Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. University of Illinois Library i u.. AUG 2 4 JUN 26 19(4 11ARQ7 984 rit i7 m -•> l TO? NOV 3 ' './/I*; — ‘ > Jr n ' k t 5 APS 19*1 2+ * • .W OCT 2 9 1982 982 m w m ‘ DEC 1 7 1984 iqca I J ■„/ L161—H 41 W; ^> 7 - I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates / \ https://archive.org/details/thirtyninearticl00gree_0 The Thirty-nine Articles « V The Thirty-nine Articles and The Age of the Reformation <±An Historical and Doctrinal Exposition in the Light of Contemporary Documents By The Rev. E. Tyrrell Green, M.A. Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, S. David’s College, Lampeter Sometime Scholar of S. John’s College, Oxford London Wells Gardner, Darton &? Co, 3, Paternoster Buildings, E.C. 1896 LfJ'fl 2 3?.3 C. 'A. MATRI ME JE CARISSIM^ C0MPL0RAT.A2 NON TAMEN SINE SPE CERTA ET INDUBITATA RESURRECTIONIS AD VITAM AETERNAM. u STANTES ERANT PEDES NOST^I IN ATRIIS TUIS IERUSALEM.” % PREFACE During the past few years it has been one of the writer s duties to lecture upon the XXXIX. Articles at S. David’s College, Lampeter. Of the several extant treatises on the subject no one commended itself to him as a basis for a series of lectures; 1 he therefore set out upon a course of study, guided principally by the conviction that the position taken up by the English Church at the Reformation can only be really appreciated after a careful comparison of the XXXIX. Articles with other Formu¬ laries or Confessions of Faith issued in various parts cf Chris¬ tendom during the sixteenth century. In lecturing to students great care was taken to present, under the various heads of doctrine and practice, the agreement or difference between state¬ ments in our English Articles and the wording of (a) the Decrees of the Council of Trent, representing the position of the Church of Rome ; ( b ) Formularies exhibiting the theology of the Lutheran or Protestant Reformers ; and (c) Confessions, or Symbolic writings, embodying the teaching of the Swiss or Reformed Theologians. The present volume is based upon the lectures delivered at Lampeter, and its plan was first sketched out in 1892. It is intended to supply a clear analysis of the contents of the XXXIX. Articles, with a short exposition, and it has been the writer’s aim to indicate exactly how far the wording of our Articles is traceable to foreign sources. Special attention has also been drawn to the elucidation or illustration which the Articles receive not only from Continental Confessions of Faith, but also from writings of English Reformers, such as the “Homilies” and the “Reformatio Legum,” besides letters of individual divines. In addition to its usefulness as an exposi- 1 Tlie need of a new manual of the XXXIX. Articles seems to he generally felt. While the sheets of this book were passing through the press two volumes appeared on the same subject—( 1 ) “An Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England,” by Dr. Maclear and the Rev. W. W. Williams {Mac¬ millan); ( 2 ) “The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England Explained, with an Introduction, ” by the Rev. E. C. S. Gibson, vol. i. {Methuen). Vlll PREFACE tion of the XXXIX. Articles, it is hoped that the volume may prove acceptable to Theological students as a handbook of the Symbolic Theology of the sixteenth century, and as forming a convenient summary, with extracts from original authorities, of the important religious controversies of the Age of the Reforma¬ tion. Two features may be mentioned which should render the work especially useful to young students and to such as have but small libraries—(i) Bare references to other books have been avoided, all passages quoted in illustration being cited in full; (2) English translations of all Latin or Greek quotations have been added in an Appendix. In such a work as the present it has been found impossible to acknowledge indebtedness to other writers in detail, but a list has been added of the principal books consulted in its pre¬ paration. The writer wishes in particular to acknowledge his obligation to notes of Lectures by the