 mind should be solely intent upon what it prays 
 for. And therefore the Priest, before the prayer, 
 doth by a preface prepare the minds of the brethren, 
 saying, ‘ Lift up your hearts ;’ that while the people 
 answer ‘ We lift them up unto the Lord’ they may 
 be admonished that they ought to think of nothing 
 else but the Lord. Our breast should be then 
 shut against the adversary, and open to God only ; 
 neither should God’s enemy be suffered to come 
 
 © TERTULL. Apol. c. 39— 4 OricEN. c. Cels. 1. viii. 
 Coimus in coetum et congrega- s. 37.—Oi pév "EAAgves “EAAqui~- 
 tionem, ut ad*¥Deum quasi xoic, oi 8 Papaios Popaixeis, kal 
 manu facta, precationibus am- ofta> Exaotos Kata thy éavtod 
 biamus ; hc vis Deo grata est, dicdexrov eyerar +9 OcG—— 
 ete. 
 
288 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 near it in the time of prayer. For he frequently 
 steals upon us, and gets admission into us, and by 
 his subtle deceits diverts our prayers from God ; 
 so that we have one thing in our heart, and an- 
 other in our mouth: whereas we ought to pray to 
 the Lord, not only with the sound of.the voice, 
 but with the sincere intenseness of the mind and 
 
 e” 
 
 spirit’. 
 
 ARTICLE XXV. 
 Of the Sacraments. 
 
 “ SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ, be not only badges or 
 “tokens of Christian men’s profession ; but rather, they 
 *‘be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, 
 **and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth 
 ** work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but 
 ‘* also strengthen and confirm our Faith in Him. 
 
 ‘There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ. our 
 ** Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the 
 ‘* Supper of the Lord. 
 
 ‘Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to 
 ‘‘say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Ex- 
 ‘* treme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of 
 **the Gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the 
 
 ®* Cyprian. de Oratione  dilectissimi, vigilare et incum- 
 Dominica, s. 22.—Quando au- _ bere ad preces toto corde debe- 
 tem stamus ad orationem, patres mus. 
 
 
 
Article Twenty-fifth. 289 
 
 * corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of 
 ‘life allowed in the Scriptures: but yet have not like na- 
 “ture of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s 
 ** Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or cere- 
 ** mony ordained of God. 
 
 “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be 
 ** gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should 
 “duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive 
 “the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation ; 
 “but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to 
 “‘ themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.” 
 
 This Article treats of Sacraments in general, and 
 begins by defining what a Sacrament is :—it is 
 not only a “badge or token of Christian men’s 
 profession ;’—this was inserted in opposition to 
 those sectaries, who so lowered the use of the 
 sacraments, as to consider them nothing more than 
 outward signs of a Christian’s profession. That 
 the early Fathers held no such opinion will be 
 abundantly seen from the extracts adduced under 
 the following Articles, so that this part of the Ar- 
 ticle will not require separate proof. 
 
 The rest of the Article was framed solely against 
 the Romanists, and therefore it will be necessary 
 to see whether we differ from them in our general 
 definition of a sacrament. This will be the more 
 requisite, because the Fathers very commonly use 
 the word “ Sacrament” in a larger and more varied 
 sense than the Church of England does, as apply- 
 ing to almost all religious ceremonies, and some- 
 times to doctrines. If, therefore, the Church of 
 Rome uses it in this larger sense, it might be, that 
 
 U 
 
290 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 as regards the most of those five, which we reject, we 
 differ with them only in the meaning of the word. 
 
 The Article in the creed of pope Pius IV., which 
 relates to this matter, will be given presently, in 
 the mean time the definition given in our Church 
 Catechism may be compared with one given by 
 Dr. Challoner’, in a work which is in the hands of 
 the generality of the Romanists in this country and 
 Ireland. 
 
 In our Church Catechism the word “ Sacrament” 
 is described to mean; “an outward and visible 
 sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto 
 us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby 
 we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us 
 thereof.”. By Dr. Challoner’, “an outward sign 
 or ceremony of Christ’s institution, by which grace 
 is given to the soul of the worthy receiver.” 
 Again he says, “the necessary conditions for a 
 thing to be a sacrament are these three: First, 
 It must be a sacred sign, and consequently, as to 
 the outward performance, it must be visible or 
 sensible. Secondly, This sacred sign must have 
 annexed unto it a power of communicating grace 
 to the soul. Thirdly, This must be by virtue of the 
 ordinance or institution of Christ.” Again, in the 
 Trent Cathecism, a sacrament is defined, “ a thing 
 subject to sense, which by God’s appointment has 
 virtue both to signify, and to work holiness and 
 righteousness.” 
 
 a The Catholic Christian in- » Cap. ii. 
 
 structed in the Sacraments, etc. 
 
 11th ed. Dublin, 1803. 
 
Article Twenty-fifth. 291 
 
 These definitions sufficiently agree with our own 
 to decide the present question, viz.; whether there 
 are two only, or seven sacraments. We differ with 
 the Romanists as to the mecessary effect of the 
 sacraments, but this difference need not be further 
 noticed at present. 
 
 Since then there is, thus far, no point of dif- 
 ference between our Church and the Roman, it 
 will not be necessary to give passages from the 
 Fathers containing general definitions of the word 
 Sacrament, though that will sufficiently appear 
 when the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s 
 Supper are separately treated of. 
 
 Our Article in the next place asserts, that “there 
 are two Sacraments ordained of Christ, viz. ; 
 Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.” Neither 
 will this require separate proof, for the Romanists 
 admit these two. 
 
 At length we arrive at the point of difference ; 
 we reject five, which they receive. The 14th 
 Article of the creed of pope Pius IV. is as follows : 
 “T profess also, that there are truly and properly 
 seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by 
 Jesus Christ our Lord, and for the salvation of 
 mankind, (though all are not necessary for every 
 one) viz.; baptism, confirmation, eucharist, pe- 
 nance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony ; 
 and that they confer grace; and of these baptism, 
 confirmation, and orders, cannot be re-iterated 
 without sacrilege.” 
 
292 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 First, then, of Confirmation. 
 
 We have seen in the twenty-third Article that the 
 inferior clergy received their power of baptizing 
 from their Bishops; it was thought necessary, 
 wherever circumstances did not render it impos- 
 sible, that the Bishop should confirm what the in- 
 ferior ministers had done under his authority. 
 Hence it was customary for persons to be presented 
 to the Bishop, if he was present, immediately after 
 the ceremony of baptism was ended, “in order to 
 receive his benediction, which was a solemn prayer 
 for the descent of the Holy Ghost, on such as 
 were ‘baptized: and to this prayer there was 
 joined the ceremony of a second unction, and im- 
 position of hands, and the sign of the cross*.” ‘As 
 the Bishop could not always be present, the rite of 
 confirmation was deferred until the Bishop was 
 able to go in person, which in some Churches he 
 was compelled to do once in every year. 
 
 The fifth and sixth sections of Tertullian’s 
 treatise on Baptism, will be found under the twenty- 
 seventh Article; in the seventh section he proceeds, 
 «As soon as we are come out of the water, we are 
 anointed with the blessed unction according to the 
 ancient discipline, whereby they were accustomed 
 to be anointed with oil from the horn, unto the 
 priesthood.—After that follows imposition of 
 hands, calling down and invocating the Holy 
 Spirit by the benediction *.” 
 
 © See Bineuam's Antiquities, 4 TERTULL. de Bapt. s. 7, 
 Bx. c. 1. 8. Exinde egressi de lavacro 
 
Article Twenty-fifth. 293 
 
 Cyprian, in giving an account of the proceedings 
 of an African Council in which the question had 
 been proposed, whether those who had been bap- 
 tized by heretics, should be re-baptized, or whether 
 confirmation alone was sufficient, says, ‘‘ Those 
 who have been baptized out of the Church, and 
 have been polluted by the stain of profane water, 
 when they come to us and the Church, which is 
 one, must be baptized, because it is to little purpose 
 to lay hands on them that they may receive the 
 Holy Ghost, unless they receive also the baptism 
 of the Church. For then at length they may be 
 fully sanctified, and become the sons of God, if 
 they have obtained both sacraments °.” 
 
 In the following letter, which is on the same 
 subject, he mentions those who had been baptized 
 by Philip the deacon‘, and continues, “ Therefore 
 because they had obtained a lawful and Ecclesias- 
 tical baptism, there was no need that they should 
 be baptized any more; but that only, which was 
 wanting, was done by Peter and John, so that by 
 prayers made on their behalf, and by the imposi- 
 tion of hands, the Holy Ghost might be invocated 
 and poured out upon them: which is now also ob- 
 served by us, that those who are baptized in the 
 Church, are presented to the governors of the 
 
 perungimur benedicta unctione ad accipiendum Spiritum Sanc- 
 
 —Dehine manus imponitur, 
 per benedictionem advocans et 
 invitans Spiritum Sanctum. 
 
 © Cyprian. Lp. Ixxii. ad 
 Stephanum, s. 1. —Eo quod 
 parum sit eis manum imponere 
 
 tum, nisi accipiant et Ecclesie 
 baptismum. Tune enim de- 
 mum plené sanctificari, et esse 
 filii Dei possunt, si sacramento 
 utroque nascantur. 
 
 f Acts, viii. 
 
294 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 Church, that by our prayer and imposition of 
 hands they may receive the Holy Ghost *.” 
 
 In the first of these two passages Cyprian uses 
 the expression “ both sacraments,” but it is unne- 
 cessary in this place to prove that he does not use 
 the word in the confined sense which we, with the 
 Roman Church, give it; but that he is speaking 
 only of two rites which were necessary to com- 
 plete men’s sanctification. 
 
 Jerome says; “But if you object, why does 
 one who is baptized in the Church, by the imposi- 
 tion of the hand of the Bishop only, receive the 
 Holy Ghost, which we assert is given in true 
 baptism ? learn that this observance is derived 
 from that authority, viz. that the Holy Ghost 
 descended after the ascent of our Lord. Yet in 
 many places we find that was done rather for the 
 honour of the chief priesthood, than for any abso- 
 lute necessity of the thing. Otherwise if the Holy 
 Spirit is poured down only by means of the prayer 
 of the Bishop, those men are in a deplorable con- 
 dition, who were baptized in villages and castles, 
 or other remote places, by presbyters and deacons, 
 and who died before the Bishop came to visit 
 them.” 
 
 & Idem, Ep. Isxiii. ad 
 
 4.—Alioquin si Episcopi tan- 
 Jubaianum. s. 3.—Quod nunc 
 
 tum imprecatione Spiritus 
 
 quogue apud nos geritur, ut 
 qui in Ecclesia baptizantur, 
 prepositis Ecclesie offerantur, 
 et per nostram orationem ac 
 manus impositionem Spiritum 
 Sanctum consequantur. 
 
 » Hieron. c. Lucifer. cap. 
 
 Sanctus defluit, lugendi sunt 
 qui in villulis, aut in castellis, 
 aut in remotioribus locis per 
 presbyteros et diaconos baptiz- 
 ati, ante dormierunt quam 
 ab Episcopis inviserentur. 
 
Article Twenty-fifth. 295 
 
 The above extracts, on the one hand, suffice to 
 shew that confirmation is not a sacrament, and, on 
 the other, to vindicate our Church in retaining it as 
 an Apostolic and important rite. 
 
 Secondly, of Penance. 
 
 It is not possible to treat this subject properly in 
 the brief space of a few pages; the reader therefore 
 who wishes to examine fully into the practice and 
 doctrine of the primitive Churches in this particu- 
 lar, must consult Bingham’s Antiquities. In this 
 place it must suffice briefly to state the Romish 
 doctrine, and to point out its inconsistencies with 
 the primitive doctrine. 
 
 Our thirty-third Article speaks of Penance as a 
 matter of Church discipline, but this Article denies 
 it to be a sacrament; when we come to that Article, 
 it will be seen that ours agrees with the primitive 
 Church in making Penance a matter of Church dis- 
 cipline. 
 
 The Romanists make this sacrament of theirs to 
 consist of four requisites, contrition, confession, 
 and satisfaction on the part of the penitent, and 
 absolution on the part of the minister: they make 
 “the outward and visible sign” to consist of the 
 sinner’s confession, and the form of absolution pro- 
 nounced by the priest. This confession must be 
 auricular; if therefore it be shewn that the primi- 
 tive Churches did not require auricular confession 
 to be made to the minister, it must follow that they 
 did not consider the Penance of the Romish Church 
 to be a sacrament, inasmuch as they omitted that 
 
296 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 which the Romanists consider essential to that sa- 
 crament, viz. ‘‘ the outward and visible sign.” It 
 must be admitted that this is rather a technical 
 way of meeting the question, but the necessity of 
 being brief must excuse this method. . 
 
 Suicer ‘ remarks, that neither Justin Martyr, Cle- 
 mens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, nor Eusebius, say a 
 word about auricular confession, though all, from 
 the subjects which they handled, would have been 
 likely to mention it had it been practised in their 
 times. 
 
 Again he remarks, that those texts of Scripture, 
 which the Romanists cite in support of auricular 
 confessions, were not explained by any of the Fa- 
 thers in terms to warrant such a conclusion. 
 
 To the authorities to be found in Suicer, and a 
 reference to which must in this place suffice, two 
 or three passages which are to be found in Bing- 
 ham may be added : 
 
 Basil says; “‘ 1 do not make confession with my 
 lips, to appear to the world; but inwardly in my 
 heart where no eye sees; I declare my groanings 
 unto Thee alone, who seest in secret; I roar within 
 myself, for I need not many words to make confes- 
 sion; the groanings of my heart are sufficient for 
 confession, and the lamentations, which are sent 
 up to Thee, my God, from the bottom of my 
 soul *.” 
 
 i Verbo, "Ekousroyyeis. vwpa, Toc xEthecw eEopooyovpat. 
 k Basiv. in Ps. xxxvii. s. 4. 
 Ov yap iva Toic TONOIc PaveEpoc yéE- 
 
 
 
Article Twenty-fifth. 297 
 
 “Tears wash away sin, which men are ashamed 
 to confess with their voice. Weeping provides at 
 once both for pardon and bashfulness : tears speak 
 our faults without horror; tears confess our crimes 
 without any offence to modesty or shamefaced- 
 ness, 
 
 And Chrysostom says; “ For this reason I ex- 
 hort, and entreat, and beseech you to make your 
 confession continually unto God. For I do not 
 bring thee into the theatre of thy fellow-servants, 
 nor compel thee to reveal thy sins unto men; un- 
 fold thy conscience before God, and shew him thy 
 wounds, and ask the cure of him: shew them to 
 Him who will not reproach, but heal thee. For 
 although thou art silent, he knows all. Speak 
 therefore, that thou mayest be a gainer. Speak, 
 that having put off thy sins in this world, thou 
 mayest go pure into the next, and avoid that into- 
 lerable publication, which will otherwise be made 
 hereafter ™.” 
 
 Augustine is plain enough, “ What have I to do 
 with men, that they should hear my confessions, as 
 if they could heal all my diseases *.” 
 
 Thirdly, of Orders. 
 
 It is unnecessary in this place to vindicate the 
 
 1 Ampros. I. x. in Luc. xxii. 
 Lavant lacryme delictum quod 
 pudor est voce confiteri. 
 
 m Curysost. Hom, v. de 
 Incomprehensibili Dei Naturd, 
 p- fin. onde yap eis Bear pay 
 of ayw TOY cuYdovlwY THY wr, 
 
 
 
 
 
 ove txxaripa Tote avOpwroe avay- 
 Kalw Ta apaprhpara. 
 " August. Confess. 1. x. c. 
 3. Quid mihi ergo est cum 
 hominibus, ut audiant confes- 
 siones meas, quasi ipsi sanaturi 
 sint omnes languores meos ? 
 
 
 
298 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 form in which holy orders are conferred in the 
 Church of England. We agree with the Church 
 of Rome in the necessity of prayer and imposition 
 of hands, which they consider to constitute the out- 
 ward and visible sign of a sacrament. We admit 
 also, with them, the divine institution of an ordained 
 ministry. We differ from them, in not calling Or- 
 ders a sacrament. If prayer and imposition of hands 
 do not make Confirmation to be a sacrament, nei- 
 ther can they make Orders to be such. The fur 
 ther consideration of this subject therefore may be 
 deferred to the thirty-sixth Article. 
 
 Little more need be said of the Romish sacra- 
 ment of Matrimony, which is the fourth rejected by 
 this Article. Where is the “outward sign of Christ’s 
 institution?” It is itself, as they confess, a sign of 
 something else, that is “ of the mystical union be- 
 twixt Christ and his Church.” 
 
 When the Montanists and other rigid sectarians 
 in the second and following centuries of the Chris- 
 tian era, altogether objected to the marriage state, 
 and pronounced that those who were married 
 could have no hope of heaven, the catholic Chris- 
 tians, if they had received matrimony as a sacra- 
 ment, would not in their answers to them, have 
 contented themselves with the defence of that state 
 as allowed by God for wise and holy purposes; 
 but must have vindicated it as the institution of 
 Christ. 
 
 Clemens of Alexandria speaks very lightly of 
 matrimony, if it be a sacrament, when he says: 
 “ Marriage is the first lawful coming together of a 
 
Article Twenty-fifth. 299 
 
 man and woman, for the begetting of legitimate 
 children °.” 
 
 And again, “ They who, through hatred of the 
 flesh, ungratefully desire to be freed from the mar- 
 riage union, and from the participation of proper 
 meats, are ignorant and impious, being pretenders 
 to an unreasonable abstinence ”.” 
 
 And Gregory Naziangen, says, “‘ Marriage is good; 
 for it produces more who are well-pleasing unto 
 God *.” 
 
 To these may be added the following from Chry- 
 sostom; “ Marriage is no impediment to virtue, 
 otherwise it would have been an hindrance to Job ; 
 but this bond hindered not the righteous man from 
 running in a straight course, so that some in vain 
 pretend to find fault with it*.” 
 
 Lastly, of Extreme Unction. 
 
 This sacrament of the Church of Rome, is 
 avowedly grounded on two particular texts of 
 Scripture, Mark, vi. 13., and James, v. 14.; they 
 say it remits such sins as are venial, it heals the 
 soul of its infirmity and weakness, helps to remove 
 some part of the debt of punishment due to past 
 
 ° Ciem. ALEx. Strom. |. ii. 
 c. 23. Taos pev ody earl ctvados 
 avépb¢ Kai yuvatkdcg 4) TpWTH KaTa 
 vopov, ei yynoiwy TEKYWY OTOP. 
 
 P Idem, ibid. ]. iii. c. 7. Of 
 dé Oia rd picog 76 rpdc Tiv cdpKa, 
 THC Kara yapoy cvvadXayie, Kai rhe 
 Tov KaOnkdvTwy Bowydrwr peEra- 
 AnWewc, ayapiorwe amaddarrecOau 
 moQovvrec, apabeic re Kai dOeor, 
 dOyug tyKparevopeEvot. 
 
 4 Gree. Naz. Orat. xxxi. 
 p- 502. Kards é yajros” tAclovac. 
 yap eisdya rove evapectovvrag Ty 
 OEp. 
 
 * Curysost. in Cat. in Job. 
 c.i. p. 2. Oddev 6 ydos eund- 
 Owv mpde aperiyy, 7) yao av Kai Tip 
 "10B éyévero Kodupa’ adda pj 6 beo- 
 poe ovrog roy Cikaoy TpExe bp0Gc 
 obK éxOUGEY, WoTE Kai TOUTO parny 
 Twice TpopaciLovrat. 
 
500 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 sins, and, if it be expedient for the good of the soul, 
 sometimes restores the health of the body. The 
 ceremony made use of is as follows; the priest 
 having said the general form of confession and ab- 
 solution, and other usual prayers, dips his thumb 
 in oil of olives, which has been blessed by the 
 Bishop, and anoints the sick person, in the form of 
 the cross, upon the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, 
 and feet, and at each anointing makes use of the 
 following form of prayer, adapting it to that sense 
 which is anointed; “Through his holy unction, 
 and his own most tender mercy, may the Lord 
 pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed by 
 thy sight. Amen.” 
 
 The Church of England understands St. James’s 
 words “as relating to a miraculous power, and not 
 to a function that was to continue in the Church, 
 and to be esteemed a sacrament*.” And we find 
 that so long as the power of performing miracles 
 remained in the Church occasional mention is made 
 of diseases being cured by anointing with oil. In 
 the seventh century the practice of anointing the 
 sick was introduced, and a peculiar office was made 
 for it; but even then it is evident that the rite was 
 resorted to only in order to their recovery from 
 bodily diseases. 
 
 I shall adduce only two passages, which will 
 shew, that in the primitive Church this anointing 
 was used as a visible means of performing miracu- 
 lous cures; from whence it will be clear that no 
 such sacrament was received in those times. 
 
 $s Burnet, Art. xxv. 
 
Article Twenty-fifth. 301 
 
 Tertullian, urging the benefit the heathens had 
 received from the Christians, says; “ How many 
 men of rank (for I do not speak of the common 
 people,) have been cured either from the possession 
 of demons, or from sickness? Even Severus him- 
 self, the father of Antoninus ; had a strong regard 
 for the Christians. For he sought out the Chris- 
 tian Proculus, (who was surnamed Torpacion,) the 
 procurator of Eubodea, who had once cured him 
 with oil, and he kept him in his palace unto the 
 time of his death '.” 
 
 The other instance I shall adduce is from Augus- 
 tine; “ Why, our opponents ask, are not those mi- 
 racles now performed, which you declare have been 
 performed?” He then mentions that miracles are 
 less frequent, and those less splendid, than in the 
 times of the Apostles, nevertheless, they are still 
 performed, and he mentions several for the truth 
 of which he vouches; amongst others, he says, “ I 
 knew a certain damsel of Hippo, who, when she 
 had anointed herself with oil, into which the priest 
 praying for her had dropped some of his tears, was 
 presently cured of a devil.—Again, at the same 
 place, the son of one Irenzeus a revenue collector 
 had died of sickness, and when his body was 
 lying lifeless, and the obsequies were being made 
 ready by the mourners, one of his friends amongst 
 other words of consolation suggested, that the 
 youth’s body should be anointed with the oil of the 
 
 ; : ; 
 TertuLi. ad Scap. c. 4.——qui eum per oleum aliquando 
 curaverat. 
 
302 Article Twenty-fifth. 
 
 same Martyr (Stephanus). It was done, and he 
 revived *.” 
 
 The last section of this Article will be sufficiently 
 illustrated in the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth 
 Articles, and therefore need not be further consi- 
 dered in this place. 
 
 ARTICLE XXVI. 
 
 Of the unworthiness of Ministers, which hinders not 
 the effect of the Sacraments. 
 
 «* ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever min- 
 ‘* sled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief 
 “* authority in the ministration of the Word and Sacra- 
 “ments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their 
 ** own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his com- 
 ** mission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both 
 «in hearing the word of God, and in receiving of the Sa- 
 “ments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken 
 ‘* away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts 
 “* diminished from such, as by faith and rightly do receive 
 ** the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be eftfec- 
 ** tual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, al- 
 ** though they be ministered by evil men. 
 
 « Aveust. de Civitate Dei, rum ejus quidam inter aliorum 
 1, xxii. c. 8. Hipponensem  consolantium verba suggessit, 
 quandam virginem scio, cum se __ut ejusdem martyris oleo corpus 
 oleo perunxisset,—mox a de-  perungeretur. Factum est, et 
 monio fuisse sanatam.—amico- _revixit. 
 