Rev. W. W. Jackson (Rector of Exeter College, Oxford), upon which the Introductory matter is partly based. He would also express his warmest thanks to two kind friends and colleagues at Lampeter; the Rev. Chancellor Davey (Vice-Principal of S. David’s College), who has read the sheets of the book as it passed through the press, offering many valuable suggestions, and the Rev. G. Woosung Wade (Professor of Latin), who has carefully revised the translations given in Appendix VII. S. David’s College, Lampeter, May 1896. LIST OF BOOKS CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS VOLUME A. BOOKS UPON THE XXXIX. ARTICLES IN PARTICULAR. Allnatt (M. E. S.). The Settled Doctrine of onr Church. Nishet. 1884. Baker (Dr. W.). Plain Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles. Riving- \tons. 1893. Beveridge (Bp.). Discourse upon the XXXIX. Articles. Oxford. 1840. Bickersteth (Dean). Questions Illustrating the XXXIX. Articles. Rivingtons. 1877. Boucher (J. S.). Lecture Notes on the Sacramental Articles. Mowbray. Boultbee (T. P.). Commentary on the XXXIX. Articles. Longmans. Browne (Bp. Harold). Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles. Long¬ mans. 1878. Burnet (Bp.). Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles. Oxford. 1831. Cloquet (R. L.). Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles. Nisbet. 1885. Davey (W. H.). The Several Editions of the Articles of the Church of Engl and. Parker. 1861. Forbes (Bp.). Explanation of the XXXIX. Articles. Parker. 1878. Hardwick (Archdn.). History of the Articles of Religion. Bell. 1881. J. W. Catechism of the XXXIX. Articles. Griffith fy Farran. 1877. Ivetchley (H. E.). Questions and Answers on the XXXIX. Articles. Hall. 1893. Lamb (Dr. J.). Historical Account of the XXXIX. Articles. Cam¬ bridge. 1829. Laurence (Abp.). Bampton Lectures. Parker. 1838. Liglitfoot (Dr. J.). Text-Book of the XXXIX. Articles. Sonnenschein. 1890. Newman (J. II.). Tract XC. in “Tracts for the Times.” Norris (Archdn.). .On XXXIX. Articles in “Manuals of Religious Instruction.” Rivingtons. Sancta Clara. The Articles of the Anglican Church. Hayes. 1865. (Reprinted from ed. of 1646.) Welchman (Archdn.). The XXXIX. Articles. S.P.C.K. X LIST OF BOOKS CONSULTED B. HISTORICAL AND DOCTRINAL WORKS. Ball (T. I.). A Paper on Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament (printed in the Church Union Gazette). Bayne (P.). English Puritanism, with Documents. Kent. 1862. Bernardaces (D. N.). The Iloly Catechism, translated by J. G. Bromage. Masters. 1891 . Bingham (Dr. J.). Antiquities of the Christian Church. Straher. 1840. Britton (T. H.). Horae Sacramentales. Masters. 1851. Buckley (T. A.). Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Routledge. 1851 . Buckley (T. A.). History of the Council of Trent. Routledge. 1852. Bulgaris (N.). The Holy Catechism, translated by W. E. Daniel. Masters. 1893. Burnet (Bp.). History of the Reformation, ed. Pocock. Oxford. 1865. Cardwell (Dr. E.). Documentary Annals. Oxford. 1844. Cardwell (Dr. E.). Synodalia. Oxford. 1842. Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, Articles in. Churton (Bp.). The Missionary’s Foundation of Doctrine. Masters. 1892. Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum. Chouet. 1612. Curteis (G. H.). Dissent in its Relation to the Church of England. Macmillan. 1885. Cutts (E. L.). Dictionary of the Church of England. S.P.C.K. Dyer (A. S.). Sketches of English Nonconformity. Masters. 1893. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Articles in. Formularies of Faith. Oxford. 1825. Fraser (Dr. Donald). Commentary on the Articles of the Faith of the Presbyterian Church of England. Presbyterian Publication Committee. 1892. Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.). History of the Reformation. T. fy T. Clark. 1878-79. Hall (P.). Harmony of Protestant Confessions. Shaio. 1844. Hamilton (Abp.). Catechism, ed. T. G. Law. Oxford. 1884. Hamilton (Bp. W. Kerr). Visitation Charge, May 1867. Sheppard and St. John. 1885. Hardwick (Archdn.). History of the Christian Church. Middle Age. Macmillan. 