Article Twenty-Sixth. 303 
 
 ** Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the 
 ** Church, that enquiry 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.” 
 
 It was a subject of dispute in the primitive Church, 
 whether it was necessary to rebaptize those who 
 had been baptized by heretics. Cyprian maintained 
 the affirmative. And in the fourth century the 
 Donatists did rebaptize those who came over to 
 their party. But these cases, though they are 
 usually quoted, as if the discussion was revived at 
 the time of the Reformation, do not in fact bear on 
 this Article, for in them it was contended that the 
 sacrament of Baptism was not properly given, be- 
 cause the person administering it was altogether 
 disqualified ; whereas in this Article the Minister 
 is supposed to have been regularly ordained ; and 
 not to have lost his right to minister the Sacraments, 
 by lawful deposition. 
 
 The Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation, 
 in their detestation of the vices of the Roman cler- 
 gy, declared that the personal sins of Ministers 
 must do away with the efficacy of the Sacraments. 
 Against this extreme severity the present Article 
 was framed: many passages need not be given in 
 its support. Ifthe opinion of the Anabaptists were 
 true, it would have been difficult for any of them 
 to tell whether they had ever been baptized or no. 
 
 The Church of Rome agrees with us in the doc- 
 trine of this Article, but holds that the intention of 
 
304 Article Twenty-sixth. 
 
 the Minister is essential to make a Sacrament 
 effectual. 
 
 The latter part of the Article, which says that 
 evil Ministers should be deposed, is denied by no 
 one, and therefore requires no proof; it was pro- 
 bably added in order to obviate any objection that 
 might be made to the apparent levity with which 
 the wickedness of Ministers is treated in the former 
 part of the Article. 
 
 Chrysostom says; “It was not right that those 
 who draw near with faith to the symbols of our 
 salvation, should be hindered by the wickedness of 
 another*.” Again, “ Neither baptism, nor the body 
 of Christ ought to be administered by them, if 
 grace looked for worthiness every where ; but now 
 God is wont to work even by such as are unworthy, 
 and the grace of baptism is not at all hindered by 
 the life of the priest *.” 
 
 And Augustine, over and over again, says the 
 same thing; ‘‘ Remember that the manners of evil 
 men in no respect hinder the Sacraments of God, 
 so as to make them not be at all, or less holy ”.” 
 
 «A minister, that is, a dispenser of the Word 
 and Sacraments of the Gospel, if he be a good man, 
 is an associate with the Gospel; but if he be a 
 
 x Curysost.in Johan.Hom. ody rod Bamticpatos 4 xeepis 
 
 Ixxxvi. p. fin, Kai yap ovde 
 Sikasov gy Sic ryy exepov Kaxlay 
 cig ta oUUPorha THs TwT Nias NUBY 
 qovs TioTe: Tpocisytas Tapa 
 Pramrecbas. 
 
 Y Idem, in 1. Cor. Hom. 
 Vili. p. init.—vwi 8€ Kab or 
 devakloy evepyely 6 Oets clube, kai 
 
 mapa Tot Blov Tov lepéws mapuPrAan- 
 TETAL. 
 
 z Aueust. c. Lit. Petil. 1. 
 ii. c. 47. Memento ergo sa- 
 cramentis Dei nihil obesse 
 mores malorum hominum, quo 
 illa vel omnino non sint, vel 
 minus sancta sint. 
 
Article Twenty-sixth. 305 
 
 bad man, he is not therefore no dispenser of the 
 Gospel.—Peter preached it, as did likewise other 
 good men: and so did Judas, though unwillingly ; 
 and yet being sent together with them, he also 
 preached it: they have reward for dispensing it, 
 though its dispensation was likewise committed to 
 him *.” 
 
 “It matters not as to the integrity of baptism, 
 how much the worse he is that administers it: for 
 there is not so much difference between bad and 
 worse, as there is between good and bad ; and yet 
 when a bad man baptizes, he does not give any 
 
 b 
 
 other thing than a good man does”. 
 
 ARTICLE XXVII. 
 
 Of Baptism. 
 
 * Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of 
 * difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from 
 ‘others that be not christened ; but it is also a sign of 
 “‘ Regeneration, or New Birth, whereby, as by an instru- 
 
 4 Idem, ibid, 1: iii. c. 55. >» Aueust. de Bapt. c. 
 Minister ergo, id est, dispensa- Donat. 1, vi. c. 24. Sed nihil 
 tor verbi et sacramenti Evan- interest ad integritatem bap- 
 gelici, si bonus est, consocius  tismi quanto pejor id tradat :— 
 est Evangelii; si autem malus_ et tamen cum baptizat malus, 
 est, non ideo dispensator non non aliud dat quam bonus. 
 est Evangelii—— 
 
 Ke 
 
306 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 “ment, they that receive Baptism rightly, are grafted 
 ‘into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, 
 ‘“‘and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy 
 ““Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is con- 
 ‘“‘ firmed, 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.” 
 
 We have here again asserted, what in the 
 twenty-fifth Article was said generally of Sacra- 
 ments, that “ Baptism is not only a sign of profes- 
 sion, and mark of difference, whereby Christian 
 men are discerned from others that be not 
 christened.” There are some, such are the Soci- 
 nians, the Society of Friends, and all Antibaptists, 
 who maintain that baptism is only a visible cere- 
 mony, whereby men, who are converted from 
 Judaism or Paganism, are admitted into Christi- 
 anity, but that it is not to be used in a family 
 already Christian: consequently they deny to it 
 any invisible grace. 
 
 Without taking any distinct notice of the several 
 effects which baptism is here said to produce, it 
 will suffice to give the extracts generally, from 
 which it will be seen that the expressions used in 
 this Article are fully borne out by the authority of 
 the Fathers. 
 
 There was no dispute on the subject of Infant 
 Baptism, for at least, the first ten centuries of the 
 Christian era; Wall thought that Peter Bruis, a 
 Frenchman, whose followers were called Petro- 
 brussians, was the first Antipedobaptist teacher, 
 
Article Twenty-seventh. 307 
 
 who formed a Church, about A. D. 1030. The 
 Anabaptists of Germany sprung up early in the 
 fifteenth century, the framers of this Article must 
 have had them in view, as there was no congrega- 
 tion of Anabaptists in this country until the 
 following century. 
 
 Barnabas, quoting Ezekiel, c. xlvii. 7. says : 
 
 “We descend into the water full of sins and 
 pollutions, and ascend out of it bearing fruit, 
 having in our hearts, fear and hope towards Jesus 
 in our Spirit *.” 
 
 Justin Martyr, vindicating the Christians from 
 the abominable charges which the heathens alleged 
 against them, speaks of the two sacraments of 
 Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; of the first he 
 gives the following account; “ In what manner we 
 dedicate ourselves to God, being made new by 
 Christ, I will now declare to you.—As many as are 
 persuaded and do believe that those things, which 
 are taught and declared by us, are true, and who 
 promise to lead lives according to them, are in- 
 structed by us to pray and to ask of God, with 
 fasting, forgiveness of their former sins; and we 
 also pray and fast together with them. Then they 
 are brought by us to a place where there is water, 
 and are regenerated by the same manner of re- 
 generation by which we ourselves were regene- 
 rated: for they are washed with water in the name 
 of God the Father and Lord of all things, and 
 
 * BarnaBe, Epist, s. ll. ry xapdig, riv peBov nad chy 
 “Hyeis pev katraBaivonev els te ermida els tov "Inooty exovres ev 
 
 23 , « ~ ee) ~ , 
 v Eis Viet AUAPT Oy Kas putmou, TFHTVEVULATI. 
 > ~ 
 Kab aya Basvouey Ka oTrocpo pov YT ES ev 
 e) 2 
 
308 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy 
 Ghost. For Christ says, ‘unless ye be born 
 again, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven”;’ but every body knows it is impossible 
 for those that are once born to enter again into 
 their mother’s womb °.” 
 
 The same author, in his Dialogue with Trypho, 
 arguing that the Jewish rites are now useless, 
 says: “ Therefore, by the washing of repentance 
 and of the knowledge of God, which was instituted 
 for the sins of the people of God, as Isaiah “ cries 
 out, we have believed, and we make known that 
 that very baptism which he before declared, which 
 alone is able to cleanse those that repent, that that 
 is the water of life. But those cisterns, which you 
 have dug for yourselves, are worn out, and of no 
 use to you whatsoever. For what benefit is there 
 in that baptism which cleanses the flesh and the 
 body only? Baptize your soul from anger, and 
 from avarice, from envy, and from hatred, and 
 behold thy body is clean’.” It may be objected 
 that in the foregoing passage, the expression of 
 “baptism” is only used in a figurative sense : but it 
 was not necessary that Justin in that part of his 
 
 > John, iii. 3, 5. 
 
 ¢ Justin. Apol. 1. c. 61.— 
 "Erneta Gyorar tp pov evba 
 Wup earth, Kal Tedmev dvayevvncews 
 oy Kal pels attol avevyevynOnuer, 
 avaryevvavTas. En évopnaros yao 
 TOU Thar pas TOY tAwy Kab Aeororou 
 Occd, Kai Tov Largpos joy Tyoou 
 Kpiorrav, Kar Myevuaros “Ayiov 70 
 udats tore Aourpoy 
 
 éy ™® TOl= 
 
 OUT a .—— 
 
 @ Tsaiah, i. 16. 
 
 © Idem, Dial. cum Tryph. 
 c. 14. Aik rod dovrpab oty T7H¢ 
 peTavoias Kal THs yyeoews TOD 
 Ocod 0 twep THs avouiaceroy Aawy 
 Tov Oecd yéyover, bs "“Hoatas Pog, 
 Nyeic emirrevotajev, Kab yyopigo~ 
 pev OTL Todt exelvo 0 mponyopeve 
 to Bamticpa, To povov Kabapioos 
 Tos petavonoavras  Suvaevoy, 
 Tote eats Td Owe THs Cwqs.— 
 
309 
 argument should be more explicit: he is so how- 
 ever on another occasion. Having urged that the 
 observance of the ceremonial law ought to cease 
 after the coming of Christ, he proceeds: “ We 
 who have access to God through him, have not 
 received that circumcision, which is aecording to 
 the flesh, but a spiritual circumcision, which 
 Enoch and those like him observed; and we by 
 the mercy of God, have received it by baptism, 
 because we were sinners, and it is enjoined upon 
 all to receive it by the same way *.” 
 
 Here baptism is, in express words, declared to be 
 the means by which spiritual circumcision is to be 
 attained. 
 
 “The creatures also which sprung from the 
 waters were blessed of God, that this might be a 
 sign, that men were to receive repentance and re- 
 mission of sins by water, and the laver of regene- 
 ration, even as many as come to the truth, and are 
 born again ; and receive the blessing from God £.” 
 
 Ireneus, speaking of Christ, says: “ Giving his 
 disciples the power of regeneration to God, he said 
 to them, ‘Go, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost” '.” 
 
 € Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. 
 
 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 apaprioyv bia Udarog kai ovrpot 
 
 e. 43. —iueis b€ bia rot Barric- 
 pares adryy, (mepiropyy), eresdy 
 apnapTworor eryeryaverrey, Dice TO EAEDS 
 T mapee TOU Oecd, CAaBowev, Ka 
 Werte Perey Guclws AapPdavery. 
 
 & THeopnin. ad. Autolyc. 
 1. ii. c. 16.—tnws 9 Kal rodro 
 eg Celypa Tov pide apBdvev 
 rove dvOpMTrOUG pEeTavoray Kai dpecw 
 
 many yeveoiac, mavrag Tove mpooto y- 
 Tae 7H AAHMElG, Kai avayEevYwpevoug 
 kat NapBavovrag ebdoylay rapa Tov 
 Oeov. 
 
 h Matt. xxviii. 19. 
 
 i Irenzxus, l. ili. c. xix. s. 
 1. Et iterum potestatem re- 
 generationis in Deum dans 
 discipulis, dicebat eis, Euntes 
 docete, ete. 
 
310 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, having observed that 
 our Lord being God is perfect, says: “that he was 
 baptized by John, because it was necessary for 
 him, as man, to fulfil his duty as such, though he 
 learnt nothing from John.” Clement then con- 
 tinues: “ But is he made perfect by washing 
 only, and is he sanctified by the coming of the 
 Spirit. Just so. And this same thing happens 
 also with regard to us, of whom the Lord was a 
 pattern ; being baptized, we are enlightened; being 
 enlightened, we are adopted sons; being adopted 
 sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, 
 we are rendered immortal. His words are, “I 
 have said ye are Gods, and ye are all the children 
 of the most Highest*.”. But in many ways this 
 work is called, giving grace, and illumination, and 
 making perfect, and washing ; washing indeed, 
 whereby we wipe away our sins; but grace by 
 which the punishments due to our sins are re- 
 mitted ; illumination, by which that holy and 
 saving light is beheld, that is, by which we see 
 God; and perfect, we call that to which nothing is 
 wanting '.” 
 
 And further on in the same chapter, having ob- 
 served how darkness and jgnorance lead men into 
 sin, he says, “ But these bonds how quickly are 
 they loosed; by human faith, by divine grace, 
 our sins being forgiven by means of one all- 
 
 E Ps. xx xi 6: guwricousa’ pwriZopevor, viomrorov- 
 1 Cuem. ALEX. Pedag. ]. peBa  torrovodpevor, Tedsvovpeba. 
 z, ce. 6: p: 113.—Borritouevos, Tedecovpevot, ATaPavariZoueba. 
 
Article Twenty-seventh. 311 
 
 sufficient cure, that is by baptism according to the 
 word™.” 
 Tertullian begins his treatise on baptism with 
 these words: “ Happy sacrament of our water, 
 whereby being cleansed from the sins of our old 
 blindness, we are made free unto eternal life.” 
 Further on he compares the water of baptism to 
 the pool of Bethesda, and supposes that an angel 
 gives to the water its spiritual efficacy, and consi- 
 ders the healing of the flesh in that pool to have 
 been typical of the spiritual healing by baptism ; 
 “ That figure of bodily medicine sung prophetically 
 of the spiritual medicine, in the same manner that 
 carnal things always in a figure precede the spiri- 
 tual :—they who freed one man once in the space 
 of a year, now daily preserve whole people, death 
 being blotted out by the washing away of sins. For 
 the guilt being taken away, the punishment also is 
 taken away. So man, who was of old in the image 
 of God, is restored by God to his likeness: for he 
 recovers that Spirit of God, which he then received 
 from his breathing, but afterwards lost through sin. 
 “ Not that we attain the Holy Ghost in the wa- 
 ter, but being cleansed by the water we are pre- 
 pared by the angel for the Holy Ghost. Here too 
 a figure preceded : for so John was the forerunner 
 of our Lord, preparing his way ; so also the angel 
 
 ™ Idem, ibid, p.116. ra ée " TertuLy. de Baplismo, 
 Berpa raita, y taxes avleras’ cc. 1, Felix sacramentum aque 
 aiores wey avOpwnlyy, Geixg be +7 nostra, qua abluti delictis pris- 
 KA pite aprenevov Tov Trywperq-~ tine coecitatis, in vitam eter- 
 parov evi Toswvie agua». nam liberamur. 
 Noy k@ Banricpare. 
 
312 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 who witnesses the baptism, prepares the way for 
 the Holy Ghost, which is to follow, by the washing 
 away of sins, which washing faith obtains, being 
 sealed in the Father, and in the Son, and in the 
 Holy Ghost °.” 
 
 The efficacy of baptism administered by heretics 
 was much questioned in the primitive Church, Cy- 
 prian in the following passage is referring to this 
 point: “ If they are not in the Church, and what 
 is more, if they act contrary to the Church, how 
 can they baptize with the baptism of the Church ? 
 For it is no small and trifling concession which is 
 made to heretics by our admitting their baptisms, 
 since from thence begins the source of all faith, 
 the saving entrance to the hope of eternal life, and 
 acceptance with God for his servants who are to be 
 purified and made alive. For if a person may be- 
 baptized by heretics, he may therefore obtain re- 
 mission of sins. If he obtain remission of sins, he 
 is also sanctified, and made the temple of God ?.” 
 
 Another passage from Cyprian, at the same time 
 that it asserts the doctrine of this Article, will be 
 found applicable to a large class of dissenters of 
 the present day, who object to the use of the word 
 ‘regeneration’ in our baptismal service. He is 
 again arguing against the baptisin of heretical mi- 
 
 ° Idem, ibid, c. 6. 
 
 
 
 ita P Cyprianl, Ep. Ixxiii. s. 10, 
 
 et angelus baptismi arbiter su- 
 perventuro Spiritui Sancto vias 
 dirigit ablutione peccatorum, 
 quam fides impetrat, obsignata 
 in Patre et Filio et Spiritu 
 Sancto. 
 
 11.—Nam sibaptizari quis apud 
 hereticos potuit, utique et re- 
 Mmissam peccatorum consequi 
 potuit : si peccatorum remissam 
 consecutus est, et sanctificatus 
 est, et templum Dei factus est. 
 
Article Twenty-seventh, 315 
 
 nisters, and says: “ How absurd is that too, that, 
 when there is a second spiritual birth, whereby we 
 are born in Christ through the washing of regene- 
 ration, they should say that any amongst the here- 
 tics can be spiritually born where they deny the 
 Spirit to be. For water alone cannot cleanse sins, 
 and sanctify a man, unless it has also the Holy 
 Ghost. So that they must of necessity admit ei- 
 ther that the Holy Ghost is there, where they say 
 there is baptism, or that there is no baptism where 
 the Holy Ghost is not, because there cannot be 
 baptism without the Holy Ghost.—For that that 
 is baptism in which the old man dies, and the new 
 man is born, the blessed Apostle shews and proves, 
 when he says, ‘ he has saved us by the washing of 
 regeneration’. But if regeneration be in the 
 washing, that is in baptism, how can heresy, which 
 is not the bride of Christ, beget sons to God 
 through Christ *.” 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem says to the Catechumens 
 who were about to be baptized: “ This proffered 
 
 SL Tits a... 
 
 * Cypriant, Ep. Ixxiv. ad 
 Pompeium. Ilud quoque quam 
 ineptum est, ut cum nativitas 
 secunda spiritalis sit, qua in 
 Christo per lavacrum regenera- 
 tionis nascimur, dicant quod 
 possit quis apud hereticos spi- 
 ritaliter nasci, ubi spiritum ne- 
 gant esse. Peccata enim pur- 
 gare et hominem sanctificare 
 aqua sola non potest, nisi habeat 
 et Spiritum Sanctum. Quare 
 aut Spiritum Sanctum necesse 
 est concedant esse illic ubi bap- 
 
 tisma esse dicunt, aut nec bap- 
 tisma est ubi Spiritus, Sanctus 
 non est, quia baptisma esse sine 
 Spirita Sancto non potest.— 
 Baptisma enim esse in quo ho- 
 mo vetus moritur et novus nas- 
 citur, manifestat et probat 
 beatus Apostolus dicens : Ser- 
 vavit nos per lavacrum rege- 
 nerationis. Si autem in lavacro, 
 id est in baptismo, est regene- 
 ratio, quomodo generari “filios 
 Deo heresis per Christum po- 
 test, que Christi sponsa non 
 est ? 
 
314 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 baptism is a great thing; it is a ransom for the 
 captives ; the remission of sins; the death of sin; 
 the regeneration of the soul: a bright garment; a 
 holy and indissoluble seal; a carriage to heaven ; 
 the enjoyment of paradise ; the pledge of the king- 
 dom of heaven; the grace of adoption into son- 
 ship *.” 
 
 “ This is the grace and power of baptism ; not 
 bringing a deluge upon the world, as formerly, but 
 purifying every one from his sins, and entirely re- 
 moving the obstructions or spots which are caused 
 by wickedness.—To speak in few words, we are to 
 consider the power of baptism as a contract with 
 God for a second life, and a more pure conversa- 
 tion,—there being no second regeneration ‘.” 
 
 Chrysostom, speaking of the Jewish rite of puri- 
 fication and of Christian baptism, says ; 
 
 « That Jewish purification did not free them from 
 their sins, but only from bodily defilements; ours 
 however is not such, but far greater, and abounding 
 with much grace, for it frees us from our sins, and 
 cleanses the soul, and gives us the guidance of the 
 Spirit *.” 
 
 Augustine is arguing against suicide, and that it 
 
 * Cyriu. Hieros. Prefat. 
 Caleches. Méya +d mpoxeipevoy 
 Barrispa, aiyparwro idrpor 
 apaprnparwy apecic: Pavaroc apap- 
 riac’ Tadtyyevesia wWuxijcr evoupa 
 gurevov' oppayic ayia akaraduroc, 
 bynwa mpdce ovpavdy’ mapadeicou 
 Tpvdn Baoirkiac mpdéevor vioHEciac 
 xapipa. 
 
 t Grec. Naz. Orat. xl. p. 
 
 641. Avry nev 4 rod Barticparos 
 xaptc Kai Cbvaptc, ob Koopov KaTa- 
 kKvapov wc Tada, THY O& TOU Kal’ 
 txaoroy apapriac Ka0apou éxouca. 
 
 4 Curysosr. Hom. xxiv. de 
 Baptismo Christi. Kak yeep 
 apapTnparwy amadarre, Kai Puxyyy 
 aroophye, Kai Wvebparog didwos 
 xwpnytay. 
 
 
 
Article Twenty-seventh. 315 
 
 is not to be committed in order to avoid falling into 
 sin; he says, that if ever it could be defended on 
 the ground of avoiding future sins, it would be im- 
 mediately after baptism : 
 
 “If we should ever allow of this reason, it must 
 come to that pitch, that men should be exhorted 
 rather to kill themselves at that moment, when 
 being cleansed by the washing of holy regeneration, 
 they have received remission of all their sins. For 
 that is the time to beware of all future sins, when 
 all that are past are blotted out *.” 
 
 In the next place we proceed to shew that Infant 
 Baptism was universally practised in the primitive 
 Church. This has been fully done by Wall; all 
 the following passages may be seen in his work. 
 
 Justin Martyr says, “ Many, both men and 
 women, of sixty or seventy years old, who were 
 made disciples unto Christ from their childhood, 
 do continue uncorrupted’.”. The Greek word 
 éuabyrevOncay, here used, is the same as that in which 
 our Saviour’s command to his disciples is ex- 
 pressed, “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing 
 them, etc.” Hence it is plain that Justin speaks of 
 _their being baptized in infancy. 
 
 And Ireneus says, that “ Christ came to save 
 all men by himself; all, I say, who through him 
 are born again unto God ; infants, and little ones, 
 and boys, and young men, and old men. ‘There- 
 
 * Aueust. de Civit. Dei, 1. y Justin. Apol. 14. c. 15. 
 i. c. 27. —cum lavacro sanc- —Kai zodXoi TWeEC Kai Toa ELn- 
 tx regenerationis abluti, uni- ~xovrovrae rai EBdopneovrovrar, ot ix 
 versorum remissionem accepe-  aidwy tyuabnrebOnoay ra Xprorq, 
 
 rint peccatorum. ao 0opor Ctapévovar. 
 
316 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 fore he went through the several ages; for infants 
 being made an infant, sanctifying infants ; to little 
 ones he was made a little one, sanctifying those 
 of that age, etc.*” Irenzus in saying that Christ 
 saves “all who through him are born again,” un- 
 doubtedly means, that they are born again by 
 baptism. It is unnecessary to prove at any length 
 that this manner of speaking was common with 
 Irenzus and others of the Fathers; the passage 
 from the same author which has been given under 
 the first part of this Article, may be referred to as 
 affording a fair exposition of his meaning in this 
 last extract. 
 