1853. Hardwick (Archdn.). History of the Christian Church. Reformation. Macmillan. 1880 . LIST OF BOOKS CONSULTED xi Kurtz. Church History. Hodder § Stoughton. 1888-90. Littledale (Dr. R. F.). Plain Reasons against Joining the Church of Rome. S. P.C.K. 1886. Littledale (Dr. R. F.). Short History of the Council of Trent. S. P. C. K. 1888. Luckock (Dean). After Death. Rivingtons. 1887. Maclear (Dr. G. F.). Introduction to the Creeds. Macmillan. 1890. Mant (Bp.). The Churches of Rome and England Compared. S.P.C.K. 1885. Mitchell (Dr. A. F.). The Westminster Assembly. Nisbet. 1883. Moore (A. L.). History of the Reformation. Kegan Paid. 1890. Niemeyer (Dr. H. A.). Collectio Confessionum. Blinkhardt. 1840. Norris (Archdn.). Key to the Acts of the Apostles. Rivingtons. 1877. Perry (G. G.). Student’s English Church History, vols. i. and ii. Murray. 1881 . Prynne (G. R.). The Truth and Reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Longmans. 1894. Robinson (A. W.). The Church Catechism Explained. Cambridge. 1894. Sadler (M. F.). The One Offering. Bell. 1886. Smith (J. B.). English Orders : Whence Obtained. Skeffington. 1893. Sylloge Confessionum. Oxford. 1827. Winer (Dr. G. B.). The Confessions of Christendom. T. fy T. Clark. 1873- Westminster Confession and other Documents. Blair § Bruce. 1810. Woodford (Bp.). The Great Commission. Rivingtons. 1887. Young (J. E.). Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. Hodder £f Stoughton , 1888. . - . , . CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY . A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES, ETC., ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION ...... ANALYSIS OF THE XXXIX. ARTICLES ...... HIS majesty’s DECLARATION ....... TEXT OF THE XXXIX. ARTICLES, WITH NOTES .... APPENDIX I.- TABLE OF CONFESSIONS OF FAITH, ETC. . APPENDIX II.- A COMPARISON OF THE BISHOPS’ BOOK AND KING’S BOOK APPENDIX III.- EXTRACTS SHOWING THE CHANGE IN CRANMER’s OPINIONS APPENDIX IV.- TEXT OF ARTICLES I.-XV. AS REVISED BY THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY ......... APPENDIX V.- TEXT OF BISHOP GESTE’s LETTER ON ARTICLE XXVIII. xiii PAGE I 5 18 21 23 3 2 4 336 34i 343 349 XIV CONTENTS APPENDIX VI.— page TEXT OF THE IRISH ARTICLES OF 1615 . . . • 35 1 APPENDIX VII.- TRANSLATION OF PASSAGES QUOTED FROM DOCUMENTS . . 37 1 INDEX ........... 43 ^ THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES i INTRODUCTORY “ With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, And with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” —Rom. x. io. Wherever there is true belief in the heart, there will also be the outward expression of that belief, both in word and deed. Hence it is that we find very early traces of short summaries of Christian belief or Creeds. 1 Then in course of time were accepted the three Creeds, which, our Church says, “ ought thoroughly to be received and believed ” (Art. VIII.). Until the Reformation the three Creeds were the only authoritative statements of doctrine. In the Church of Rome there was no written authority of doctrine, other than the Creeds, until the decrees of the Council of Trent (i 564). The decrees of Councils may, from time to time, have added to received doctrines, e.g., Transubstantiation was defined at the fourth Lateran Council (1215), but the process by which conflicting beliefs contended until one prevailed went constantly on until the Council of Trent. The sixteenth century was marked by a general upheaval and unsettlement in religious matters, a state of things owing partly to the revival of learning, which had caused men to contrast the Church of the Hew Testament with mediaeval Rome and to think \ for themselves, and partly due to ecclesiastical abuses. At this crisis, especially in those countries where a breach with Rome had taken place, a definition of doctrine became necessary. It had to be made clear how far the Church was at one with the 1 See notes on Article VIII. A 2 THE THIRTY-HIKE ARTICLES Church of the past, how it differed from the Church of Rome on the one hand, and from other Reformed bodies on the other hand. Thus at the period of the Reformation we find the various parts of Christendom putting forth more or less complete con¬ fessions of faith . 