 Tertullian, it is well known, was opposed to in- 
 fant baptism, except in cases of absolute necessity, 
 that is to say, where there was danger of a child’s 
 dying before it reached maturity: but his very 
 opposition shews what the general practice was. 
 
 Origen having spoken of original sin, continues : 
 
 “ Besides all this, it may be asked, what is the 
 reason that, whereas the baptism of the Church is 
 given for remission of sins, baptism is given also to 
 infants by the usage of the Church: when, if there 
 were nothing in infants that needed forgiveness 
 and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be 
 superfluous*.” 
 
 And in another place, where he speaks of original 
 sin, he says”: “For this also the Church derived 
 
 2 TRENzUvs, |. ii. c. xxii. s. @ OricEN. in Lev. Hom. 
 4, —omnes, inquam, qui per viii. c. 3. —secundum Ec- 
 eum renascuntur in Deum; clesie observantiam etiam 
 infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, parvulis baptismum dari :— 
 et juvenes, et seniores. >’ Ante, Art. ix. 
 
Article Twenty-seventh. 317 
 
 from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even 
 to infants. For they, to whom the divine mysteries 
 were committed, knew that there is in all persons 
 the natural pollution of sin, which must be washed 
 away by water and the Spirit ; by reason of which 
 the body itself is also called the body of sin*.” 
 
 Fidus, an African bishop, wrote to the bishops 
 who usually assembled at Carthage, for the pur- 
 pose of consulting upon, and settling any important 
 affairs of the Church; and in his letter he asked 
 their opinion on two points, one of which only 
 need now be noticed, viz. whether a child might 
 be baptized before it was eight days old? The 
 answer of Cyprian and his colleagues, amounting 
 to the number of sixty-six, contains the following 
 passages : 
 
 “‘ As regards the case of infants, whom you sup- 
 pose ought not to be baptized within the second or 
 third day after their birth; and that the law of 
 ancient circumcision is to be considered, so that 
 none should be baptized and sanctified before the 
 eighth day after he is born; all in our assembly 
 were of a clear contrary opinion. For in this 
 which you thought ought to be done, no one was 
 of your mind ; but on the contrary all of us judged 
 that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied 
 to no person that is born.— 
 
 “ But if any thing could hinder men from ob- 
 taining this grace; their more grievous sins would 
 
 © Origen. in Ep. ad Rom.  cepit etiam parvulis baptismum 
 l. vy. c. 9. Pro hoc et Ecclesia dare. 
 ab Apostolis traditionem sus- 
 
318 Article Twenty-seventh. 
 
 rather hinder the adult and grown and elder men. 
 If, then, to the greatest offenders, and to those 
 that have before grievously sinned against God, 
 when they afterwards come to believe, remission 
 of sins is granted, and no one is debarred from 
 baptism and grace; how much more ought not an 
 infant to be forbidden, who being but newly born 
 hath yet in no way sinned, except that, being born 
 after Adam in the flesh, he hath contracted the 
 contagion of the old death from his very birth ? 
 who is on this very account the more easily ad- 
 mitted to receive remission of sin, that not his own 
 but another's sins are remitted to him‘.” 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, arguing against those half 
 Christians who sought out pretences for delaying 
 their baptism, says, “ Hast thou an infant child? 
 Let not wickedness have the advantage of time, 
 let him be sanctified from infancy ;- let him be 
 dedicated from his cradle to the Spirit. Thou, as 
 a faint-hearted mother and of little faith, art afraid 
 of giving him the seal, because of the weakness of 
 nature*.” 
 
 Chysostom, shewing the great advantage that 
 baptism had over circumcision, says: “ But our 
 circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives 
 
 4 Cyprian. Ep. lix. ad Fi- Nazi éors 
 
 Baptismo, s. 4. 
 
 dum, s. 2. 4. Quantum vero 
 ad causam infantium pertinet, 
 quos dixisti intra secundum 
 vel tertium diem, quo nati sint, 
 constitutos baptizari non opor- 
 tere, longé aliud in concilio 
 nostro omnibus visum est.— 
 
 © Gree. Naz. Orat. xl. de 
 
 
 
 col; py AaBerw Kaipiy 4 Kaxia, 
 ex Poepous aypacbyre, cE axtyey 
 kabiepwOnrw +S Tivetpats. In 
 other places, however, this au- 
 thor recommends the baptism 
 of infants to be deferred two 
 or three years. 
 
Article Twenty-eighth. 519 
 
 cure without pain, and procures us a thousand 
 benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit. 
 And it has no determinate time as that had; but it 
 is lawful for one in the very beginning of his life, 
 or in the middle of it, or in old age, to receive this 
 circumcision made without hands; in which there 
 is no trouble to be undergone, but to throw off the 
 load of sins, and receive pardon for all foregoing 
 offences’. 
 
 ARTICLE XXVIII. 
 Of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 “The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love 
 “ that Christians ought to have among themselves one to 
 ‘another; but rather is a Sacrament of our 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 partaking of the body of Christ, 
 ‘and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the 
 ‘blood of Christ. 
 
 ‘**'Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance 
 “of the 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 
 
 é. Curysost. Hom. xl. in aan cheori, cal ev adpw qrsxia, 
 enes. 4 fin. —Kah IDX ¢ £: <3 / a} > Pagar 4 
 
 renes. p : ode doim- Kal ev mean, Kal ey abrh 7H yipe, 
 pevoy exer Kaspov Kabdmep exel, Kk, T. As 
 
320 Article Twenty-eighth. 
 
 ‘* of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many super- 
 ** stitions. 
 
 ““'The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the 
 ** Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. 
 **And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received 
 ‘and eaten in the Supper, is faith. 
 
 “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by 
 ‘* Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or 
 “‘ worshipped.” 
 
 This Article, after having condemned the notion, 
 that the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, is only a 
 sign of the love that Christians ought to have 
 among themselves, proceeds to state that it is “a 
 sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death :” 
 it then asserts, what is more briefly expressed in 
 our Church Catechism, that ‘‘the body and blood 
 of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received 
 by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” 
 
 The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is 
 next condemned. Protestant writers generally 
 ascribe the discovery of this doctrine to one 
 Paschaise, a French monk, in the ninth century ; 
 though the Romanists of course assert that it is 
 the doctrine of the primitive Church. The term 
 ‘‘ transubstantiation” was not introduced until the 
 thirteenth century, and then the doctrine was for 
 the first time sanctioned by the third Lateran 
 Council, A. D. 1215. 
 
 The seventeenth article of the creed of pope 
 Pius IV. is as follows: “I profess likewise, that in 
 the Mass, is offered to God a true, proper, and 
 propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead ; 
 
Article Twenty-eighth. 321 
 
 and that in the most holy Sacrament of the 
 Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, 
 the body and blood, together with the soul and 
 divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and that there 
 is made a conversion of the whole substance of the 
 bread into the body, and of the whole substance of 
 the wine into the blood, which conversion the 
 Catholic Church calls transubstantiation.” 
 
 In the third section of our Article is more 
 plainly expressed the manner in which the body 
 and blood of Christ are “ verily and indeed taken 
 and received,” viz. by faith. This therefore will, 
 with the one preceding that against transubstanti- 
 ation, form but one proposition. 
 
 The Article in conclusion, mentions some of 
 those superstitions to which the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation has given occasion, 
 
 The extracts from the Fathers given under this 
 Article may be classed under three heads; first, 
 will be placed those which shew that they did not 
 hold the doctrine of transubstantiation : secondly, 
 that faith is the mean whereby the body and blood 
 of Christ are received and eaten in the Lord’s 
 Supper: and thirdly, that they did not carry 
 about, lift up, or worship, the sacramental elements. 
 That this sacrament is not only a sign of Christian 
 love, “ but rather a sacrament of our redemption 
 by Christ’s death,” will be sufficiently clear from 
 the passages given under the above heads without 
 making that the subject of distinct proof. 
 
 Yy 
 
322 Article Ti wenty-eighth. 
 First, then, The Fathers did not hold the Romish 
 doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 
 Ignatius, speaking of the unity which should 
 exist amongst Christians, uses this expression : 
 “breaking one and the same bread, which is the 
 medicine of immortality, our antidote that we 
 shall not die, but live for ever in Jesus Christ +.” 
 
 And the following passages may shew in what 
 way Ignatius understood those expressions in the 
 Gospels in which the flesh of Christ is spoken of : 
 “ Do you therefore resume a mild endurance and 
 refresh yourselves in faith, which is the flesh of the 
 Lord, and in Charity which is the blood of Jesus 
 Christ °.” 
 
 Again, “I do not delight in the food of cor- 
 ruption, nor in the pleasures of this life; I desire 
 the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of 
 life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ the Son of 
 God, who was born in this latter time of the seed 
 of David and of Abraham; and I desire for drink 
 his blood, which is incorruptible charity, and eter- 
 nal life *.” 
 
 Justin Martyr, in a passage which will be given 
 more at length under the thirtieth Article, evi- 
 dently supposes the bread and wine to remain after 
 
 2 Ienat. ad Ephes. s. 20. 
 “Eva aorov KA@yrec, 0¢ éo7t Gappa- 
 xov aQavaciac, avridoroe Tov azo- 
 Oaveiv, Adda Liv ey Osp Cia "Incov 
 Xpisrov. 
 
 >’ Idem, ad Trail. s. 8. 
 
 éy wioret, 0 tote capt Tou Kupiov, ev 
 
 
 
 aya7y, 0 tat aipa ‘Inoov Xoucrow. 
 ¢ Idem, ad Rom. s. 7. 
 aoTov Tou Osov Géw, apTov ovpanor, 
 & éo7t capt ‘Incod Xpwrov Kai 
 mopa GéXw 7d aipa avrov, 6 éorw 
 ayaxn agPaproc, Kai aévvaoc Zw. 
 
 
 
 
 
Article Twenty-eighth. 323 
 
 the consecration ; he says that the deacons, “ give 
 to each of those who are present, a portion of the 
 bread and of the wine and water, which have been 
 blessed, and carry away some to those who are not 
 present’ :” he then points out wherein the conse- 
 crated elements differ from common bread and 
 wine, and says that by them, “ our flesh and blood 
 are nourished.” 
 
 Irenzus is very plain : 
 
 «As the bread, which is from the earth, after 
 the divine invocation upon it, is no longer common 
 bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, 
 the one earthly, the other heavenly ; so also our 
 bodies partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer 
 corruptible*.” 
 
 “ Ye well know that he also partook of wine ; 
 for he too was a man; and he blessed the wine, 
 saying, ‘ Take, drink, this is my blood ;’ the blood 
 of the vine; the Word, which is poured forth for 
 many for the remission of sins, he describes 
 figuratively as a holy fountain of joy :—but that it 
 was wine which was blessed, he afterwards shewed, 
 when he said to his disciples, ‘I will not drink of 
 this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you 
 
 ow 99 
 
 in the kingdom of my Father‘ é 
 
 @ Justin. Apol. 14. c. 65.— 
 ot wadobpevor Tap’ rpiv, CudKovor 
 biddacy mapsvrwy 
 peraraBety amd Tov evyaptornOévroc 
 ao7ov Kai olvov Kai Vdatoc. — 
 
 ¢ Trenazy, |. iv. c. 18.5. 5. 
 ‘Og yao amd ying dptos mpochap- 
 Bavinevos Thy ExKAnow Tod Oeod 
 
 tkdorp TOY 
 
 > / ‘ ” > \ Pn ed 
 GUKETL KOLVGG GpTOG eoTlY, GAA 
 euyupiatia, ex ovo mpaypnarwy 
 
 ~ t 
 TVUVETTHKUIA, emuyetou TE Kal 
 
 
 
 oupayiou. 
 £ Matt. xxvi. 29. 
 & Crem. ALEex. Pedag.|. ii. 
 ce. 2. p. 186. —tri 8€ ives jy 
 Th evAoynbey, andere ma&puy, T pas 
 
 Yu 
 
324 Article Twenty-eighth. 
 
 It must be remembered that Marcion held that 
 the world was created by an evil and imperfect 
 being, who was the God of the Old Testament, 
 and that the true and perfect God sent his Son 
 Jesus Christ to destroy the works of the evil one: 
 Tertullian therefore argues that if Marcion’s tenets 
 were true, Christ could not really have had that 
 love that he manifested towards men, inasmuch as 
 they were the creation of an evil being— 
 
 «* But he until this time, hath despised neither 
 the water of the creator, with which he washes his 
 own in baptism; nor the oil, with which he anoints 
 them; nor the mixture of honey and milk, with 
 which he nurtures his own; nor the bread, by 
 which he represents his own body, since even in 
 his own sacraments he has need of these beggarly 
 elements of this evil creator*.” 
 
 And in his fourth book against Marcion he calls 
 bread “the figure of Christ’s body:” in the place 
 from which this extract is taken, Tertullian is 
 proving the reality of Christ’s human nature : 
 
 «When he professed, therefore, that he earnestly 
 desired to eat the passover', as his own, (for it is 
 unworthy of God to desire any thing that does not 
 belong to himself,) the bread which he took and 
 distributed to his disciples, he made his own body, 
 saying, ‘ this is my body*;’ that is, a figure of my 
 
 sods wabyras Aéyov’ Ot uy zie, Ipsum corpus suum represen- 
 Katte th tat. 
 
 h TertTuLw. adv. Marcion. { Luke, xxii. 15. 
 l. ic. 14. —mnec panem quo ie a0: 
 
Article Twenty-eighth. 325 
 
 body. But it could not have been a figure, unless 
 the body were real!.” 
 
 And Origen says : 
 
 «The meat sanctified by the divine invocation 
 and address, as to the material part, goeth into the 
 belly, and thence is avoided downwards :—it is not 
 the matter of the bread, but the word that is 
 spoken upon it, which profiteth him that worthily 
 eateth of it™.” 
 
 And on our Saviour’s words, “Except ye eat my 
 flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you®,” 
 Origen remarks; ‘“ Consider that these things 
 which are written in the divine volume are figures; 
 and therefore examine and understand the things 
 which are spoken as spiritual, and not as carnal 
 men. For if you understand them as carnal men 
 they hurt you, and nourish you not. For even in 
 the Gospels is there letter that killeth. Not only 
 in the Old Testament letter that killeth is found ; 
 but also in the New is there letter that killeth him 
 that doth not spiritually understand the things 
 that are spoken. For if thou shouldst follow ac- 
 cording to the letter, this very thing which was 
 said, ‘ Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood,’ 
 this letter killeth°.” 
 
 1 TertTuLyu. adv. Marcion. 
 ]. iv. c. 40. Acceptum panem 
 et distributum discipulis, corpus 
 illum suum fecit, hoc est corpus 
 meum dicendo, id est, figura 
 corporis mei. 
 
 ™ OriGEN. tm Matt. xv. 
 Comm, tom. xi. s. 14. p. 499. 
 To dysalipevey Boda dice Aayou 
 
 Occ Kak evrevEews, kat” adto ev 
 To bAiKoy €lg Thy KoLALay Yooper, Kal 
 els aedoava exBarreras. 
 
 o John, vi. 
 
 ° OrIGEN. in Levit. Hom. 
 vii. s. 5. Agnoscite quia figure 
 sunt qua in divinis voluminibus 
 scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam 
 spiritales et non tanquam car- 
 
Article Twenty-eighth. 
 
 St. Cyprian, also, speaking against those who 
 gave the communion in water only, without wine 
 mingled with it, says: “ Forasmuch as Christ@says, 
 ‘I am the true vine; therefore the blood of Christ 
 is not water, but wine. Nor can his blood, where- 
 by we are redeemed and have life, seem to_be in 
 the cup, when there is no wine in the cup, whereby 
 the blood of Christ is represented’.” And again 
 shortly afterwards: “On the day of his passion, 
 taking the cup, he blessed it and gave it to his dis- 
 ciples, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my 
 blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
 many for the remission of sins. But I say unto 
 you, [ will not drink heneforth of this fruit of the 
 vine, until that day when I drink it new with you 
 in my Father’s kingdom*’ Whereby we find that 
 the cup, which the Lord offered, was mixed, and 
 that it was wine which he called his blood : whence 
 it is clear that the blood of Christ is not offered, if 
 there be no wine in the cup’.” 
 
 Chrysostom, arguing against those who used water 
 only in the sacrament, says: ‘“‘ Why then after his 
 resurrection did he not drink water, but wine? 
 plucking up another wicked heresy by the roots, 
 (since there are some who use water in the 
 
 nales examinate et intelligite 
 que dicuntur, etc. 
 
 P Cyprian. Ep. Ixiii. ad 
 Cecilium, s. 2. Nec potest 
 
 4 Matt. xxvi. 27-29. 
 
 ¥ Cyprian. Ep. Ixiii. ad 
 Cecilium, s.6. Qua in parte 
 invenimus calicem mixtum 
 
 videri sanguis ejus, quo re- 
 dempti et vivificati sumus, esse 
 in calice, quando vinum desit 
 ealici, quo Christi sanguis os- 
 tenditur. 
 
 fuisse quem Dominus obtulit, 
 et vinum fuisse, quod sangui- 
 nem suum dixit. 
 
327 
 
 Article Twenty-eighth. 
 
 mysteries,) shewing, that when he gave the 
 mysteries, he gave wine, and after his resurrection, 
 at a common table, where the mysteries were not 
 given, he used wine ; his words are, ‘ of the fruit of 
 the vine ;’ but the vine brings forth wine, not 
 water*.” 
 
 Chrysostom says plainly enough that Christ gave 
 wine to drink; but I am quite in the dark as to 
 what he means by speaking of the wine used after 
 our Savour’s resurrection. 
 
 «The bread before it is sanctified, we call bread; 
 but when the divine grace has sanctified it, by the 
 mediation of the priest, it is delivered from the 
 name of bread; and is deemed worthy of being 
 called the Lord’s body, although the nature of 
 bread still remains in it ‘.” 
 
 “That which you see, is the bread and the cup, 
 which also your eyes do shew you; but your faith 
 further sheweth, that the bread is the body of 
 Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.—How is the 
 bread his body? and the cup, or that which the 
 cup contains, how is that his blood? They, my 
 brethren, are therefore called Sacraments, because 
 in them one thing is seen, another understood. 
 
 * Curysost. in Matl. xrvi. 
 Hom. Ixxxii. s. 2. —erxvic 
 
 mus ; divina autem illum sanc- 
 tificante gratia, mediante sa- 
 
 Or quika TH proThpia wapedwKey 
 oivoy mupeowKe.— 
 
 * Idem, ad Cesarium Mona- 
 chum, ed. Bened.t. iii. p. 744. 
 Sicut enim antequam sanctifi- 
 cetur panis, panem nomina- 
 
 cerdote, liberatus est quidem 
 ab appellatione panis; dignus 
 autem habitus Dominici cor- 
 poris appellatione,  etiamsi 
 natura panis in ipso permansit. 
 
328 Article Twenty-eighth. 
 
 That which is seen has a corporeal form, what is 
 understood, has a spiritual fruit*.” 
 
 It is next to be shewn that the Fathers held that 
 “ the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten,” but, 
 “ only after a spiritual manner.” And that “the mean 
 whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in 
 the Supper, is faith.” 
 
 Justin Martyr in continuation of the passage 
 which will be found under the thirtieth Article, 
 Says : 
 
 « And this food is called amongst us Eucharistia; 
 whereof it is lawful for no man to be partaker, ex- 
 cept he believes those things, which are taught by 
 us to be true, and be washed in the water of rege- 
 neration unto the remission of sins, and so liveth 
 as Christ has commanded. For we do not take 
 these things as common bread or common drink; 
 but like as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate 
 by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for 
 our salvation; so we are taught that this food, 
 which hath been blessed by the prayer of the word 
 proceeding from him, and by which our flesh and 
 blood are by transmutation nourished, is the flesh 
 and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the Apos- 
 
 * Avcusr. ad _ Infantes 
 
 Serm. 272. Quod videtis, 
 panis est et calix, quod vobis 
 
 ejus? et calix, vel quod habet 
 calix, quomodo est sanguis 
 ejus? Ista, fratres, adeo di- 
 
 etiam oculi vestri renuntiant ; 
 quod autem fides vestra postu- 
 lat instruenda, panis est corpus 
 Christi, calix sanguis Christi. 
 Quomodo est panis corpus 
 
 
 
 cuntur sacramenta, quia in eis 
 aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. 
 Quod videtur speciem habet 
 corporalem, quod intelligitur, 
 fractum habet spiritalem. 
 
Article Twenty-erghth. 329 
 
 tles in those works of theirs, which are called Gos- 
 pels, have delivered that Jesus so commanded them; 
 having taken bread and given thanks he said, ‘ this, 
 is my body;’ and in like manner taking the cup, 
 after he had given thanks, he said, ‘this is my blood ;’ 
 and gave them to his Apostles only *.” 
 
 “ Christ giving commandment to his disciples to 
 offer the first-fruits of his creatures to God, (not as 
 if God had need of them, but to shew themselves 
 neither unfruitful nor ungrateful,) received bread, 
 which is a creature, and gave thanks, saying, ‘ This 
 is my body.’ And in like manner the cup, which 
 is a creature of the same sort as ours, he confessed 
 to be his blood, and he enjoined the new oblation 
 of the New Testament’.” Again: “The Lord 
 taking bread of the same sort that our bread is of, 
 confessed that it was his body, and that thing which 
 was tempered in the cup he confirmed to be his 
 blood ’.” 
 
 “The Lord, in the Gospel according to John, 
 
 * Justin, Apol. 1%. c. 66. 
 ov yap we Kowdy aproy, ovbé 
 kowoy Tropa Tavira NapBavopev> adr’ 
 dv Tpdmoy dia N6you Oeov capKkorron- 
 Oeic "Inaote Xpistbc 6 Ywrjo Hyay, 
 kai oapka Kat aiva brip owrnpiac 
 HG Eoxev, oUrwe Kai THY Ot Ebyne 
 NOyou row map’ abrod ebyapiornOei- 
 cay Toognv, %& Ac alwa Kai capKec 
 kara peraBodny rpépovrar Hoy, 
 éxelvov Tov capKorromblévTog "Incou 
 kai odpka Kai aipa todd Onpev el- 
 Val. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ¥Y Iren«zr, |. iv. c. xvii. s. 5. 
 Sed et suis discipulis dans con- 
 silium, primitias Deo offerre ex 
 
 suis creaturis, non quasi indi- 
 genti, sed ut ipsi nec infructu- 
 osi, nec ingrati sint, eum qui 
 ex creatura panis est, accepit, 
 et gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est 
 meum corpus. Et calicem 
 similiter suum sanguinem con- 
 fessus est, et Novi T'estamenti 
 novam docuit oblationem. 
 
 2 Idem, 1. iv. c. xxxiii. s. 2. 
 Dominus, hujus  conditionis 
 qua est secundum nos accipi- 
 ens panem, suum corpus esse 
 confitebatur, et temperamentum 
 calicis suum sanguinem confir- 
 mavit. 
 
330 Article Twenty-eighth. 
 
 said, ‘ Eat my flesh, and drink my blood,’ evidently 
 speaking allegorically of faith and the promises as 
 something to be drunk, by means of which the 
 Church, as a man, consisting of many members, 
 is watered and nourished *.” 
 
 ‘‘ Although he says that the flesh profiteth no- 
 thing ®, the meaning must be governed by the sub- 
 ject matter of his discourse. For because they 
 thought his saying hard‘ and intolerable, as if he 
 had determined that his flesh was to be really eaten 
 by them, he premised, that he placed the condition 
 of their salvation in the Spirit. ‘It is the Spirit 
 that quickeneth*; and so he added, ‘The flesh 
 profiteth nothing, that is to say, to the giving of 
 life. He then proceeds to tell them what he would 
 have them understand by the Spirit; ‘ The words 
 that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they 
 are life*:’ as he said in the preceding chapter, ‘ He 
 that heareth my word, and believeth on him that 
 sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come 
 into condemnation, but is passed from death unto 
 life.’ Therefore making the word to be that which 
 gives life, because the word is Spirit and life, he 
 also said that the same was his own flesh: for 
 ‘the word was made flesh,’ and is therefore to be 
 sought for as the cause of life, and to be devoured 
 
 @Ciem. ALEX. Pedag. |.  «abdazep dvOpwroc, ix TodAGy ovves- 
 i.c.6.p. 121. *Anrrays& be & TnKiva pehGv, apcerai ve Kai avEerat. 
 
 Kipws itv rp Kava “lwavynv Evay- > John, vi. 63. 
 yedip, értpwe 2Enveyxey Cid cupBs- ¢ Thid. 60. 
 ww bayecbé pou rac cdpxac eizwr, 4 Ibid. 63. 
 
 Kai wlecG pou TO aia: tvapyéc TIC € Tbid. 
 
 misrewe Kai THC éxayyeXiac TO TOTI- f Tbid. v. 24. 
 
 prov GAnyopor, é ay 7 ExxAnsia, 
 
Article Twenty-eighth. ool 
 by hearing, to be chewed by the understanding, 
 and to be digested by faith *.” 
 
 Athanasius, speaking of the eating of Christ’s 
 flesh, and drinking of his blood, says: 
 
 “ For this cause he made mention of the ascen- 
 sion of the Son of Man into heaven, that he might 
 draw them off from corporeal thoughts, and that 
 hereafter they might learn that his flesh was called 
 the celestial meat, that came from above, and a spi- 
 ritual food which he would give. ‘ For those things 
 that I speak to you,’ he says, ‘ are spirit and life" ; 
 which is as much as to say, that which is shewn 
 and given for the salvation of the world, is the 
 flesh which I bear; but this flesh and its blood 
 shall be given to you by me spiritually as a nou- 
 rishment, so that it shall be spiritually distributed 
 to every one, and be to all a conservation unto the 
 resurrection of eternal life *.” 
 
 “We eat his flesh and drink his blood, being 
 made by his incarnation and sensible life, partakers 
 of his word and wisdom: for his flesh and blood he 
 called all his mystical conversation here in his 
 flesh and his doctrine, consisting of his whole life, 
 pertaining both to his humanity and divinity, 
 
 8 TreRrTuLvL. de Resur. Car- 
 
 : tom. i. p. 710. To sey 
 nis. c. 37. ——quia et sermo 
 
 Oevipevoy Kai diddpevoy brio ric 
 
 
 
 caro erat factus, proinde in 
 
 causam vite adpetendus, et de- 
 
 vorandus auditu, et ruminandus 
 
 intellectu, et fide digerendus. 
 4 John, vi. 63. 
 1 ATHANAs. 
 
 Ep. iv. ad 
 Serap. de 
 
 Spiritu Sancto, 
 
 TOU KOopLOV Gwrnplac, toriv y cape hv 
 éyw pop" aN abry vpiy kai 76 rab- 
 m™meo daiwa rap’ tov rvevparikoc 
 SoOhserar rp0gn, wore mvevpariKac 
 ty txador Trabrnv avadidocba, Kai 
 yvecIa mraow j pudakrnowy ic 
 avacraay Lwijc cwyviov. 
 
332 Article Twenty-eighth. 
 
 whereby the soul is nourished and brought to the 
 contemplation of things eternal *.” 
 
 “If any man understand the words of Christ 
 carnally, he profits nothing thereby. What then, 
 is not the flesh his flesh? most certainly it is. 
 Then what did he mean by saying ‘ The flesh 
 availeth nothing?” He did not mean it of his own 
 flesh; God forbid! but of them that carnally 
 receive the words spoken by him. And what is it, 
 to understand carnally? To look simply at the 
 words as spoken literally, and not to perceive any 
 further intention. This is to understand carnally. 
 But we ought not so to judge of the things which 
 we see, but to consider all mysteries with inward 
 eyes; that is, to understand them spiritually .” 
 
 Augustine, laying down rules for the application 
 of a figurative or literal interpretation of Scripture, 
 says; “If the speech be preceptive, forbidding 
 any evil or wickedness, or commanding what is 
 useful or charitable, it is not figurative. But if it 
 seems to command any evil or wicked act, or to 
 forbid what is useful or charitable, it is figurative. 
 
 K Basi. Ep. viii. (al. 141.) 
 s.4. Tpéyouey aired ryy dpa, 
 Kal ivopey avrov 76 aipa, Kotwwyot 
 ywopeva Cut rie tvayPowxncewc 
 Kat 7i¢ atcOnric LwHc, Tov Oyov 
 Kai TIC Cogiac’ GapKa ydp Kai aipa, 
 macay av7rou THy puoTuny exienpiay 
 GYvOace, Kai TV EK TOAaKTUAC Kai 
 Quoiije Kai Geodoyune cvvesTacay 
 évdacxadiay idhrwoe, Ct He TeeSETAL 
 duyi], Kat Tpoc THY TéY byTwY TéwC 
 Gewpiay zapacKevalera. 
 
 ! Curysost. in Joan, Hom. 
 xlvii. (al, 46,) ed, Bened. t. viii. 
 
 p- 278.—+i iv, otk eors 4 oeepk 
 aurov cap&; Kai ogd0pa pév ody" Kai 
 aOe eizev, 9 CAPE OUK WEEE OvCEY ; 
 ov ZEpi THC EavTOU capKoc éywr- 
 py yévoiro" add weEpi THY caoKuKGC 
 éxAapBavovrwy ra AEyopeva Ti CE 
 tot TO capKuKac voncat; TO az 
 ei¢ Ta TWOOKEiLEVAa OOaY, Kai py TEOY 
 ti gavralecBar rovT0 yap tort 
 Gagxixac” yon Cé pn oUTw Kpivery 
 rotc dpwpivorc, aka azayTa 7a 
 pvornpia roic évCov 6¢GaXpoic Ka- 
 TomTEevey" TOUTO yap tore TvEvpare- 
 OC. 
 
Article Twenty-eighth. 333 
 
 Now he says ‘ Except you eat the flesh of the Son 
 of Man and drink his blood, ye shall have no life 
 in you. This seems to command an evil and 
 wicked thing; therefore it is a figure, commanding 
 us to partake of Christ’s passion, keeping in our 
 minds to our great comfort and profit, that his flesh 
 was crucified and wounded for us ™.” 
 
 It remains to be shewn that in the primitive 
 Church, “ The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was 
 not reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” 
 The practice of the Roman Church here con- 
 demned, arose out of their doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation; and that being proved to be untrue and 
 unscriptural, this practice must necessarily fall 
 with it. It is not possible to adduce passages 
 from the Fathers directly condemning this prac- 
 tice, for it was never so much as thought of in the 
 primitive Church. There are two passages, how- 
 ever, which are satisfactory and conclusive on the 
 point in question. 
 
 Origen says, “‘ The Lord said to them concerning 
 the bread which he gave to his disciples; ‘ Take 
 and eat; he did not defer it, nor command it to 
 be reserved till the morrow *.” 
 
 And Jerome tells us, that “ After the communion, 
 whatever remained of the sacred elements, the 
 
 m Aucust. de Doctrina 
 Christ. |. ii. c. 4.—Nisi man- 
 ducaveritis, inquit, etc. Faci- 
 mus vel flagitium videtur 
 jubere : figura est ergo, preci- 
 piens passioni Dominice com- 
 municandum, et suaviter atque 
 
 utiliter recondendum in me- 
 moria, quod pro nobis caro ejus 
 crucifixa et vulnerata sit. 
 
 2 ORIGEN, in Lev. Hom. v. 
 s. 8.—non distulit, nec servari 
 jussit in crastinum. 
 
304 Article Twenty-ninth. 
 
 communicants themselves, eating a common supper 
 in the Church, consumed together °.” 
 
 For want of earlier testimony to the above may 
 be added the following from Hesychius, who was 
 a presbyter of the Church of Jerusalem in the fifth 
 century. He is commenting on Levit. vii. 17. 
 and says, ‘‘ Whatever remained of the flesh and 
 the bread, God commanded to be burnt with fire 
 {ow the third day.] Which we now with our own 
 eyes see done in the Church; whatever happens 
 to remain unconsumed is immediately burnt with 
 fire, and that not after it has been kept one, or 
 
 two, or many days ?.” 
 
 ARTICLE XXIX. 
 
 Of the wicked which eat not the body of Christ in 
 the use of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
 ‘Tue wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, 
 ‘although they do carnally and visibly press with their 
 ‘teeth, (as St. Augustine saith,) the sacrament of the 
 
 ° Hieron. in 1 Cor. 11. et panibus, in igne incendi 
 Et post communionem que-  precepit. Quod nunc videmus 
 cunque eis de sacrificiis super- etiam sensibiliter in ecclesia 
 fuissent, illi in Ecclesia com-  fieri, ignique tradi quecunque 
 munem ccenam comedentes remanere_ contigerit incon- 
 pariter consumebant. sumta ; non omnino ea que una 
 
 P Hesycu. in Lev. |. ii. die, vel duabus aut multis, ser- 
 Quod reliquum est de carnibus vata sunt. 
 
Article Twenty-ninth. 335 
 
 ‘‘body and blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they 
 **partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do 
 ‘eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a 
 ** thing.” 
 
 This Article arises out of the preceding, and was 
 chiefly directed against the Romanists, who are 
 said to contend, that the mere receiving of the 
 Lord’s Supper, merits remission of sins ex opere 
 operato, that is mechanically, without any good 
 disposition of the communicant. But Dupin* 
 says, “that the body and blood of Christ are truly 
 and really received by all, though none but the 
 faithful partake of any benefit from them.” If 
 this be in truth the doctrine of the Roman Church; 
 then the only difference between us in this Article 
 is that which has been already considered, as to 
 transubstantiation. But in that case every passage 
 in which it is mentioned that the wicked do not 
 receive the body and blood of Christ, will be an 
 additional authority against transubstantiation. 
 
 Origen, in continuation of a passage given under 
 the preceding Article, says”; 
 
 “Much might be said of the Word which was 
 made flesh and very meat, which whoso eateth 
 shall surely live for ever; which no evil man can 
 eat. For if it were possible for one that continueth 
 evil to eat the Word made flesh, seeing that he is 
 the Word and bread of life, it would not have been 
 written, that, “ Whosoever eateth this bread shall 
 live for ever.°’ 4” 
 
 * Appendix to Mosheim, 3. © John. vi. 51. 
 > Ante, p. 325. ‘ Origen. in Matt, xv. 
 
336 Article Twenty-ninth. 
 
 Again, “ Dost thou not fear to communicate of 
 the body of Christ, when thou comest to the 
 Eucharist, as if thou wast clean and pure, as if 
 there was nothing unworthy in thee? And in all 
 these things to escape the judgment of God? 
 Dost thou not remember what is said, “ For this 
 many are weak and sick, and many sleep amongst 
 you? Why are many weak? Because they do 
 not judge nor examine themselves, nor understand 
 what it is to communicate with the Church, or 
 what it is to approach to such and so great 
 sacraments. They suffer that which those that 
 are sick of fevers used to suffer, whilst they presume 
 to eat of the food of the healthy, bringing destruc- 
 tion on themselves *.” 
 
 And Cyprian, speaking of those who had jain 
 in times of persecution, and afterwards desired to 
 be admitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper, says, 
 “He that is down threatens them that stand, and 
 he that is wounded them that are whole: and 
 because he may not immediately receive the 
 Lord’s body in his polluted hands, or drink the 
 Lord’s blood with his defiled mouth, the sacrile- 
 gious fellow is angry with the priests. But oh thy 
 exceeding madness, thou furious person! Thou 
 
 Comm. tom. xi. s. 14.—idevic 2 Idem, wn Ps. \xxkyii- 
 
 J s > , > 7 3 
 
 Siyapevev Gavarov ecBlew duty Ei 
 A ts 3 » ~ / 
 
 yao oiov TE HY ETS Pavroy wevovta 
 
 X s , 
 
 eobiew Tov yevonevoy capKa, royoy 
 
 y »” ~ 2 
 
 Gra, Kal aproy Covta, ovK ay 
 ee ~ \ 
 
 eyeypanre, ots mas 6 payey Toy 
 
 TOUTOY 
 
 LOT OY Cqoetas eis re 
 aoToy h ig Toy 
 
 Ped 
 aA2i@yva, 
 
 Hom. ii. s. 6. Patiuntur hoc 
 quod febricitantes pati solent, 
 cum sanorum cibos presumunt, 
 sibimetipsis inferentes exitium. 
 
Article Twenty-ninth. 337 
 art angry with him, who strives to turn the wrath 
 of God from thee! thou threatenest him that 
 beggeth the mercy of God for thee, who is sensible 
 of thy wound, which thou thyself art not sensible 
 of, who sheds tears for thee, which perhaps thou 
 sheddest not thyself *” 
 
 “Let us therefore cleanse ourselves from all 
 pollution, and so let us come to these holy things, 
 that we may escape the condemnation of those 
 that killed the Lord: for whosoever eateth the 
 bread, or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, 
 shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
 Lord ¢.” 
 
 “‘ All that love pleasure more than they love God 
 —neither eat the flesh of Jesus, nor drink his 
 blood: of the which himself saith, ‘ Whoso eateth 
 my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
 lifes? 
 
 Augustine’s testimony is as clear as possible, not 
 only in the place referred to by the Article, but also 
 in many others, some of which may be subjoined. 
 
 “He that doth not eat his flesh, nor drink his 
 blood, hath not life in him: and he that eateth his 
 
 * Cyprian. de Lapsis. s. 18. 
 
 fey TO Koiua tev chovercdyTwY 
 —quod non statim Domini 
 
 tov Kupiov, Si0ts 66 ay ec bin 
 
 corpus inquinatis manibus ac- 
 cipiat, aut ore polluto Domini 
 sanguinem bibat, sacerdotibus 
 sacrilegus irascatur.—Iras- 
 ceris ei, qui abs te avertere 
 iram Dei nititur. 
 
 & Basix. de Baptismo. 1. ii. 
 qu. 3. Kabagetdowpney toby are 
 TaYTOS pokvopod, Kal oT ™ 00~ 
 cepyancba trois dryinss, Wva opiyw- 
 
 
 
 Toy aprov, 4 wivy Td morHosoy Tov 
 Kupiov avaking, x. T, A. 
 
 h John, vi. 54. 
 
 i Hieron. in Isat. xvi. 17. 
 Omnes yoluptatis magis ama- 
 tores quam aimatores Dei—nec 
 comedunt carnem Jesu, neque 
 bibunt sanguinem ejus : de quo 
 ipse loquitur, etc. 
 
 Z 
 
338 Article Twenty-ninth. 
 
 flesh and drinketh his blood, hath life. But in ei- 
 ther case eternal life is meant. But it is not so in 
 that food which we take for the support of our 
 mortal bodies: for although without that we can- 
 not live; yet whosoever taketh that shall not ne- 
 cessarily live. For it may happen that many, who 
 do take it, may die of old age, or disease, or other 
 chances. But in this meat and drink, that is, of 
 the body and blood of our Lord, it is otherwise. 
 For both whoso taketh them not, hath not life, and 
 whoso taketh them, hath life, and that everlast- 
 ing*.” 
 
 And shortly afterwards: “The sacrament of 
 this thing, that is to say, of the unity of the body 
 and blood of Christ, at some places every day, in 
 others at stated periods, is prepared at the Lord’s 
 table, and is thence taken, by some men to life, 
 but by others to destruction ; but the thing itself, 
 whereof it is a sacrament, is taken by all men, who 
 do partake of it, to life, of no man to death '.” 
 
 A little further on we come to the passage quoted 
 in this Article: “‘He that eateth my flesh, and 
 drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.’ 
 This therefore is to eat that meat, and to drink 
 that drink, to dwell in Christ and to have Christ 
 dwelling in him. And for that cause he that dwel- 
 leth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, 
 
 Kk Aueusr. in Joan. Tract. quibusdam ad vitam, quibus- 
 xxvi. s. 15. —Nam et qui dam ad exitium ; res vero ipsa, 
 eam non sumit non habet vi- cujus sacramentum est, omni 
 tam; et qui eam sumit, habet homini ad vitam, nulli ad ex- 
 vitam, et hanc utique eternam. itium, quicunque ejus particeps 
 
 1 Idem, ibid. —sumitur fuerit, 
 
Article Twenty-ninth. 339 
 without doubt neither spiritually eateth his flesh, 
 nor drinketh his blood, although carnally and visi- 
 bly he press with his teeth the sacrament of the 
 body and blood of Christ: but rather to his own 
 condemnation he eats and drinks the sacrament of 
 so great a thing™.” 
 
 And in the next Homily upon saint John he 
 says: ‘“ To-day our discourse is of the body of the 
 Lord, which he said he would give to eat for eter- 
 nal life. But he declared the manner of his gift 
 and distribution, how he would give his flesh to 
 eat, saying, ‘ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh 
 my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.’ This 
 therefore is a token that a man hath eaten and 
 drunken, that is to say, if he dwell in Christ, 
 and have Christ dwelling in him; if he so cleave 
 to Christ, that he is not severed from him. This 
 therefore he taught and admonished us by these 
 mystical words, that we should be in his body 
 under him our head amongst his members, eating 
 his flesh, not forsaking his unity °.” 
 
 m Tdem, ibid, xxvi. s. 18. Christi:] sed magis tant rei 
 
 —Ac per hoc qui non manet in 
 Christo, et in quo non manet 
 Christus, procul dubio nec 
 manducat [spiritaliter] car- 
 nem ejus, nec bibit ejus sangui- 
 nem, [ licet carnaliter et visibi- 
 liter premat dentibus sacra- 
 mentum corporis et sanguinis 
 
 sacramentum ad judicium sibi 
 manducat et bibit. 
 
 " Idem, ibid, xxvii. s. 1. 
 —Signum quia manducavit et 
 bibit, hoe est, si manet et ma- 
 netur, si habitat et inhabitatur, 
 si heret ut non deseratur.— 
 
ARTICLE XXX. 
 
 Of both Kinds. 
 
 ‘Tue Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay- 
 *‘ people; for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by 
 ** Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be minis- 
 ** tered to all Christian men alike.” 
 
 The eighteenth Article of the creed of pope Pius 
 IV., is as follows : “I confess also, that under either 
 kind alone, Christ whole and entire and a true sa- 
 crament is received.” 
 
 Dr. Chaloner, whom I have before quoted, calls 
 their receiving in one kind “a matter of discipline 
 only ;” though it is matter of faith that under one 
 kind they receive Christ whole and entire, and the 
 true sacrament. Neither he, nor any other writer 
 of the same persuasion, denies that it was the prac- 
 tice of the primitive Church to receive in both 
 kinds: he says, ‘‘the Catholic Church did, and 
 may again, if she pleases, allow of the communion 
 in both kinds *.” 
 
 The practice of withholding the cup from the 
 laity is another of those “‘ many superstitions” to 
 which the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation 
 has given occasion. In order to avoid spilling the 
 
 @ Sect. vi. 
 
Article Thirty-first. 341 
 
 real blood of Christ, the bread was at first sopped 
 in the wine, and at length, about the twelfth cen- 
 tury, the cup was withheld from the laity. Dr. 
 Chaloner, says, that it has been “the custom and 
 discipline of the Catholic Church for many ages to 
 administer this sacrament to the laity only in one 
 kind, viz. under the form of bread, by reason of 
 the danger of spilling the blood of Christ, if all 
 were to receive the cup; which discipline was con- 
 firmed by the general Council of Constance in op- 
 position to the Hussites, who had the rashness to 
 condemn in this point the practice of the universal 
 Church.” The Council of Constance was holden, 
 A. D. 1414, and in their decree it is acknowledged 
 that “Christ did institute this sacrament in both 
 kinds, and that the faithful, in the primitive Church, 
 did receive in both kinds; yet a practice being rea- 
 sonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scan- 
 dals, they appoint the custom to continue of con- 
 secrating in both kinds, and of giving to the laity 
 only in one kind.” 
 
 After this admission it is unnecessary to shew 
 what was the practice of the primitive Church, but 
 some passages must be adduced, from which it will 
 appear that this sacrament was only properly re- 
 ceived, when it was taken in both kinds. 
 
 Having described the form of baptizing an adult 
 convert to Christianity, Justin proceeds to mention 
 the mode in which the Sacrament was adminis- 
 tered. 
 
 “ We then having so washed him who has testi- 
 
342 Article Thirty-first. 
 
 fied his faith in, and assent to our doctrine, lead 
 him to those who are called brethren, when they 
 are gathered together, to make common prayers 
 with earnestness both for ourselves and for him 
 who is now enlightened, and for all others in all 
 places, that, having learned the truth, we may be 
 deemed worthy to be found men of a godly life, 
 and observers of the commandments, that so we 
 may attain unto eternal salvation. Having ceased 
 from prayer we salute one another with a kiss. 
 Then there is brought to that one of the brethren 
 who presides, bread and a cup of water and wine 
 mixed. And he having received them, offers up 
 glory and praise to the Father of all things, 
 through the name of the Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost, and gives thanks at length for that they 
 have been thought worthy to obtain these things 
 from God. When he has finished his prayers and 
 thanksgivings, all the people who are present ex- 
 press their assent, saying, Amen, which in the 
 Hebrew tongue means, So be it. But when he 
 that presides has given thanks, and all the people 
 have expressed their assent, those whom we call 
 deacons, give to each of those who are present, 
 a portion of the bread and of the wine and water, 
 which have been blessed, and carry away some to 
 those who are not present ?.” 
 
 “The baptism of saving water is but once re- 
 ceived, and is not to be repeated; but the cup of 
 
 b Justin. Apol. 1%. c. 65. See the Greek, ante p. 323, 
 note ¢. 
 
Article Thirty-first. 343 
 
 the Lord is always thirsted after and drank in the 
 Church*.” 
 
 “To shew forth the justification and the testa- 
 ment of our Lord, and not to do the same that our 
 Lord hath done; what else is this, but to cast his 
 sayings behind us, to despise the Lord’s discipline, 
 and to commit, not earthly, but spiritual thefts and 
 adulteries? Since he who steals from the truth of 
 the Gospel such words as our Lord hath spoken, 
 and such facts as he hath done, corrupts and 
 adulterates the divine precepts*.” 
 
 And again, “ How do we teach and encourage 
 those who are to fight Christ’s battles, to spend 
 their blood in the confession of his name, if when 
 they are going to engage, we deny them the blood 
 of Christ? Or how do we make them fit for the 
 cup.of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them to 
 drink in the Church the cup of the Lord, of which 
 they have a right to partake*.” 
 
 “‘ Not as it was in the Old Testament, the priest 
 ate some things, and the people other things, and 
 it was not lawful for the people to partake of those 
 
 © Cyprian. Ep. Ixxiii. ad lium, s. 2. Nam quomodo 
 
 Caecilium, s. 5. —calix Do- 
 mini in Ecclesia semper et si- 
 titur et bibitur. 
 
 4 Idem, ibid, s. 13. —dum 
 quis de Evangelica veritate fu- 
 ratur Domini nostri verba et 
 facta, et corrumpit atque adul- 
 terat praecepta divina. 
 
 * Idem, Ep. liv. ad Corne- 
 
 docemus aut provocamus eos in 
 confessione nominis sanguinem 
 suum fundere, si eis militaturis 
 Christi sanguinem denegamus? 
 aut quomodo ad martyrii po- 
 culum idoneos facimus, si non 
 eos prius ad bibendum in Ec- 
 clesia poculum Domini jure 
 communicationis admittimus ? 
 
344 Article Thirty-first. 
 
 things of which the priest partook ; it is not so now, 
 but one body and one cup is offered to all.” 
 
 ARTICLE XXXI. 
 
 Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the 
 Cross. 
 
 * Tue Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect re- 
 ‘** demption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins 
 ‘* of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is 
 ‘* none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore 
 ‘the sacrifice of Masses, in the which it was commonly 
 ‘‘said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and 
 ‘‘ the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas- 
 ‘* phemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” 
 
 Another of those many superstitions, to which 
 the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation has given 
 occasion, is here aimed at. The Romanists, be- 
 lieving that the bread and wine are by consecration 
 changed into the real body and blood of Christ, 
 consider that in the Eucharist a real, propitiatory 
 sacrifice is offered up to God the Father at every 
 celebration. The seventeenth Article of the creed 
 of pope Pius IV., part of which relates to this sub- 
 
 £ Cuysost. in 2 Cor. Hom. —aar od viv, adrk& meow by 
 xiy. ed. Bened. tom, vill. p.537. = c&pa mpexerras kat ev TOT oL0v. 
 
Article Thirty-first. 345 
 
 ject, has been already given at length*; it is there 
 said, “in the Mass, is offered to God a true, pro- 
 per, and propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and 
 the dead.” Masses are constantly being celebrated 
 in their Churches by the priest alone, in the name 
 of particular persons who pay for them, and also 
 in behalf of departed souls, which are supposed to 
 be detained in purgatory, and which they think 
 by these propitiatory sacrifices to release. These 
 are called solitary masses, but were totally un- 
 known in the primitive Church, and were not es- 
 tablished until the twelfth century, after the doc- 
 trine of transubstantiation was generally received. 
 
 The point to be now established, on the autho- 
 rity of the Fathers, is that they believed the offer- 
 ing of Christ once made to be that perfect redemp- 
 tion, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of 
 the whole world, both original and actual; and 
 consequently that the Eucharist is not a propitiatory 
 sacrifice. 
 
 The first part of the proposition seems to be 
 little more than a re-assertion of the doctrine of 
 the Atonement; the rest follows as the necessary 
 consequence of that doctrine. But as under the 
 eleventh Article the true and Catholic doctrine of 
 the Atonement was established, it remains only 
 in this place to shew that the Fathers did not 
 consider the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to be 
 a propitiatory sacrifice. 
 
 It is true that they frequently use expressions, 
 
 @ Ante, p. 320. 
 
346 Article Thirty-first. 
 
 such as are to be found both in the Old and New 
 Testaments, in which prayers, praises, and thanks- 
 givings are called “ sacrifices ;” and in the same 
 sense, but in no other, they call the Eucharist a 
 * sacrifice :” how different this is from the Popish 
 belief of a propitiatory sacrifice in the mass, the 
 following extracts will shew. 
 
 Justin Martyr says: ‘“ Prayers and thanksgivings, 
 which are offered up by those that are worthy, are 
 the only perfect sacrifices and acceptable unto 
 God. For Christians have received commandment 
 to perform these only, in commemoration of their 
 own nourishment, both dry and wet, wherein also 
 mention is made of the suffering which God under- 
 went by God himself”.” The word here translated 
 “ thanksgiving,” includes the sacrament of the Eu- 
 charist, but surely Justin could never have spoken 
 thus of that sacrament if in it was offered up a 
 propitiatory sacrifice; nor could have classed it 
 with the sacrifices of prayer. 
 
 So Clemens of Alexandria says: 
 
 “ The sacrifices to God are prayer and praises, 
 and reading of the Scriptures, before meals ; and 
 psalms and hymns during meals, and at bed-time, 
 and in the night*.” 
 
 Tertullian, having remarked that the Israelites 
 were commanded to offer sacrifices only in the 
 promised land, proceeds: ‘The Holy Spirit after- 
 
 > Justin. Dial. cum Tryph. © Cuem. ALEX. Strom. vii. 
 e. 117. Kai etyal cai edyage- c. 7. p. 860. Ovoia 1H Ocd 
 thas bro tay akiay yiwvomevas, TE- ED Kal TE KUL GivOL, K. T. A. 
 
 : , 5 7 ~ 
 
 Aeias prover Kat evapertol elas TD 
 = , 
 
 Ocg bveias. 
 
Article Thirty-first. 347 
 
 wards declares by the Prophets, why it should 
 come to pass that sacrifices should be offered to 
 God in every land, and in every place, as he speaks 
 by Malachi, one of the twelve Prophets, ‘ Neither 
 will I accept an offering at your hand: For from 
 the rising of the sun even to the going down of the 
 same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles ; 
 and in every place incense shall be offered unto my 
 name, and a pure offering ; for my name shall be 
 great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts*’ 
 David also says in the Psalms: ‘ Give unto the 
 Lord, O ye kindreds of the people*®: without 
 doubt because the preaching of the Apostles would 
 go out into all the earth, ‘Give unto the Lord 
 glory and strength, give unto the Lord the glory 
 due unto his name: bring an offering and come 
 into his courts.’ Because God was to be entreated 
 not with earthly, but with spiritual sacrifices, so we 
 read as it is written: ‘The sacrifices of God are a 
 broken spirit’: and in another place: ‘ Offer unto 
 God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto 
 the Most High*. Thus therefore the spiritual 
 offerings of praise are shewn to be sacrifices, and a 
 contrite heart is declared to be a sacrifice accept- 
 able to God. In the same way therefore as carnal 
 sacrifices are understood to be rejected, of which 
 Isaiah speaks, when he says, ‘ To what purpose is 
 the multitude of your sacrifices unto me"? so spi- 
 ritual sacrifices are declared to be accepted, as the 
 
 Malachi, i. 10, 11. & Ibid, |. 14. 
 SOPs.sxcvi. 75 G. h Tsaiah, i. 11. 
 
 EThids lis 17 
 
348 Article Thirty-first. 
 
 Prophets proclaim : ‘ Bring no more vain oblations, 
 incense is an abomination unto me’’*.” Could 
 Tertullian have used such language as this, if he 
 had considered the Eucharist to be a propitiatory 
 sacrifice ? 
 
 Cyprian says: “ We celebrate the resurrection 
 of our Lord early in the morning. And because 
 we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices 
 (for the passion of the Lord is the sacrifice which 
 we offer,) we ought to do nothing else but what he 
 did *.” 
 
 I have selected this passage from Cyprian be- 
 cause Pamelius has made use of it in support of 
 the Romish doctrine condemned in this Article. 
 But it is very clear that when Cyprian says, “the 
 passion of the Lord, is the sacrifice which we of- 
 fer,” he is speaking of a mystical passion, and a 
 spiritual sacrifice; that this is so, is obvious from the 
 preceding words “‘ we make mention of his passion,” 
 that is, in the action, we should not mention the 
 reality, when the reality itself was being acted; we 
 should (as we do) when the figure only is acted. 
 
 “ What then? do we not offer every day? we 
 do offer; but doing it in remembrance of his 
 death—this is done in remembrance of what was 
 then done; for he says, ‘ Do this in remembrance 
 
 i Tbid, 13. 
 
 k TERTULL. adv. Judaos. 
 c.5. Sic itaque sacrificia spi- 
 ritalia laudis designantur, et 
 cor contribulatum acceptabile 
 sacrificium Deo demonstratur. 
 
 ' Cyprian. Ep. lxiii. ad Ce- 
 
 cilium. s. 12. —et quia pas- 
 sionis ejus mentionem in sacri- 
 ficiis omnibus facimus, (passio 
 est enim Domini, sacrificium 
 quod offerimus), nihil aliud 
 quam quod ille fecit, facere 
 debemus. 
 
Article Thirty-first. 349 
 
 of me! We do not offer another sacrifice, as the 
 chief priest of old, but always the same ; or rather 
 make a resemblance of Christ’s sacrifice ™.” 
 
 In what way Chrysostom applied the term 
 “ sacrifice,” may be seen by the following passage : 
 ‘‘How can the body be made a sacrifice? Let 
 the eye behold nothing evil, and it is made a sacri- 
 fice. Let the tongue utter nothing that is base, 
 and it is made an offering. Let the hand do 
 nothing that is unlawful, and it is made a whole 
 burnt offering ®.” 
 
 Augustine speaks home to the point: ‘“ We 
 often speak in this way, as to say when Good- 
 Friday is near at hand, ‘ to-morrow or the next day 
 is our Lord’s passion,’ although he suffered so 
 many years back, and that passion was never suf- 
 fered but once. Likewise on Easter-day we say, 
 ‘ This day our Lord rose from death ;’ although so 
 many years have passed since he rose. Why then 
 does no one reprove us as liars, when we speak in 
 this way, but because we call these days so, by a 
 similitude of those days wherein these things were 
 really done? So that it is called that day, which 
 is not the very day, but by the revolution of time 
 it corresponds with that day; and that is said to 
 
 ™ Curysost. in Ep, ad Heb, 
 ce. x. Hom. xvii. ed. Bened. tom. 
 xii. p- 168, 9. TT) civ; nae 
 kal! Exdorny npépay ob mpocpépope ; 
 Tpocpepopey piv, aX dvapynow 
 Towovpevor TOU Oavarov abrow 
 TOUTO £i¢ dvapyynow yiverac TOU Tore 
 YEvopuevov’ Touro yap motztré, pnow, 
 kK. TA. obk GAAHY Ovaiay, KaOarrep 
 
 
 
 6 dpxtepede Tore, NAG THY abr dei 
 Towvpev’ padoy d& avapynow ép- 
 yalope0a Ouciac. 
 
 " Idem, in Ep. ad Rom. 
 Hom. xx. p. init. Td dy yé- 
 voiro TO o@pa, Oucia ; Mndéy d¢0ad- 
 Hog movnpdy BreréTw, Kai yéyove 
 Quota, kK. TX. 
 
350 Article Thirty-first. 
 be done on that day on account of the celebration 
 of the sacrament, which thing is not done on that 
 day, but was done a long time back. Was not 
 Christ once offered in his very self? And yet ina 
 sacrament, not only on every solemn feast of 
 Easter, but every day, he is offered to the people ; 
 so that he doth not lie, who, being asked, shall 
 answer, that he is offered. For if sacraments had 
 not some similitude of those things whereof they 
 are sacraments, they could not be sacraments at 
 all. But from this similitude they commonly have 
 the name of the things themselves. Therefore as 
 after a certain manner, the sacrament of Christ’s 
 body is Christ’s body, the sacrament of Christ’s 
 blood is Christ’s blood, so the sacrament of faith is 
 faith. The sacrament therefore of so great a 
 thing is called only by the name of the thing 
 itselfies: 
 
 And again he says: “ That which men call a 
 sacrifice, is a sign of the true sacrifice ”.” 
 
 “Before the coming of Christ the flesh and 
 
 ° August. ad Bonifac.tom. enim sacramenta quandam si- 
 
 ii. p. 267. Szpe ita loquimur, 
 ut Pascha propinquante dica- 
 mus, crastinam vel perendinam 
 Domini passionem, cum ille 
 ante tam multos annos passus 
 sit, nec omnino nisi semel illa 
 passio facta sit—Nonne semel 
 immolatus est Christus in se 
 ipso? et tamen in sacramento 
 non solum per omnes Pasche 
 solemnitates, sed omni die po- 
 pulis immolatur, nec utique 
 mentitur, qui interrogatus re- 
 sponderit eum immolari. Si 
 
 militudinem earum rerum qua- 
 rum sacramenta sunt, non ha- 
 berent, omnino sacramenta non 
 essent. Ex hac autem simili- 
 tudine plerumque etiam ipsa- 
 rum rerum nomina accipiunt.— 
 Sacramentum ergo tante rei 
 non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo 
 nuncupavit. 
 
 P Idem, de Civitate Dei, 1. 
 x.c. 5. Tllud quod ab homi- 
 nibus appellatur  sacrificium, 
 signum est veri sacrificii. 
 
Article Thirty-first. 551 
 
 blood of this sacrifice was praised in a similitude 
 by victims, in the passion of Christ it was offered 
 in the truth itself; after the ascension of Christ it 
 is celebrated by a commemorative sacrament ‘. 
 
 ARTICLE XXXII. 
 Of the Marriage of Priests. 
 
 ** Bisnors, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by 
 ** God’s law either to vow the estate of a single life, or to 
 ‘abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, 
 ‘as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own 
 ‘‘ discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better 
 ‘to godliness.” 
 
 Little need be said in support of this Article : 
 the more ingenuous writers of the Roman Church, 
 admit that the clergy were not forbidden to marry 
 in the primitive Church, but they contend that it is 
 a matter of discipline, and may be enforced, if the 
 times require it. 
 
 To pass over the fact that the ancient writers 
 agree in saying that most of the Apostles were 
 married; we find that married bishops, presby- 
 
 4 Idem, ad Faust, |. xx.c. cramentum memorize celebra- 
 21. de Sacrificio Christi. — tur. 
 post ascensum Christi per Sa- 
 
352 Article Thirty-second. 
 
 ters, and deacons, are spoken of from the earliest 
 times, without any suggestion being made that the 
 marriage state was unbecoming their profession 
 and order. 
 
 Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, 
 speaking of Valens, who had been a presbyter 
 amongst them, and was then accused of heresy, 
 says: “Iam exceedingly sorry both for him, and 
 for his wife, to whom God grant a true re- 
 pentance *.” 
 
 In the works of Cyprian several instances of 
 married presbyters are mentioned. “ Felix,” he 
 says, “‘a very near neighbour of mine, (and whom I 
 knew very intimately,) who served in the presby- 
 tery under Decimus, and Victoria his wife, and 
 Lucius, all of the faithful, have been banished and 
 have left their property, which is now in the hands 
 of the officers of the revenue ”.” 
 
 “ Know that we are admonished and instructed 
 by the divine pleasure, that Numidicus the presby- 
 ter should be enrolled in the number of the Car- 
 thaginian presbytery, and should sit in convocation 
 with us, having distinguished himself by the glo- 
 rious splendour of his confession, and exalted 
 himself by the excellency of his virtue and his 
 faith ; for by his exhortations he sent before him- 
 self a great number of martyrs to be put to death 
 by stoning and by fire: and joyfully beheld his 
 
 ap. Cypr. Ep. xix. Felix, qui 
 
 a Porycarp. ad Philip. s. 
 presbyterium subministrabat 
 
 11. Valde ergo, fratres, con- 
 
 tristor pro illo et pro conjuge 
 ejus. 
 >» CaLtponi ad Cyprianum, 
 
 
 
 sub Decimo--et Victoria conjux 
 ejus. 
 
 
 
Article Thirty-second. 353 
 
 wife, clinging to his side, burnt, or rather I should 
 say preserved, with the rest. He himself half- 
 burnt and covered with stones, and left for dead, 
 (when his daughter, a little while after, anxiously 
 and piously, sought for the body of her father,) 
 was found almost lifeless, but was drawn out, and 
 restored to life, unwillingly leaving his companions 
 whom he had sent before him °.” 
 
 Eusebius also makes mention of bishops who 
 were married, and had children, “‘ There was a 
 certain Cheremon, a very old man, bishop of the 
 city of Nilus; he flying together with his wife, 
 to the Arabian mountain, never returned from 
 thence*.” 
 
 In another place he is giving an account of the 
 many Christians who were exposed to the most 
 cruel torments on account of their religion, and 
 says, that amongst these was “ Phileas, bishop of 
 the Church of Thmuis; a man who had passed 
 through the public offices and services in his own 
 country with distinction—these, when multitudes 
 of their kindred and friends, and besides magis- 
 trates of consideration, entreated them, nay even 
 when the judge himself exhorted them, to take 
 pity on themselves, and to spare their wives and 
 children, could by no means be induced to deny 
 the name of Christ °.” 
 
 © Cyprian. Ep. xxxv.—Nu- 4 Euses. |. vi. c. 42.—sctro. 
 midicus presbyter—quiuxorem ig ra ’ApaPuoy bp0g da TH cvpPiy 
 adherentem lateri suo, concre- éavrot poyoy, vik emavennrvbey. 
 
 matam simul cum ceteris, (vel € Idem, 1. viii. c, 9. iréaus 
 conservatam magis dixerim) re rij¢ Opovirdyv iecdynoiac twioxoroc 
 letus aspexit.— —Tapakadovyroc, woe dy abray 
 
 A a 
 
354 Article Thirty-second. 
 
 He also observes, that ‘ Pinytus, bishop of 
 Gnossus in Crete, was for imposing the law of 
 celibacy on his brethren ; but Dionysius, bishop of 
 Corinth, wrote to him, that he should consider the 
 weakness of men, and not impose that heavy 
 burden upon them *.” 
 
 The above proofs are amply sufficient, without 
 noticing what took place at the council of Nice, 
 though none but those “ who will not hear” can 
 doubt the accuracy of the accounts, which the 
 historians Socrates and Sozomen have left us. 
 
 ARTICLE XXXII. 
 
 Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be 
 avoided, 
 
 “‘TuHaTt person, which by open denunciation of the 
 * Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, 
 ‘‘and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole 
 ‘multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican, 
 ‘until he be openly reconciled by Penance, and received 
 ‘into the Church by a Judge that hath authority 
 **thereunto.” 
 
 oixroy AaGBouev, Gedw Te Taidwy Kai —py Bapd goprioy émavayKec 7d 
 yuvakGy Tomoowro, K. TA. mepi ayvetag roic aéedpotc émurt- 
 
 £ Idem, 1. iv. c. 23. p. 186.  @éva.— 
 
Article Thirty-third. 355 
 
 This Article, by implication at least, asserts the 
 right of any particular Church to excommunicate 
 its offending members: and then points out to 
 “the faithful” how they ought to regard such ex- 
 communicate persons. Almost all the reformed 
 Churches asserted this power of excommunication ; 
 and indeed it is obvious that no society can exist 
 for any length of time without the power of 
 punishing its disobedient members. However, 
 though the principle is admitted by all, it is seldom 
 put in practice by any: in the Roman Church 
 their sacrament of penance has nearly destroyed 
 public discipline ; and the facility with which 
 ejected members of our own Catholic Church can 
 gain admittance into the congregations of sectaries, 
 has in a great measure tended to destroy the 
 terrors of Church censures. And this state of 
 things will probably continue so long as the pre- 
 sent lamentable indifference to that article of our 
 Apostolic creed, wherein a belief is expressed in 
 “ one Catholic and Apostolic Church,” shall prevail. 
 
 In the primitive Churches such a contempt for 
 ecclesiastical punishment could seldom be met 
 with, except in the case of obstinate heretics, who 
 paid no regard to Church communion; for when a 
 member was expelled from any Church by that 
 sentence, called the greater Excommunication, 
 notice was usually given to other Churches, who 
 assisted in making the sentence effectual by re- 
 fusing the privileges and benefits of communion to 
 the excommunicated party. 
 
 It would not be possible in the compass of a few 
 
 Aa2 
 
356 Article Thirty-third. 
 
 pages to give a satisfactory account of the disci- 
 pline observed throughout the primitive Churches. 
 The subject is treated by Bingham at considerable 
 length. It must suffice in this place to quote a 
 section from his work, and to add a few passages 
 from the Fathers in support of the present 
 Article. 
 
 The following is a succinct statement of the 
 means and objects of primitive discipline. “ The 
 discipline of the Church consisted in a power to 
 deprive men of all the benefits and privileges of 
 baptism, by turning them out of the society and 
 communion of the Church, in which these privi- 
 leges were only to be enjoyed; such as joining in 
 public prayer, and receiving the eucharist, and the 
 other acts of divine worship: and sometimes they 
 were wholly forbidden to enter the Church, so 
 much as to hear the Scriptures read, or hear a 
 sermon preached, till they shewed some signs of 
 relenting; and every one shunned and avoided 
 them in common conversation, partly to establish 
 the Church’s censures and proceedings against 
 them, and partly to make them ashamed, and 
 and partly to secure themselves from the danger 
 of contagion and infection *.” 
 
 « They” (heretics, of whom he had been before 
 speaking) “abstain from the eucharist and from 
 the public offices”; because they confess not the 
 
 2 Brneu. B. xvi. c. ii. s. 2. various renderings, which are 
 
 > T have translated rpocevy7j¢ noticed in Coteler’s edition of 
 “public offices” according to the Apostolic Fathers. 
 Archbishop Wake. There are 
 
Article Thirty-third. 357 
 
 eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the 
 Father of his goodness raised again from the dead. 
 They then, who contradict the gift of God, die in 
 their disputes. But much better would it be for 
 them to receive it, that they might also rise again. 
 It therefore becomes you to abstain from such 
 persons, and not to speak of them, neither in 
 private, nor in public. But to attend to the 
 Prophets, and especially to the Gospel, in which 
 the passion is manifested unto us, and the resur- 
 rection perfected. But flee all divisions as the 
 beginning of evils °.” 
 
 Cyprian in a letter to Cornelius enters at some 
 length into the subject of excommunication; a 
 few extracts will serve to illustrate the whole of 
 this Article. Felicissimus, who was an _ inferior 
 officer of the Church in Africa, was excommuni- 
 cated by Cyprian for heresy, schism, fraud, and 
 other crimes ; this sentence it will appear was acted 
 upon generally in other Churches. The letter 
 begins thus ; 
 
 “T have read your letter, my dearest brother,— 
 in which you inform me that Felicissimus, an 
 enemy of Christ, (not lately, but long since inter- 
 dicted for very many and grave crimes, and who 
 was condemned not only by my sentence, but by 
 that of many of my brother bishops,) has been re- 
 jected by you, and, when he came supported by a 
 throng and faction of desperate persons, was driven 
 
 © IenatT. ad Smyrn. s.7.—  rowtrwy, kai pyre Kar’ idiay TEpE 
 myerov ovv toriv antyecOar roy avTwy dadsiy, pyre Kowy.— 
 
358 Article Thirty-third. 
 by you from the Church with that decisive vigour, 
 with which it becomes bishops to act *.” Cyprian 
 then enters at large on the necessity of strictly up- 
 holding ecclesiastical discipline, and presently con- 
 tinues: “As far as concerns us, it is a duty of 
 conscience for us to take care, that no one perish 
 out of the Church by any fault of ours: but if any 
 shall willingly and of his own criminal obduracy 
 perish, and will not do penance and return to the 
 Church, we shall be blameless in the day of judg- 
 ment, who have consulted for their health; they 
 only will remain subject to punishment, who would 
 not be healed by our wholesome counsel *.” 
 Shortly afterwards follows a passage, which is 
 too exactly descriptive of our own times, and which 
 has led to the present lamentable neglect of eccle- 
 slastical discipline: ‘At a full council lately holden, 
 we not only agreed in common, but decreed under 
 the threat of punishment, that no one should has- 
 tily grant reconciliation to those that have not 
 done penance ; but they, guilty of sacrilege against 
 God, and hurried on by impious fury against the 
 priests of God, withdrawing from the Church, and 
 raising their parricidal arms against her, (that they 
 
 4 Cypgiuan. Ep. lv. ad 
 
 factione desperatorum, vigore 
 Cornelium, s. 1. Legi literas 
 
 pleno, quo Episcopos agere 
 
 tuas—quibus significasti Feli- 
 cissimnm hostem Christi, non 
 novum, sed jam pridem ob 
 crimina sua plurima et gravis- 
 sima abstentum, et non tantum 
 mea, sed plurimorum coepisco- 
 porum sententia condemnatum, 
 rejectum a te illic esse, et cum 
 venisset stipatus caterva et 
 
 oportet, pulsum de Ecclesia 
 esse. 
 
 © Idem, ibid. s. 9.—si autem 
 quis ultro et crimine suo peri- 
 erit, et poenitentiam agere, 
 atque ad Ecclesiam  redire 
 noluerit, nos in die judicii in- 
 culpates futuros.— 
 
Article Thirty-third. 359 
 
 may consummate their work by the malice of the 
 devil,) strive that the divine clemency may not 
 cure the wounded in his Church; by deceitful lies 
 they destroy the penitence of the wretched sinners, 
 so that an angry God may not be appeased, nor 
 one, who before was ashamed or feared to be a 
 Christian, may afterwards seek Christ as his Lord, 
 nor he, who had withdrawn from the Church, re- 
 turn to the Church. Pains are taken that crimes 
 may not be atoned by righteous satisfaction and 
 weeping, that wounds may not be washed away by 
 tears. True peace is supplanted by a false and 
 lying peace, the wholesome bosom of the mother is 
 shut out by the interference of a stepmother, that 
 weeping and groaning may not be heard from the 
 breast and lips of the lapsed *”—-——“ For the rest, 
 let our most beloved brethren resolutely decline 
 and avoid their words and conversation, whose 
 ‘word will eat as doth a canker®;’ as the Apostle 
 says, ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners?.’ 
 And again, ‘A man that is an heretic, after the 
 first and second admonition reject; knowing that 
 he, that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being 
 condemned of himself.’ *” 
 
 He concludes the letter as follows : 
 
 “Our exceeding solicitude or charity persuaded 
 
 £ Idem, ibid, s. 13. Con- 
 cilio frequenter acto, non con- 
 sensione tantum nostra, sed et 
 comminatione decrevimus, ut 
 penitentiam non  agentibus 
 
 Tits i, 10: 
 
 K Cyprian. Ep. lv. ad Cor- 
 nelium. s. 21. Declinent au- 
 tem de cetero fortiter, et evi- 
 tent dilectissimi fratres nostri 
 
 nemo temeré pacem daret, etc. 
 B2eaiim: a1, 07. 
 h } Cor. xv. 33. 
 
 verba et colloquia eorum, quo- 
 rum sermo ut cancer serpit, etc. 
 
360 Article Thirty-third. 
 
 us to write these things to you, that we should 
 have no intercourse with such, mix in no society 
 or converse with the wicked, but should be sepa- 
 rated from them, so long as they are banished from 
 the Church, because it is written, ‘ But if he ne- 
 glect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as 
 an heathen man and a publican’ And the blessed 
 Apostle not only admonishes, but commands us to 
 withdraw from such, ‘ We command you, he says, 
 ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
 withdraw yourselves from every brother that walk- 
 eth disorderly, and not after the tradition which he 
 received from us™.’ There can be no fellowship 
 between faith and perfidy; he that is not with 
 Christ, that is the adversary of Christ, that is an 
 enemy to his unity and peace, cannot be joined 
 with us. If they come with prayers and satisfac- 
 tion, let them be heard: if they heap up curses 
 and threats against us, let them be rejected ®.” 
 
 To the above decisive testimony of Cyprian, a 
 few short extracts from later authors may be 
 added : 
 
 Basil writes to Athanasius concerning a certain 
 governor of Libya, who appears to have been guilty 
 of some grievous sin; ‘‘ It was made known to our 
 Church from your Holiness’s letter, and all will 
 
 1 Matt. xviii. 17. 
 
 m 2 Thess. iii. 6. 
 
 n Cyprian. Ep. ly. ad Cor- 
 nelium.s. 22. —ut nulla cum 
 talibus commercia copulentur, 
 nulla cum malis convivia, vel 
 colloquia misceantur, simusque 
 
 ab eis tam separati, quam sunt 
 illi ab Ecclesia profugi, quia 
 scriptum est, etc.—Si cum pre- 
 cibus et satisfactionibus veniunt 
 audiantar ; si maledicta et mi- 
 nas ingerunt, respuantur. 
 
Article Thirty-third. 361 
 
 consider him to be a person to be shunned, having 
 neither fire, nor water, nor roof in common with 
 him; if by any means those who are so wicked may 
 be benefited by a common and unanimous condem- 
 nation °.” 
 
 Jerome and Augustine compare expulsion from 
 the Church to Adam’s being driven out of para- 
 dise : 
 
 «They have transgressed the covenant of God 
 in the Church, as Adam transgressed in paradise : 
 and shew themselves followers of their first parent, 
 that, as he was cast out of paradise, so they may 
 be cast out of the Church ?.” 
 
 “© He was to be made an alien, as one excommu- 
 nicated. As also in our paradise, that is, the 
 Church, men are by ecclesiastical discipline re- 
 moved from the visible mysteries of the altar %.” 
 
 And so highly did Augustine esteem of ecclesi- 
 astical discipline, that, though the Catholic Church 
 held no communion with Donatists, yet he would 
 not receive one who had been excommunicated by 
 a Donatist bishop, without his first undergoing that 
 penitential discipline, which he would have been 
 obliged to, had he continued amongst them: 
 
 “T observe this rule, that when any one amongst 
 
 ° Basix, Ep. Ixi. (al. xlvii.) 4 Aueust. de Genesi ad Li- 
 
 ad Athanas. —xa} amor oomasov 
 airoy mdvTEs nYyNTovTAL, Wy TUpos, 
 pen Wares, wy oKemNS adTO KoWo- 
 vouyTes. 
 
 P Hieron. Com. in Hoseam. 
 c. vi. —ut quomodo ille de 
 Paradiso, sic et isti ejiciantur 
 de Ecclesia. 
 
 teram. |. ii. c. 40. Alienandus 
 erat, tanquam excommunicatus. 
 Sicut etiam in hoc Paradiso, id 
 est, Ecclesia, solent 4 sacra- 
 mentis altaris visibilibus homi- 
 nes disciplina ecclesiastica re~ 
 moveri. 
 
362 Article Thirty-third. 
 
 them who has been degraded according to their 
 discipline, wishes to come over to the Catholic 
 Church, he should be admitted under the same 
 penance, that they probably would have obliged 
 
 rr” 
 
 him to, had he chosen to remain amongst them *. 
 
 ARTICLE XXXIV. 
 
 Of the Traditions of the Church. 
 
 ** Ir 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 diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, 
 **so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. 
 ** Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly, 
 *‘and purposely doth openly break the traditions and 
 ** ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to 
 * the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by 
 ‘common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that 
 = others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth 
 ‘* against the common order of the Church, and hurteth 
 ‘* the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the con- 
 “* sciences of weak brethren. 
 
 * Idem, Ep. xxxv. (al. cxlix.)  voluerit, in humiliatione pceni- 
 ad Euseb. s. 3. Ego istum  tentie recipiatur, quo et ipsi 
 modum servo, ut quisquis apud eum forsitan cogerent, si apud 
 eos propter disciplinam degra- eos manere voluisset. 
 datus ad Catholicam transire 
 
Article Thirty-fourth. 363 
 
 ‘* 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.” 
 
 Tradition here means traditional practice of hu- 
 man institution. 
 
 This Article contains three propositions: First, 
 that traditions need not be in all places alike. The 
 object of this is evidently to justify the changes 
 made at the Reformation from the ceremonies and 
 rites of the Romish Church. 
 
 Secondly, Individual members of a Church ought 
 to conform to those ceremonies ordained by that 
 authority to which they are subject, so long as no- 
 thing be ordained against God’s word. This seems 
 to have been intended against the Puritans, who 
 would consent to no established forms, which were 
 not immediately derived from the word of God. 
 
 Thirdly, Each particular or National Church has 
 authority to ordain and change its own rites. 
 
 These propositions will not require separate con- 
 sideration, for if each particular Church has autho- 
 rity to ordain its own rites, the power of enforcing 
 their observance must follow. 
 
 Ignatius having urged unity and submission to 
 their bishop and other appointed ministers, says : 
 “Tf therefore the Lord did nothing without the Fa- 
 ther, being united to him, neither by himself, nor by 
 his Apostles; so neither do ye any thing without your 
 Bishop, and the presbyters. Nor endeavour that 
 any thing should appear reasonable to yourselves 
 apart ; but haying come together to the same place 
 
564 Article Thirty-fourth. 
 
 let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, 
 one hope, in charity, in joy unblameable. There is 
 one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better. All 
 then run together as to one temple of God, as to 
 one altar, as to one Jesus, who proceeded from one 
 Father, and who exists in one and is returned to 
 one *.” 
 
 Irenzeus in his account of the dispute between 
 Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, bishop 
 of Rome, concerning the observation of Easter, 
 says: “St. Polycarp being at Rome with Anice- 
 tus, and they having had some little controversy 
 with each other, about other things, presently com- 
 posed the difference, and shewed themselves also 
 to be no lovers of strife upon that particular head. 
 For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to de- 
 sist from observing Easter, according as he had 
 always observed it with St. John, the Disciple of 
 our Lord, and with the rest of the Apostles, with 
 whom he had been conversant ; nor could Polycarp 
 persuade Anicetus to observe it otherwise, than, as 
 he said, it was his duty to do, according to the 
 custom of the elders who were before him. This 
 being the case between them, they notwithstanding 
 communicated with each other, and Anicetus yielded. 
 to Polycarp the power of celebrating the Eucharist 
 in his church, as a mark of respect to him?.” 
 
 = 
 
 4 Tenat. ad Magnes. s. 7. pander rpdocete’—aan ext 7 avTS 
 “Qewep civ & Kupiog avev tov Ta- pia wooreuyy, pia énoss, Eis wots, 
 Tpog oveey exainze, WYSPEVOG BY, ei EATIG, K. To A. 
 oize BY abseil, ave Bid ry ’Amoc~ > IRE 2x Fragm. ex Euseb. 
 Tohey® GUTeS Be ueig Qvev vot = Hist. 1. v. c. 24. Wedrvxadpxav 
 
 5 
 i s ~ e€ , > As 
 By wperPurépey,  emsdnuncayres ty “Pauy exis “Avi~ 
 
Article Thirty-fourth. 
 
 365 
 
 In the third century it is well known that great 
 differences of opinion were entertained in several 
 very important points of discipline; such as the 
 re-baptizing of heretics, whether adulterers should 
 be re-admitted to the communion of the Church, 
 and as to the validity of clinic baptism: the last of 
 these only would perhaps come literally within the 
 description of rites or ceremonies, but all tend to 
 shew the independence of distinct Churches, and 
 the power of the bishop. Cyprian was in a con- 
 dition, if such a power had been recognised, to 
 have enforced uniformity in the African Churches, 
 where these questions were chiefly debated. 
 
 He was decidedly in favour of re-baptizing those 
 who had been baptized by heretics, yet he writes 
 to pope Stephen: 
 
 “We know that some are unwilling to lay aside 
 what they have once adopted, and that they do 
 not easily change their purpose, but preserving the 
 bond of peace and concord amongst their colleagues, 
 they retain some things peculiar to themselves, 
 which have once been practised amongst them ; 
 wherein we neither force any one, nor lay down a 
 law, since every bishop has the entire power of 
 following his own will in the government of his 
 Church, of which he must hereafter give an account 
 to the Lord *°.” 
 
 KATOU, Ka TEph GAKwY TiVBY auKpe 
 
 / \ > / Ly any Bes. 
 THKOVTES TOIG GAAHAaUG, EvOUS eipy- 
 vEeuTay, TEpi TovTov Tov KEaraiov 
 wn pireguotncayres éEavrovs, 
 
 © Cyprian. Ep. Ixxii. ad 
 Steph. s. 3. Scimus quosdam 
 
 
 
 quod semel imbiberint nolle de- 
 ponere, nec propositum suum 
 facile mutare, sed salvo inter 
 collegas pacis et concordi« vin- 
 culo, quadam propria, que 
 apud se semel sint usurpata, 
 
366 
 
 And at the opening of the great Council of 
 Carthage, which was assembled to consider this 
 very question, he says: 
 
 “Let us every one give our opinion on this 
 matter, judging no man, nor rejecting any from 
 our communion, that shall think differently. For 
 no one of us makes himself bishop of bishops, nor 
 compels his colleagues, by tyrannical terror, to a 
 necessity of complying; forasmuch as every bishop 
 according to the liberty and power that is granted 
 him, is free to act as he sees fit; and can no more 
 be judged by others, than he can judge them. 
 But let us all expect the judgment of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who only hath power both to invest 
 us with the government of his Church, and to 
 judge us for our actions *.” 
 
 Cyprian was in favour of the validity of clinic 
 baptism, yet he writes on this subjéct to Magnus: 
 
 “You have asked my opinion concerning those 
 who obtain the grace of God in infirmity and 
 languor, whether they are to be accounted com- 
 plete Christians, in that they are not washed, but 
 sprinkled only, with the saving water. In which 
 matter my backwardness and modesty prejudges 
 
 Article Thirty-fourth. 
 
 retinere: qua in re nec nos 
 vim cuiquam facimus aut legem 
 damus; cum habeat in Ecclesie 
 administratione voluntatis sue 
 arbitrium liberum unusquisque 
 prepositus, rationem actus sui 
 Domino redditurus. 
 
 4 Conc. Carthag. ap. CyPr. 
 s. 1]. Superest ut de hac ipsa 
 re singuli, quid sentiamus, pro- 
 
 feramus, neminem judicantes, 
 aut a jure communionisaliquem, 
 sidiversum senserit, amoventes. 
 quando habeat omnis Epis- 
 copus pro licentia libertatis et 
 potestatis suze arbitrium pro- 
 prium, tamque judicari ab alio 
 non possit, tam nec ipse potest 
 alterum judicare. 
 
 
 
Article Thirty-fourth. 367 
 
 no man, so that he should not hold what opinion 
 he thinks right, and act according to his opinion °.” 
 He then gives his own opinion in the affirmative ; 
 and at the conclusion of the letter, says, “I have 
 shewn you what my opinion is, but prescribe to no 
 man, so as to prevent each bishop from determining 
 according to his own conviction; of his actions he 
 must give an account to the Lord *.” 
 
 Every bishop too had liberty to form his own 
 liturgy, and several of these, differing in many 
 particulars from one another, have come down to 
 our time *. Gregory Nazianzen has observed of 
 Basil, “That, among other good services which he 
 did for the Church of Czsarea, whilst he was but 
 a presbyter in it, one was the composing of forms 
 of prayer, which, by the consent and authority of 
 his bishop, Eusebius, were used by the Church *.” 
 
 Jerome speaking of the different customs of 
 Churches in relation to the Saturday fast, and the 
 daily reception of the eucharist, lays down a 
 general rule respecting the latitude to be allowed 
 in Church ceremonies : 
 
 “T think right that you should be _ briefly 
 admonished, that ecclesiastical traditions, (espe- 
 
 © Cyprian. Ep. Ixxvi. ad 
 Magnum. s. 9. Qua in 
 parte nemini verecundia et mo- 
 destia nostra prejudicat, quo 
 minus unusquisque quod putat, 
 sentiat, et quod senserit, faciat. 
 
 f Idem, ibid, s. 12. Ostendi 
 quid nos quantum in nobis est 
 sentiamus, nemini przscriben- 
 tes, quo minus statuat quod 
 
 
 
 putat unusquisque przpositus 
 actus sui rationem Domino red- 
 diturus. 
 
 & See Paumer’s Disser- 
 tation on Primitive Liturgies. 
 
 » Gree. Naz. Orat. xx, in 
 Laud. Basil. p. 340.—etyayv 
 Siardberc, Kad edKooplas Tod Bywa- 
 toc—and see Binau. B. ii. c. 
 vi. s. 2. 
 
368 Article Thirty-fourth. 
 
 cially such as do not prejudice the faith) are to be 
 observed in such manner as they have been handed 
 down from our forefathers; nor is the custom of 
 one Church to be subverted by the contrary cus- 
 tom of another.—But every province may abound 
 in its own sense, and consider the rules of their 
 ancestors as laws of the Apostles *.” 
 
 Augustine says : 
 
 “In those things, concerning which holy Scrip- 
 ture has given no positive determination, the 
 custom of the people of God, or the rules of our 
 forefathers, are to be taken for laws. For if we 
 will dispute about such matters, and condemn the 
 custom of one Church by the custom of another, 
 endless strife will be the consequence ; which will 
 always be diligent enough to find out plausible 
 reasonings, when there are no certain arguments 
 to shew the truth:: great caution therefore should 
 be used, that in the tempest of contention, we 
 draw not a cloud over the serene brightness of 
 charity *.” 
 
 And presently afterwards he adds : 
 
 “‘ Such contention is endless, engendering strifes, 
 and not putting an end to disputes. Let there be 
 
 i Hieron. Ep. xxviii. ad im suo sensu, et precepta 
 Lucianum Beticum. Ego majorum leges apostolicas ar- 
 
 illud te breviter admonendum 
 puto, traditiones ecclesiasticas 
 (presertim que fidei non offi- 
 ciant) ita observandas, ut a 
 majoribus tradite sint: nec 
 aliorum consuetudinem aliorum 
 contrario more subverti—Sed 
 unaqueque provincia abundet 
 
 bitretur. 
 
 k Aucust. Ep. xxxvi. (al. 
 Ixxxvi.) ad Casulan, s. 2. 
 In his enim rebus de quibus 
 nihil certi statuit Scriptura 
 divina, mos populi Dei, vel 
 instituta majorum pro lege 
 tenenda sunt. 
 
 
 
Article Thirty-fourth. 369 
 therefore one faith of the universal Church, where- 
 ever it is spread, as intrinsical to the members of 
 the body, although the unity of the faith be kept 
 with some different observations, whereby the 
 truth of the faith is in no way impaired. For all 
 the beauty of the king’s daughter is within, but 
 those observances which are variously celebrated, 
 are understood to be only in her outward clothing. 
 Whence she is said to be clothed in golden fringes 
 wrought about with divers colours’. But let that 
 clothing be so distinguished by different obser- 
 vances, that she herself be not destroyed by ad- 
 verse contentions about them™.” 
 
 And in the same Epistle, in answer to Casulanus, 
 who was perplexed by the different practice of dif- 
 ferent Churches, with respect to the Saturday-fast, 
 some observing it as a fast, others as a festival, to 
 satisfy his scruples, he says ; 
 
 “It seems to me that you should follow their 
 custom, to whom the government of particular 
 congregations has been given in charge. If there- 
 fore you will take my advice; do not resist your 
 bishop in this matter, but what he does, do you 
 follow without doubt or scruple ".” 
 
 1 Ps. xlv, 10. 
 
 m Idem, ibid. Ep. Ixxxvi. 
 s. 22. Interminabilis est ista 
 contentio, generans lites, non 
 finiens questiones.— 
 
 mn Tdem, ibid. s. 32. Mos 
 
 eorum mihi sequendus videtur, 
 
 quibus eorum populorum con- 
 gregatio regenda commissa est. 
 (uapropter si concilio meo— 
 libenter acquiescis ; Episcopo 
 tuo in hac re noli resistere, et 
 quod facit ipse, sine ullo scru- 
 pulo vel disceptatione sectare. 
 
 Bb 
 
ARTICLE XXXV. 
 
 Of the Homilies. 
 
 ‘¢ Tyr second Book of Homilies, the several titles where- 
 ‘‘of we have joined under this Article, doth contain a 
 “‘godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these 
 “times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which 
 “‘were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and 
 ‘‘ therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the 
 ‘Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be 
 ‘‘ understanded of the People. 
 
 Of the Names of the Homilies. 
 
 1. Of the right use of the Church. 
 2, Against peril of Idolatry. 
 “3. Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches. 
 “©4, Of Good Works, first of Fasting. 
 ‘©5, Against Gluttony and Drunkenness. 
 “6. Against excess of Apparel. 
 “°7, Of Prayer. 
 ** 8. Of the place and time of Prayer. 
 “9, That common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be 
 “ministered in a known tongue. 
 ‘10. Of the reverend estimation of God’s Word. 
 “11. Of Alms-doing. 
 “12. Of the Nativity of Christ. 
 *¢ 13. Of the Passion of Christ. 
 “14, Of the Resurrection of Christ. 
 
Article Thirty-fifth. 371 
 
 15. Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body 
 ‘and Blood of Christ. 
 
 “16. Of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, 
 
 “17. For the Rogation-days. 
 
 “18. Of the state of Matrimony. 
 
 “19. Of Repentance. 
 
 **20. Against Idleness. 
 
 “21, Against Rebellion.” 
 
 Nothing can be said by way of proof under this 
 Article. It is well known that the two Books of 
 Homilies were composed and required to be read 
 in Churches, partly in order to supply the want of 
 fit preachers throughout the kingdom, and partly 
 to ensure the explanation of those fundamental 
 doctrines of Christianity, which were then being 
 cleared from the mists that the Church of Rome 
 had thrown around them. 
 
 Bishop Burnet says, ‘‘ Since there are so many 
 of the Homilies that charge the Church of Rome 
 with idolatry, and that from so many different 
 topics, no man who thinks that Church is not 
 guilty of idolatry, can with a good conscience sub- 
 scribe this Article, “That the Homilies contain a 
 good and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for 
 these times.’” It may be presumptuous to differ 
 from so high an authority ; but in the first place it 
 appears to me that a subscriber to this Article, is 
 not bound to express his assent to every word and 
 every argument made use of in each Homily ; he 
 declares generally that they contain a godly and 
 wholesome doctrine, with this qualification, that 
 they were necessary “ for those times,” to which it 
 
 Bb 2 
 
372 Article Thirty-fifth. 
 
 is admitted on all hands the expression “for these 
 times” must in fair construction be limited. 
 
 But, to put the question in a different light—what 
 is here meant by the word doctrine? If we give 
 it its modern and more ordinary meaning, of 
 “principles or verities,” the expression cannot (in 
 the instance specified by Bishop Burnet) apply to 
 the Church of Rome; it would be a matter of doc- 
 trine, that all idolatry is forbidden of God and ex- 
 ceeding sinful; but that the Church of Rome is, 
 or has been, guilty of that sin, is a matter of fact 
 or history; which brings us to the other meaning 
 of the word “doctrine” which is “ teaching :” so 
 that a modern subscriber to this Article asserts 
 merely, that it was wholesome and necessary to be 
 taught in those times that the Church of Rome 
 was guilty of idolatry ; if this be so, it is difficult 
 to see how a humble-minded member of our 
 Church can hesitate to express his assent, without 
 requiring any very distinct historical proof of the 
 truth of the fact. He would be bound to admit 
 that the ancient Bishops of our Church had been 
 competent judges of the godliness, wholesomeness, 
 and necessity of teaching what is contained in the 
 Homilies more particularly referred to. 
 
 Thus much having been said as to the meaning 
 of the Article before us, a few words may be 
 added, with regard to the primitive practice, under 
 similar circumstances. 
 
 It is certain that in the Eastern Churches it was 
 usual for presbyters to preach, as is evident from 
 those celebrated Homilies of Chrysostom delivered 
 
Article Thirty-fifth. 373 
 by him at Antioch, and from his having preached 
 them, while he was yet a presbyter, without the 
 novelty of the practice being remarked by contem- 
 porary writers. In the African Churches presby- 
 ters were not permitted to preach in the presence 
 of their bishops until the time of Augustine, when 
 his bishop, Valerius, gave him authority to preach 
 before him *. 
 
 The practice was at first objected to by other 
 bishops, but being persevered in by Valerius, and 
 proving beneficial, it gradually became general. 
 
 Much less usual was it for deacons to preach at 
 all, though they might do so with the license and 
 authority of their bishops”. 
 
 Where those who had authority to preach, had 
 not the talent to compose a discourse of their own, 
 it was by no means unusual for such to preach the 
 written sermons of others: this custom is spoken 
 of by Augustine as allowable, precisely in those 
 cases provided for by our two books of Homilies, 
 that is, in cases of necessity ; he says : 
 
 “There are some who have a good delivery, but 
 cannot compose a discourse of their own. But if 
 they take that which is eloquently and wisely writ- 
 ten by others, and commit it to memory, and preach 
 it to the people, (if they are authorized to preach,) 
 they are not to be found fault with °.” 
 
 * Possrp. Vit. Aucust.c. 5. mnuntient, excogitare non pos- 
 
 > See Bineu. B. ii. c. xx. sunt. Quod si ab aliis sumant 
 11—7. eloquenter sapienterque con- 
 © Auveust. de Doctrind  scriptum, memorieque com- 
 
 Christiand, |. iv. ec. 29. Sunt 
 sane quidam, qui bene pronun- 
 tiare possunt, quid autem pro- 
 
 mendent, utque ad populum 
 proferant, si eam personam ge- 
 rant, non improbe faciunt. 
 
ARTICLE XXXVI. 
 
 Of the Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. 
 
 ** Tue Book of Consecration of Archbishops 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 any thing that of itself is superstitious 
 ** and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated 
 ** or ordered according to the rites of that Book, since the 
 “second year of the forenamed king Edward unto this 
 ** time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered ac- 
 *‘ cording to the same rites; we decree all such to be 
 “‘ rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.” 
 
 Part of this Article is retrospective, why it was 
 so made need not now be explained; since by the 
 Act of Uniformity passed in the fourteenth year of 
 king Charles the second, it is enacted that all sub- 
 scriptions to this Article shall be taken to extend 
 and be applied to the book containing the form and 
 manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of 
 
 _bishops, priests, and deacons, now in use. 
 
 All that seems to be in this Article asserted, is, 
 that the ordinations of the Church of England are 
 valid: and this assertion involves two questions, 
 first, the right of the bishops of our Church to or- 
 
Article Thirty-sixth. 375 
 
 dain ; and secondly, the propriety of the manner of 
 ordaining used in our Church. 
 
 The first question, we willingly admit, mcludes 
 the necessity of an Apostolical succession, but the 
 fact, that in the Church of England that succession 
 has been preserved, need not now be shewn*. All 
 therefore that remains to be proved is, that there is 
 nothing in the manner of ordination observed 
 among us inconsistent with the practice of the 
 primitive Churches ; or affirmatively, that, in con- 
 ferring orders, every thing that is essential is re- 
 tained and observed. The fitness of the aspirant 
 to the office of the ministry being first ascertained, 
 the manner of ordaining is, as will be seen it an- 
 ciently was, by imposition of hands, and proper 
 prayers. The fitness and propriety of the prayers 
 used in our ordination services I do not think it 
 necessary now to vindicate; let those, who have 
 objections to make, satisfy their scruples by an 
 attentive perusal of that portion of the learned 
 work referred to in the last note, which treats of 
 our Ordination Services. 
 
 First, then, as to the Consecration of Bishops. 
 
 Three bishops at least are required to be present 
 at the consecration. 
 Herein the Church of England agrees with the 
 
 @ The Apostolic succession 
 of the Bishops of the Reformed 
 Church in England is clearly 
 and ably established in the 
 Rev. W. Pautmer’s Origines 
 Liturgica ; the whole work 
 
 cannot be too strongly recom- 
 mended to the perusal and oft 
 repeated perusal of the learned 
 members of our Apostolic 
 Church. 
 
376 Article Thirty-sixth. 
 
 primitive Churches. Cyprian mentions it as the 
 general practice of the Church in his time for all 
 the bishops of the same province to be present at 
 the consecration: 
 
 “Tt is observed amongst us, and generally 
 throughout all the provinces, that properly to 
 celebrate an ordination, all the neighbouring 
 bishops of the province meet together with the 
 people of the diocese, over whom the bishop is 
 ordained, and the bishop is chosen in the presence 
 of the people.” 
 
 By the fourth canon of the Council of Nice all 
 the bishops of the province were required to attend, 
 if they could conveniently be present; if not, then, 
 “in that case, three bishops shall be sufficient to 
 ordain, provided the metropolitan and the rest send 
 their consent in writing; but under three, the ca- 
 nons do not generally allow of*.” 
 
 The fourth Council of Carthage, A. D. 399, pro- 
 vides as follows; “‘ When a bishop is ordained, let 
 two bishops place and hold the book of the Gospels 
 over his head, and while one pronounces the bene- 
 diction over him, all the rest of the bishops who are 
 present, shall lay their hands upon his head *.” 
 
 > Cyprian. Ep. Ixvii. ad 
 Clorum in Hispan. s. 6. 
 (Quod apud nos quoque et feré 
 per provincias universas tene- 
 tur, ut ad ordinationes rite ce- 
 lebrandas, ad eam plebem cui 
 prepositus ordinatur, episcopi 
 ejusdem provinciz proximi qui- 
 que conveniant, et episcopus 
 deligatur plebe presente. 
 
 © Conc. Nic. Can, iv. 
 
 4 Conc. Carthag. iv. ec. 2. 
 Episcopus cum ordinatur, duo 
 Episcopi ponant et teneant 
 Evangeliorum codicem super 
 caput et verticem ejus, et uno 
 super eum fundente benedic- 
 tionem, reliqui omnes Episcopi, 
 qui adsunt, manibus suis caput 
 ejus tangant. 
 
Article Thirty-sixth. 377 
 
 The fitness of our prayers for the occasion being 
 taken for granted, the above extracts are sufficient 
 to shew, that in the consecration of bishops the 
 Church of England has adhered to the primitive 
 practice. 
 
 Secondly, as to the ordination of presbyters, or 
 priests. 
 
 The council of Carthage, quoted above, enjoins 
 as follows: “‘ When a presbyter is ordained, while 
 the bishop pronounces the benediction, and lays 
 his hand upon his head, all the presbyters, who are 
 present, shall lay their hands, by the bishop’s hand, 
 upon his head also’.” 
 
 And it may be added, the author of the Apostolic 
 Constitutions mentions prayer and imposition of 
 hands as all that is requisite for the ordination of a 
 presbyter, which exactly describes the practice of 
 the Church of England. 
 
 “When thou, O bishop, ordainest a presbyter, 
 do thou lay thy hand on his head, the presbytery 
 and also the deacons standing by thee ; and pray- 
 ing, say*:”—then follows the prayer at length. 
 
 And the same agreement will be found in what 
 we have lastly to speak of, the ordination of dea- 
 cons. 
 
 © Conc. Carthag. iv. c. 3. £ Constit. Apostol. 1. viii. ec. 
 Presbyter cum ordinatur, Epis- 16. WperBvregov xesporovdv, w 
 copo eum benedicente, et ma- ’Exioxore, thy yelon emi ths KEpa~ 
 
 num super caput ejus tenente, Ajo emiriBer adrag'—Kal ebyspevos, 
 etiam omnes presbyteri, qui A¢ye' 
 
 presentes sunt, manus suas 
 
 Juxta manum Episcopi super 
 
 caput illius teneant. 
 
378 Article Thirty-sixth. 
 
 “When a deacon is ordained, the bishop only, 
 who pronounces the benediction over him, shall 
 ay his hand upon his head; because he is not con- 
 secrated to the office of the priesthood, but to the 
 ministry, or inferior services of the Church®.” 
 
 To the above very imperfect illustration of the 
 manner of ordination used in the Church of Eng- 
 land, may be added a few passages on the subject 
 of ordination generally. 
 
 Chrysostom says: “For this reason in the 
 Church, at the ordination of priests, the Gospel of 
 Christ is laid upon the head, that he who is or- 
 dained may learn that he receives the true crown 
 of the Gospel; and that he may learn, that al- 
 though he is the head of all, yet he is to act under 
 these laws; and that ruling over all, he is himself 
 subject to the law”.” 
 
 And in another place: “This is ordination; 
 the hand of a man is laid upon him: but God 
 makes the whole effectual, and it is His hand which 
 touches the head of the person ordained, if only he 
 
 i.” 
 
 is ordained as he ought to be’. 
 
 & Conc. Carthag. iv. c. 4. 
 Diaconus quum ordinatur, solus 
 Episcopus, qui eum benedicit, 
 manum super caput  illius 
 ponat; quia non ad_sacerdo- 
 tium, sed ad ministerlum con- 
 secratur. 
 
 b Curysost. Hom. de Le- 
 gislatore, ed. Bened. tom. vi. 
 p- 410. Av robro ey 77 exKn- 
 cin éy Tals yerporoviass Tay sepewy 
 7 edaryyeruoy zou Xpiorov én Ke- 
 paris tibet as, iva abn 6 yerporo~ 
 
 : ” 5 >> nbiy) ox 
 yovuevos, oT! THY AAnUiyny TOU 
 ! ; 
 
 evayyeAion tTidpay AapPaver, Kal 
 iva aby, ei Kal mayvrey éots 
 KEQAAY, GAN bo TovTOVs mparre 
 Tos yoK0US, TaYTWY KpaToY, Kat 
 TH vow KpaTovpEVOC. 
 
 i Idem, Hom. xiv. in Acta 
 Tpost. ed. Bened. p. 114. 
 Aciro 4 xetporovia éeoriv® 7 xeIip 
 exixertas ToD ayOpec” To Oe may 6 
 @cis epyatera:, al 4 adrod yelp 
 éorw 1 axtopern THS KEpahys TH 
 HKErporovovpevov, ea, wo Cel, yerpo~ 
 TOVAT AL. 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 379 
 
 That of Jerome too is applicable, where he says: 
 “ Ordination of the clergy is completed not only 
 by prayer, but also the laying on of hands; least 
 a silent and secret prayer should ordain persons as 
 
 clergymen without their knowledge*.” 
 
 ARTICLE XXXVII. 
 
 Of the Ciwil Magistrates. 
 
 ‘Tne King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm 
 ‘of England, and other his dominions, unto whom the 
 *‘ chief government of all estates of this realm, whether 
 “‘ they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth apper- 
 ** tain; and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign 
 ** jurisdiction. 
 
 ** Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief 
 ** government, by which titles we understand the minds 
 ** of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to 
 ** our Princes the ministering either of God’s word, or of 
 **the Sacraments: the which thing the injunctions also 
 “lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly 
 ‘testify. But that only prerogative, which we see to 
 “have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy 
 “Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should 
 
 k Hieron. lib. xvi. in Esai. sed ad impositionem impletur 
 ce. 58. p. 265, Xeiporoviz, id mantis: ne scilicet vocis impre- 
 est, ordinatio clericorum non  catio clandestinaclericos ordinet 
 solum ad imprecationem vocis, nescientes. 
 
380 Article Thirty-seventh. 
 
 ‘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 England. 
 
 “The laws of the realm may punish Christian men 
 ‘* with death, for heinous and grievous offences. 
 
 ** It is lawful for Christian men, at the command of the 
 ** Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.” 
 
 The object of the first three clauses of this Ar- 
 ticle is to assert the King’s supremacy in all causes, 
 as well ecclesiastical as civil, within this realm ; 
 and to deny any jurisdiction in the pope. The 
 second clause is explanatory of the first, and was 
 inserted only to remove the scruples of those 
 “slanderous” folks, the Puritans ; and therefore need 
 not be further noticed in this place. 
 
 In illustrating this portion of the Article, a few 
 passages may be given to shew that even the 
 earliest Christians acknowledged the supreme au- 
 thority of the civil power; and that after the em- 
 perors became converts to Christianity they exer- 
 cised chief authority in ecclesiastical matters. It 
 may then be shewn that in the first four centuries 
 the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction was limited to his 
 own patriarchate. 
 
 The following passage from so early a martyr as 
 Polycarp strongly manifests the loyalty of the 
 Christians even in times of the severest persecution. 
 He was on the point of suffering martyrdom, and 
 offered to give the proconsul an account of the 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 381 
 
 Christian religion: “The proconsul said, ‘ Per- 
 suade the people,’ but Polycarp answered, ‘ To thee 
 I have thought right to give a reason of my faith, 
 for we are taught to pay all due honour, so as it 
 does not injure ourselves, to authorities and powers 
 ordained of God. But as for them (the people) I 
 esteem them not worthy, that I should give an ac- 
 count to them*.” 
 
 Tertullian in his book to Scapula, which was 
 written for the purpose of dissuading the governor 
 of Africa from continuing the persecution, which he 
 had set on foot against the Christians, urges as a 
 reason, that they pay entire obedience to the em- 
 peror ; “ A Christian is an enemy to no man, least 
 of all to the emperor; knowing that he is esta- 
 blished by his own God, he must needs love, re- 
 spect, and honour him, and wish his preservation, 
 with that of the whole Roman empire, as long as 
 the world shall last—We therefore reverence the 
 emperor, so far as it is lawful for us and expedient 
 to him, as a man who is next under God, and who 
 has received from God whatever authority he hath, 
 and as inferior to God only.—We offer sacrifices, 
 therefore, for the safety of the emperor, but to our 
 God and his; and in the way that God hath com- 
 manded us, by prayers only”.” 
 
 * Epist. Eccl. Smyrn. de  Colimus ergo et imperatorem 
 Martyr. S. Polycarpi, s. 10. sic, quomodo et nobis licet et 
 —ledbidaypeba yup apyais cai ipsi expedit, ut hominem a 
 eLovolass iro rod Occt tetrayyevais Deosecundum, et’ quicquid_est, 
 Tibny Kata th ToornKev, axove- a Deo consecutum, solo Deo 
 pew— minorem— 
 
 > TERTULL. ad Scap. c. 2. 
 
382 Article Thirty-seventh. 
 
 And in his Apology he says : 
 
 “We invoke for the safety of the emperor, the 
 eternal, the true, the living God; whom the em- 
 perors themselves had rather should be propitious 
 to them above all other gods. They know who 
 gave them their empire; they know who made 
 them be men; who gave them life. They feel 
 that he alone is God, in whose power only they 
 are, from whom they are second, after whom they 
 are first, before all and above all gods.—He (the 
 emperor) is therefore great, because he is inferior 
 to God. For he is of Him, of whom are both the 
 heavens and all created things. Thence he is em- 
 peror, whence he is also man, before he was em- 
 peror; thence is his power; thence also his breath 
 is derived. There we Christians looking up, with 
 our hands stretched forth, because they are free 
 from guilt; with heads uncovered, because we are 
 not ashamed; last of all without a monitor, be- 
 cause we pray from our breast; continually, and 
 with one accord, offer up our prayers for all the 
 emperors, that they may have a long life, a secure 
 reign, a safe household, valiant soldiers, a faithful 
 council, an upright people, a peaceable world, and, 
 in short, whatever a man, and a emperor, can de- 
 Bite 
 
 No stronger proof of the authority of princes in 
 ecclesiastical matters can reasonably be required, 
 than the fact clearly established in the twenty- 
 first Article, that by them general councils were 
 
 © Idem, Apol. c. 30. —a _ primi, ante omnes et super 
 quo sunt secundi, post quem omnes Deos— 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 383 
 
 summoned. These councils met for the sole pur- 
 pose of taking into their consideration matters re- 
 lating to the Catholic Church; on what more 
 solemn occasion could they be drawn together ? 
 and yet they came in obedience to the emperor's 
 mandate, and as I shall now shew, further ac- 
 knowledged his supremacy by petitioning him to 
 confirm and ratify their decrees. 
 
 The second general council, held at Constanti- 
 nople A. D. 381, we have seen, met at the com- 
 mand of the emperor Theodosius; and thus they 
 ask him to ratify their decrees: “ We have ap- 
 pointed certain canons for the good government of 
 Churches ; all of which we have subjoined to this 
 our letter. We therefore entreat of your clemency, 
 that the vote of the synod may be ratified by the 
 subscription of your piety, that as you have 
 honoured the Church by your letters of summons, 
 so you may also put your seal to the things that 
 are decreed *.” 
 
 Again, the bishops who met at the council of 
 Ephesus A. D. 431, thus write to the emperors 
 Theodosius and Valentinian: ‘We all fly to the 
 power of your piety, entreating you that the de- 
 crees against Nestorius and his party may be en- 
 forced ; and that the proceedings of those who 
 side with him may be null and void °.” 
 
 4 Conc. Constantinopol. in rév dofdvtwv imogpayicye ro 
 Canon. Tiguri editis, p. 36.— “ares lL. Epi 
 Ac6peOa roivuy Tic oie HpEodrnroc, ALE JRO Kata- 
 
 ypappare rig one eboeBeiac émiku- 
 pwbijvar Tijg cuvddov rHy Wigor, ” 
 WoTED TOIG THC KAHCEWS ypappact 
 THY éKkKAnoiay TeTipnKac, ovTwW Kai 
 
 Pevyonev amaytes em) Td Kparos 
 Ths twetepas evoeBeias, Seanevor 
 TH wey Kata Nectoolov merpay- 
 
 / ‘\ 
 eva, Kab 
 
 tev ta Nearogiov 
 
384 Article Thirty-seventh. 
 
 If the acknowledgement of the whole Church, 
 represented in a general council does not satisfy 
 the Romanists, there are abundant instances of 
 the same authority being exercised in provincial 
 councils. To instance that of Tyre, A. D. 335., 
 (with the validity of whose decrees we are not 
 now concerned,) the emperor Constantine writes 
 to the members assembled in council as follows: 
 “If any one, which however I do not suppose, 
 should attempt even now to reject our summons, 
 and should not choose to be present, one shall be 
 sent dispatched hence by us, who will eject him by 
 our imperial mandate, and shew him that it is not 
 fitting to resist the decrees of the emperor pub- 
 lished on behalf of the truth *” 
 
 To these we may add the account given us by 
 the historian Socrates, and which has been before 
 adduced ; “ From the time that the emperors be- 
 came Christians, the affairs of the Church depended » 
 on them, and the greatest councils both were and 
 still are gathered together by their command °.” 
 
 We now proceed to shew that the Bishop of 
 Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England. 
 
 This would be most satisfactorily proved by 
 tracing the rise of the Pope’s power in England 
 from the seventh century downwards; but as that 
 perience ta 
 parog aurov ékGarwy, we ou 
 ToociKov opore avroxpadropoc UTEP 
 Lic 27. p-578. "ety 2, a; De Omens eee 
 Eywye ob« ola, thy mpertpay  *tOabe. 
 
 Kevow cai viv daxpobcac0ar & Ante, p. 398. 
 mewpapevoc, pr BovrnOj rapaye- 
 
 A ~ > , , cy 
 TED Toy exdixovyTay prevely aT OAK= 
 Ta Kat aoya 
 
 f Turoporet. Hist. Eccl. 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 385 
 
 course is inconsistent with the plan of this work, it 
 must suffice to shew that for the first four cen- 
 turies the bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction was limited 
 to his own patriarchate *.” 
 
 The rule laid down by the first general council 
 at Nice, is enough to decide the whole matter ; 
 “Let ancient customs prevail; in Egypt, Libya, 
 and Pentapolis, let the bishop of Alexandria have 
 authority over all, because the same is customary 
 with the bishop of Rome: in like manner at 
 Antioch, and in other provinces, let the privileges 
 be secured to the Churches '.” 
 
 To this decision of a council, whose authority is 
 recognised by the Church of Rome, may be added 
 a few passages from individual writers. 
 
 Tertullian so far from considering the Romish 
 church as the sole court of appeal, recommends, as 
 a mode of refuting heresies, a reference to the 
 doctrine included in those churches, which were 
 founded by the Apostles themselves; “ Now would 
 you exercise your curiosity to better purpose in 
 the business of your salvation, run through the 
 Apostolic Churches, in which the very chairs, in 
 which the Apostles sat, are now filled ; where their 
 authentic Epistles are read, conveying the sound 
 
 i Cone. Nic. Con. vi. Tx 
 
 h It is not necessary in this 
 aoxuia €0y Kputeitw, ta ey 
 
 place to notice the contested 
 
 distinction between patriarchal 
 and metropolitical power ; if 
 there be any substantial dif- 
 ference between the two, the 
 reader may make his choice ; 
 either will equally serve our 
 present purpose. 
 
 \ 
 *Aiytrr@, Kai AiBvq, Kal Mevra- 
 / “| \ 
 moher, Bare toy év “AdrcLavdpeln 
 / 4 
 emickomoy TavTwy TOUTwY exe Thy 
 2 Pica g! MN ‘ \ ~ 2 ~ 
 eEsuolay’ emeday Kat Tp ev TH 
 ‘Pb toto §avynbeé 
 On dyn bec 
 €OTW.— 
 
 ’ 
 eTITKGT® 
 
386 Article Thirty-seventh. 
 
 of their voices, and the representation of their 
 persons. Is Achaia near you? you have Corinth. 
 If you are not far from Macedonia, you have 
 Philippi, you have the Thessalonians. If you can 
 pass over to Asia, you have Ephesus; but if 
 you are near Italy, you have Rome, whence we 
 also can have an authority at hand. Happy 
 Church, to which the Apostles poured forth all 
 their doctrine, with their blood *.” 
 
 It is unfortunate for the Romanists, that the sup- 
 posed derivation of the pope’s supremacy from St. 
 Peter, compels them to shew the acknowledg- 
 ment of his jurisdiction by Churches without the 
 limits of his patriarchate, from the earliest times. 
 They consequently cannot do without the authority 
 of Cyprian; and Pamelius has certainly made the 
 most of him. If he addresses the bishop of Rome 
 as his “brother,” it must be explained away; if he 
 calls him, as he frequently does, “ Papa,” there is 
 no longer room for doubt. Without entering into 
 these minutiz, a few decisive extracts will vindicate 
 the independency of the African bishops. 
 
 The Roman clergy write thus to Cyprian in an- 
 swer to a letter from him. “Although a mind 
 conscious of its own rectitude, and that relies on 
 the strength of the Gospel discipline, and that is 
 
 * Tertutu. de Prescript. 
 Heret. c. 36. Age jam, qui 
 voles curiositatem melius ex- 
 ercere, in negotio salutis tue, 
 percurre Ecclesias A postolicas, 
 apud quas ipse adhuc cathedre 
 Apostolorum suis locis presi- 
 
 dentur, apud quas authentice 
 litere eorum recitantur, so- 
 nantes vocem, representantes 
 faciem. Proxima est tibi 
 Achaia? habes Corinthum, 
 etc. 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 387 
 
 its own true witness of its having performed the 
 decrees of heaven, is wont to be content with God 
 as its only judge, and not to seek the praises of an- 
 other, nor to fear his accusations; yet they are 
 deserving of twofold praise, who, although they 
 know that they must give account to God alone as 
 their judge, yet are desirous that their acts should 
 be approved of by their brethren. That you should 
 do this, brother Cyprian, is not surprising, who from 
 your innate modesty and zeal, have wished to find 
 in us not so much judges of, as partakers in, your 
 counsels ; that while we approve of what you have 
 done we may share the credit with you'’.”. The 
 letter concludes: ‘ We wish, most blessed and glo- 
 rious pope, that you may always be prosperous in 
 the Lord, and ever mindful of us.” 
 
 Cyprian writes to Cornelius, bishop of Rome, 
 complaining of the conduct of certain heretics and 
 schismatics : 
 
 “ Afterwards the heretics, having constituted for 
 themselves a false bishop, dare to sail, and to take 
 letters from schismatics and profane men to the 
 chair of Peter, and to the principal Church whence 
 the unity of the priesthood arose, nor did they con- 
 sider that they are Romans, (whose faith the Apos- 
 tle extolled,) to whom perfidy can have no access. 
 We all determined, and our determination is alike 
 equitable and just, that the cause of each should be 
 heard there, where the offence was committed, and 
 
 ' Curr. Rom. Cypriano non tam judices voluisti, quam 
 Pape, Ep, xxxi. s, 1. participes inveniri. 
 qui—consiliorum tuorum nos 
 
 
 
 
 
 cc 2 
 
388 Article Thirty-seventh. 
 
 that to the several pastors a portion of the flock 
 should be given, for each to rule and govern, and of 
 which he must give account to the Lord; it there- 
 fore behoves those over whom we are, not to run 
 about to all parts, nor by their crafty and fallacious 
 temerity to make a breach in the concord of the 
 bishops ™.” 
 
 Strange to say Pamelius in his note on the first 
 part of this passage, urges it as an acknowledg- 
 ment that all weightier causes concerning the faith 
 are to be referred to the Roman Church, and still 
 further that that Church cannot err in the faith. 
 But, without troubling ourselves with the arguments 
 of Pamelius, is it possible that on the authority now 
 before us, the bishop of Rome should try any of- 
 fences that were not committed in his immediate 
 jurisdiction ? 
 
 Again, Cyprian in the council of Carthage uses 
 these expressions : 
 
 “For nether doth any one of us set himself up 
 for a Bishop of Bishops, nor by any tyrannical ter- 
 ror compel his colleagues (or fellow bishops) into a 
 necessity of submitting themselves to him; since 
 every bishop is at liberty to use his power according 
 to his discretion, and can no more be judged by 
 another, than he can himself judge another. But 
 let us all look for the judgment of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, who alone hath the power both of advancing 
 
 ™ Cypr. Ep. lv.ad Corne- ut uniuscujusque causa illic 
 lium. s. 16. Nam cum _ audiatur, ubi est crimen admis- 
 statutum sit omnibus nobis, et sum. 
 zquum sit pariter ac justum, 
 
 
 
 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 389 
 
 us to the government of his Church, and of judging 
 us for what we do in the exercise of our office *.” 
 
 I cannot forbear extracting the following few 
 lines from Chrysostom, for the purpose of shewing 
 at what straws the members of the Church of Rome 
 will catch: 
 
 “ How many kings,” says Chrysostom, “have 
 built cities, have formed harbours, and, having 
 given them their own names, have died? they 
 however have reaped no benefit, but are given 
 over to silence and oblivion. But Peter the fish- 
 erman, having done nothing of this sort, since he 
 followed after virtue, and dwelt in the most royal 
 city, shines, even after death, more bright than the 
 sun °.” 
 
 The mention of ‘‘ the most royal city,” elicits the 
 following confident remark from Fronto Ducezus, 
 “ Nempe Romam, velint nolint Lutherani et Calvin- 
 isti?.” 
 
 It is scarcely worth while to draw a sharp or a 
 strong weapon out of Chrysostom’s armoury to an- 
 nihilate this rebellious little braggart, I will there- 
 fore just match it with one of the same stamp; he 
 says to the Christians of Antioch: “ Think of the 
 greatness of the city, and that we have not now to 
 consider about one, or two, or three, or ten souls, 
 
 2 Conc. Carthag. ap. Cypr. 
 Neque enim quisquam nostrim 
 Episcopum se esse Episcopo- 
 rum constituit, aut tyrannico 
 terrore ad obsequendi necessi- 
 tatem collegas suos adigit, 
 quando habeat omnis Episcopus 
 pro licentia libertatis et potes- 
 
 tatis sue arbitrium proprium, 
 tamque judicari ab alio non 
 possit, quam nec ipse potest 
 alterum judicare. 
 
 ° Curysost. in Ps. xviii. 
 
 P Antverpia, 1723. vol. iii. 
 p- 237. C. 
 
 & 
 
 
 
390 Article Thirty-seventh. 
 
 but of endless myriads of the head of the whole world, 
 this is the city in which the name of Christian was 
 first adopted ; honour Christ, reverence the city 
 which first preached this desirable and sweet name 
 to all mankind; this was the meeting place of the 
 Apostles, the dwelling place of the righteous % 
 Nempe Antiochiam velint, nolint Romani et Fronto- 
 Duceus. 
 
 We may now proceed to the last two clauses of 
 the Article. 
 
 With the exception of Lactantius, I believe, none 
 of the early Fathers question the right of the civil 
 power to inflict capital punishments. Though 
 little is to be found on the subject, there is a pas- 
 sage in Irenzus, and another in Augustine, which 
 directly assert the magistrates’ authority in this 
 matter. 
 
 “ Because man departing from God became so 
 violent, that he looked upon those of his own 
 flesh and blood as his enemies, and was not afraid 
 to give himself up to an unpeaceable life, to murder 
 and avarice. God imposed upon him the fear of 
 man, (for they knew not the fear of God,) so that 
 men being subject to, and restrained by, the laws 
 of men, there might be something of justice and 
 good government amongst them, as being terrified 
 by the sword, which was publicly set before them : 
 according to what the Apostle says: ‘ For he bear- 
 eth not the sword in vain, For he is the minister 
 
 4 Curysost. ad Pop. An- date tI cixovpevns anaons. Ad- 
 tioch. Hom. iii. Gra TEP’ ty 4 TOA Cot, ev Y, K. T. A. 
 pupiddwy awelowy, wept To KEga~ 
 
 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 391 
 
 of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him 
 that doeth evil. And the magistrates being for 
 this end invested with the laws of justice, shall not 
 be questioned or punished, for whatever they shall 
 justly and lawfully do*.” 
 
 “They have by no means violated the com- 
 mandment, which says, ‘ Thou shalt do no murder,’ 
 who have waged war by the command of God, or 
 who holding an office of public magistracy, have 
 punished malefactors with death, according to the 
 laws of the state, that is, according to the rule of 
 the most just reason‘.” 
 
 Lastly ; Christians are nowhere forbidden by the 
 canons of the Church to serve in the wars : it is not 
 probable that in the primitive times any converts 
 to Christianity would voluntarily engage in a mili- 
 tary life, though it is very certain that many who 
 were in the military service before their conversion, 
 continued so afterwards. 
 
 Tertullian, as was before observed‘, in his trea- 
 tise de Corond Militis, maintains it to be unlawful 
 for a Christian to bear arms; yet it is clear from 
 that treatise that in his time many Christians were 
 soldiers, and in his Apology he expressly asserts 
 that they did serve in the wars, and moreover 
 
 * IreEnzvs, 1. v. c. xxiv. tra hoc preceptum fecerunt, 
 
 s.2. Et propter hoc et ipsi 
 
 magistratus indumentum jus- 
 titize leges habentes, quecunque 
 justé et legitima fecerint, de 
 his non interrogabuntur, neque 
 peenas dabunt. 
 
 § Aueust. de 
 Ielaceal: 
 
 Civit. Dei. 
 Nequaquam con- 
 
 quo dictum est Non occides, 
 
 qui, Deo auctore bella gesse- 
 
 runt, aut personam gerentes 
 public potestatis, secundum 
 ejus leges, hoc est justissime 
 rationis imperium, sceleratos 
 morte punierunt. 
 
 * Ante, Article VI. 
 
392 Article Thirty-seventh. 
 
 urges this, as one amongst other grounds, why they 
 should not be persecuted. They were accused of 
 being useless in public affairs, he answers: “ We 
 sail with you, we serve in the wars with you, we 
 engage in agricultural, and mercantile pursuits, 
 and besides we employ ourselves in manufactures ; 
 and make our labours available to the public. How 
 therefore we can seem to be of no use in your affairs, 
 with whom, and on whose account we live, I can- 
 not understand*.” 
 
 In the passage last cited from Augustine, we 
 have seen, he justifies a recourse to war on neces- 
 sary occasions ; and elsewhere he expresses him- 
 self very strongly on the subject : “ It differs much 
 for what reasons, and by what authority, men take 
 upon themselves to go to war: the natural order 
 of things, which is adapted to the peace of man- 
 kind, requires, that the power and discretion of 
 going to war should rest with the prince: but 
 soldiers, for the sake of the public peace and safety, 
 ought to obey the military commands of their go- 
 vernor.” He then says, that unjust wars though 
 wicked, are permitted by God, and continues: 
 «Since therefore a righteous man, if he happens 
 to serve under a sacrilegious king, may properly 
 engage in war at the king’s command; for he up- 
 holds the order of the public peace, and the orders 
 that are given him, either are certainly not against 
 the command of God, or at all events it is not 
 certain that they are, so that the wickedness of 
 
 " Tertuuu. Apol. c. 42. Navigamus et nos vobiscum, et 
 militamus.— 
 
Article Thirty-seventh. 393 
 
 the mandate may make the king guilty, but the 
 necessity of obedience will shew the soldier to be 
 innocent : if this be so, how much more one may 
 innocently engage in wars, which God has com- 
 manded, no one can doubt*.” 
 
 ARTICLE XXXVIII. 
 
 Of Christian Men’s goods, which are not common. 
 
 ‘‘ Tue riches and goods of Christians are not common, as 
 *‘ touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as 
 ‘certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding 
 ‘every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, 
 ‘liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his 
 ** ability.” 
 
 The notion here condemned, that Christians 
 should have all things in common, was not novel 
 at the period of the reformation. As early as the 
 second century of the Christian era, a sect calling 
 themselves Apostolici, because they professed 
 rigidly to follow the example of the Apostles, but 
 better known by the name of Apotactici or Re- 
 
 * Aueust. c. Faust.1. xxii. ant Cum ergo vir justus, si 
 ce. 75. Interest enim quibus forte sub rege homine etiam 
 causis quibusque auctoribus  sacrilego militet, recté possit 
 homines gerenda bella suscipi- illo jubente bellare, etc. 
 
 
 
394 Article Thirty-eighth. 
 
 nouncers, obliged all men, who would give in to 
 their opinions, to renounce all right to any worldly 
 property whatsoever: 4nd in the fourth century 
 the Eustathians, so called from their leader Eus- 
 tathius, a monk, held the same doctrine. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to prove that the primi- 
 tive Churches admitted no such principle: but 
 a few passages may be adduced in support of the 
 Article generally. 
 
 Tertullian having given a general account of the 
 forms of Christian worship, proceeds: “ Every one 
 contributes a moderate alms, monthly, or when- 
 ever he pleases, if only he does please, and has 
 the power to do so; for no one is compelled, but 
 gives of his own free will. These, as it were, are 
 the contributions of piety, for they are not after- 
 wards spent in banqueting, nor in drinking, nor in 
 wasteful extravagance, but in maintaining and 
 burying the poor, and destitute orphans, and those 
 who are disabled from old age, and those that are 
 shipwrecked, or who are condemned to work in 
 the mines, or are banished into the islands, or are 
 confined in prison, so as they suffer for having em- 
 braced the Christian religion *.” 
 
 Chrysostom having observed that air, water, 
 fire, the sun, and other things of that kind are 
 common to all men, proceeds; ‘‘ For what reason 
 then hath God made the greater and more neces- 
 
 a Trertuti. Apol. c. 39. possit, apponit; nam nemo 
 Modicam unusquisque stipem compellitur, sed sponte con- 
 menstrua die, vel quum velit, fert.— 
 et si modo velit, et si modo 
 
Article Thirty-eighth. 395 
 
 sary things, and those which support life, common, 
 but the lesser and more vile, I mean worldly pos- 
 sessions, are not common? For what reason! 
 That our life may be well ordered, and we may 
 have a stage for the exercise of virtue. For if 
 these necessary things were not in common, the 
 rich perhaps, using their wonted covetousness, 
 would cause those that are poor to perish. For if 
 they do this with their worldly possessions, much 
 more would they do it with other things. On the 
 other hand if worldly possessions were also in 
 common, and were the property of all men alike, 
 all occasion of alms-doing, and opportunity of 
 benevolence, would be taken away. That we may 
 be secure of life therefore, the things that are the 
 causes of our living, have been given to us all in 
 common : again, that we may have an occasion to 
 obtain crowns and praise, worldly possessions have 
 not been made common, in order that hating 
 covetousness, and following after righteousness, 
 and giving of our substance to those that are in 
 want, we may by these means obtain some relief 
 for our sins. God hath made thee rich, why 
 makest thou thyself poor? He made thee rich, 
 that by thy bounty to others thou mightest acquit 
 thy own sins. He gave thee worldly possessions, 
 - not that thou mightest hoard them up to thy own 
 destruction, but that thou mightest pour them 
 forth for thy own salvation ».” 
 
 b’ CurRysosT. ad Pop, kowd remoinxey 6 Osdc, ra dt _tar- 
 Antioch. Hom. ti. Tivos cfy Tova kai ebredéorepa ovdK tort Kowa, 
 everey Ta pity peiLova, kai dvaykaw- Ta Xpnpara éyw; K. TX. 
 
 TEOa, Kal THY CwnY HOY cuvExoYTa, 
 
396 Article Thirth-eighth. 
 
 Augustine places the Apostolici who were 
 mentioned above in the list of heretics: “ The 
 Apostolici, who have most arrogantly called them- 
 selves by that name, because they would receive 
 none into their communion who lived in the con- 
 jugal state, and who possess private property ;— 
 But therefore they are heretics, because they sepa- 
 rate themselves from the Church, and think that 
 those, who practise the things which they do not, 
 have no hope of salvation. They are like the 
 Encratites, for they are also called Apotactites °.” 
 
 ARTICLE XXXIX. 
 
 Of a Christian Man’s Oath. 
 
 ‘© As we confess, that vain and rash swearing is forbidden 
 ‘‘Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James 
 ‘his Apostle ; so we judge, that Christian 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 the Prophet’s teaching, in jus- 
 * tice, judgment, and truth.” 
 
 Though some passages will be presently adduced 
 from which it will appear, that Christians from the 
 
 © August. de Her. c. xl—_  reciperent utentes conjugibus, 
 in suam communionem non _ et res proprias possidentes. 
 
Article Thirty-ninth. 397 
 
 earliest times were allowed to swear on the occa- 
 sions contemplated by this Article, yet it must be 
 admitted that many of the Fathers use very strong 
 language in reprobation of oaths. A modern 
 writer’, who has paid great attention to the subject 
 generally, but who does not seem to have consulted 
 the works of the Fathers to any great extent, says 
 that “ Among others, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Epiphanius, Basil, and Theophylact, seem to have 
 considered our Lord’s words as peremptorily for- 
 bidding all oaths——’ In a note, however, this 
 author says, “It may admit of a doubt whether 
 the strong expressions to be found in the works of 
 some of these Fathers were not chiefly employed 
 in reference to the Heathen oaths, by which many 
 professed Christians bound themselves im those 
 early times, as well as in later ages.” I cannot 
 pretend to decide with regard to Theodoret, or 
 Theophylact, but for the rest I should say, they 
 nowhere forbid Christians to take oaths, where the 
 civil] power enjoins them to be taken; nor do I 
 think their remarks had reference chiefly to the 
 heathen oaths, but to the daily habits of swearing 
 in which many indulged. A passage or two from 
 Chrysostom illustrating the above opinion, and 
 which are to be found in Suicer, shall be given in 
 their proper place. 
 
 The imperial laws required all persons who were 
 witnesses in any cause to be put on their oath, and 
 as the early Christian writers never dispute such 
 laws, as militating against the law of God, their 
 
 4 The Rev. James Hendel Tyler. 
 
398 Article Thirty-ninth. 
 
 silence shews that they did not think such a 
 practice forbidden. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus uses very strong expres- 
 sions against the practice of swearing: he does not 
 particularise oaths administered in courts of jus- 
 tice ; it is clear however, from the following pas- 
 sage, that Christians did swear on solemn occa- 
 sions; “ The Christian indeed religiously observes 
 an oath, but he is not subject to swear, as being 
 seldom prevailed upon to swear at all>.” 
 
 It cannot be doubted that before Christianity 
 became the religion of the Roman empire, the 
 Christians would be required to take the oaths in 
 the usual form, the imperial laws would not bend 
 to their despised and persecuted faith. A passage 
 in Tertullian shews that while they scrupled to 
 take an oath which was expressed in a manner that 
 derogated from the majesty of God, they did not 
 hesitate to swear in terms to which no such objection 
 could be made. He says: “‘ We swear, moreover, 
 although not by the genii of the Cesars, yet by 
 their safety ; which is more august than all the 
 genii in the world. Are you ignorant that the 
 genil are called devils. In the emperors we ac- 
 knowledge the appointment of God, who set them 
 over the nations; we know that in them is that 
 which God willed; and therefore we wish their 
 safety, which God willed, and we account that a 
 solemn oath. But for the demons, that is, the 
 
 b Crem. Auex. Stron. 1]. yuwortdc, oye oraviwg emi 1d 
 vii. s. 8. p- 862. Evspxos [eV durvivar agucvotpevoc. 
 ob pay iverripopog éxi rd dpvivar Oo 
 
Article Thirty-ninth. 399 
 
 genil, we are used to adjure them that we may cast 
 them out of the bodies of men; not to swear 
 by them, so as to confer divine honour upon 
 them*.” : 
 
 Athanasius, in his Apology addressed to the em- 
 peror Constantius, in answer to his accusers, says : 
 “‘T answer with a loud and clear voice, and with 
 an outstretched hand, which I learnt from the 
 Apostle, I call God to witness upon my soul, and 
 as it is written in the books of Kings, I conceive 
 the oath, Be the Lord my witness, and be his 
 Christ my witness, that I never made mention of 
 you to your evil*.” 
 
 Further on he says: “I wish this man, whoever 
 he is, were here in your presence, that the oath 
 might be put to him, and I might examine him 
 under the attestation of the truth. For those 
 things which we speak as if God were present, such 
 things we Christians are used to declare under 
 this form of an oath*.” 
 
 The passages in Chrysostom to which I alluded 
 are these: “Let us impose upon ourselves laws 
 for every day; and let us at once begin from those 
 that are easy. Let us cut off from our mouth the 
 evil and constant habit of swearing: let us put a 
 
 € TERTULL. Apol. c. 32. 
 
 xEtpa éxreivac, 6 pwEepaOnka rapa row 
 
 Sed et juramus, sicut non per 
 genios Cesarum, ita per salutem 
 eorum, que est augustior om- 
 nibus geniis. pro magno id 
 juramento habemus. 
 
 4 Aruanas. ad Imperat. 
 Constantium, Apol. s. 3. —riyv 
 
 
 
 *AmroorONov, raprupa Toy OEdy ém- 
 Kahovpat, tri rijy tuavrou Puy hv-—- 
 papruc Kipwoc, kai paprue 6 Xpusroc 
 abrov. 
 
 © Idem; ibid, s. 8. —2 yap 
 w¢ O£00 wapdvToc Nadowpey, rovTo 
 dpkov EXOUEV HLEIC Ot Xocortavoi. 
 
400 Article Thirty-ninth. 
 
 bridle upon our tongue ; let no one swear by God. 
 There is here no need of expense, here no labour 
 is required ; no length of time is necessary ; it is 
 enough to resolve, and the whole is done*.” 
 
 Again: “‘ With a loud and a clear voice I de- 
 clare to all, I call all to witness, that those who 
 are guilty of this sin, that those who speak the 
 things that come from the Evil one, for such is an 
 oath, shall not enter the threshold of the Church: 
 the present month is your appointed time for cor- 
 recting you in this practice. Say not to me, ‘the 
 urgency of my affairs compels me, because my 
 word is not believed.’ Away with those who swear 
 from custom, etc. =” ° 
 
 I know of no place in which Chrysostom dis- 
 tinctly forbids swearmg im a court of justice: I 
 know of no place in which he uses stronger lan- 
 guage than in the above passages. And it is not 
 possible to read them, and suppose that he was 
 speaking of any thing more than the habit of 
 swearing; he would not appoint a month for 
 breaking through the custom of swearing in courts 
 of law; he is therefore clearly condemning the 
 evil practice of confirming their assertions in their 
 
 * Curysost. in Acta Apost. 
 Hom. viii. ed. Bened. tom. ix. 
 p- 66. OZne éavrsig wigmovs 
 coSnprp0ne, Tiwe azb Toy Ecole 
 aptepia Tsputlwpey ypev av 
 wolwopciay ToD cropazec, yauroy 
 ind@iipew TH perry, paceic Spire 
 voy Gtor- 
 
 & Idem, ibid. 
 hapzpg Ty gury enoiTTe 
 
 
 
 a ; 
 Meyany «2s 
 
 zac 
 
 Kai CiapapTepopa, wore, TObC THY 
 TapaSaciy Tauryy eul eukyEBEVORE, 
 rove ra & TOU zovapow OPeyyouevovc 
 rovre yap tcriw 6 Oproe |= Tey odter 
 py éxziBaivay Tey cx geuasriner 
 
 xpobeopia ¢& tpiy toTw, © pay o 
 Tapwy, &ore cavopSecar pH yap 
 po dizge, bri pi] Tey Tpayparer 
 avayky Kartxtiya, 671 ax1sT oopaL— 
 
Article Thirty-ninth. 401 
 
 private dealings with one another, with the sanc- 
 tion of an unnecessary oath. 
 
 To the above may be added a passage from 
 Augustine, who says : 
 
 «« Avoid swearing as muchas you can. For it is 
 better not to swear even to what is true, than to 
 accustom one’s self to swearing, by which men 
 often fall into perjury, and are always in danger of 
 so doing. But there are some persons, who, as I 
 can perceive by their talk, are entirely ignorant of 
 what an oath is. For they imagine that they do 
 not swear, when they use such expressions as 
 these: ‘ God knoweth,’ or ‘God is my witness,’ or 
 ‘I call God for a record upon my soul.’ Because, 
 as they allege, in these cases, they dont say ‘ By 
 God,’ and because such expressions as I just now 
 mentioned, are found in the writings of St. Paul. 
 But even such words as they confess to be swearing 
 are found there too. For thus the Apostle saith, 
 ‘I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord, I die daily.” In the original Greek 
 this sentence is manifestly expressed in the form of 
 an oath. This I observe, that no one may imagine 
 that the words ‘ By your rejoicing, are like these 
 ‘By my coming again to you,’ and the like, in 
 which we say ‘ By a thing,’ without swearing. But 
 we must not therefore trifle with oaths, because 
 St. Paul, a man of unshaken veracity, swore in his 
 Epistles. For, as I said before, it is much safer 
 for us not to swear at all; and as our Lord advises 
 us to ‘let our communication be yea, yea, nay, 
 nay.’ Not because it is a sin to swear to what is 
 
 pd 
 
4.02 Article Thirty-ninth. 
 
 true, but because it is a most grievous sin to swear 
 falsely, which that man is most likely to be guilty 
 of, who is accustomed to swear*.” 
 
 h Aveust. Ep. clvii. (al. jurare: sed quia gravissimum 
 Ixxvix.) s. 40. ad Hilar. Non  peccatum est, falsum jurare. 
 guia peccatum est, verum 
 
 THE END. 
 
 OXFORD: PRINTED BY TALBOYS AND BROWNE.