1 Speaking quite generally, there is this broad distinction between our English Articles and the formularies of foreign Protestant bodies. The latter contain a more uniform body of doctrine than the Articles of the English Church, because they owe more to individuals and less to the force of national feeling and the various influences at work in the nation. As might be expected from this fact, our Articles are not systematic, they do not evolve a logically complete theory of God’s dealings with man. Lutheranism is a system gathered round the doctrine of justi¬ fying faith, other doctrines having a place as they bear upon it. Calvinism, again, is a system turning on election and repro¬ bation, other doctrines being subordinated to or influenced by these. But the position taken up by the English Church in the Articles is the reformation of abuses, the organic identity of the Church before and after the Reformation is assumed, the old creed is assumed, and abuses are corrected. One sometimes hears the Articles spoken of as “ containing a whole body of divinity.” From what has been already said it will be seen that this is scarcely the case . 2 What the Church of England does claim is that they are a fair Scriptural account 1 See Appendix I. 2 The titles of the various English formularies indicate that it was not at any time the intention of the English Reformers to draw up a complete confession of faith. The X. Articles (1536) are entitled “ Articles devised by the Kinges Highnes Majestie to stablyshe Christen quietnes and unitie amonge us, and to avoyde contentious opinions, which articles be also approved by the consent and determination of the hole clergie of this Realme. Anno MDXXXVI.” The XLII. Articles (1553)— “ Articles agreed on by the Bishoppes and other learned menne in the Synode at London, in the yere of our Lorde Godde MDLII., for the auoiding of controuersie in opinions, and the establishement of a godlie Concorde in certeine matiers of Religion.” The XXXIX. Articles (1571)— “ Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Archbishoppes and Bishoppes of both prouinces and the whole cleargie in the Convocation holden in London in the yere of our Lord God 1562, according to the computation of the Churche of Englande, for the auoiding of the diuersities of opinions, and for the stablishyng of consent touching true religion.” INTRODUCTORY 3 of the leading doctrines of Christianity, set out in a way specially suited to the needs of the time when they were composed, together with a condemnation of prevalent errors, both of the Roman Church and of Protestants. Many subjects are unnoticed in them, 1 but as far as the Articles go, they are the legal definition of the doctrines of our Church, though it is to the Prayer-Book, together with the Articles, that English Churchmen look for the genuine expression of their Church’s faith. It is often stated that the NXXIX. Articles are a sort of com¬ promise, drawn up with the view of reconciling contending parties ; but surely the great object of the compilers was to set forth the true doctrine of the Church of England. The theory that the Articles are designedly ambiguous derives no support from the Articles themselves, and directly contradicts the avowed purpose of the compilers as expressed in the title. It is also abundantly clear that Cranmer, who had the chief hand in the composition of our Articles, altogether disapproved of such a dangerous and unprincipled line of conduct; cf. the Archbishop’s letter to John a Lasco (dated London, July 4, 1548), in which he says: “ We are desirous of setting forth in our churches the true doctrine of God, and have no wish to ada'pt it to all tastes and to trifle with ambiguities, but, laying aside all carnal and prudential motives, to transmit to posterity a true and explicit form of doctrine agreeable to the rule of the sacred writings.” 2 The clergy are required at their ordination to subscribe the Articles, in accordance with Canon XXXYI. “No person shall hereafter be received into the ministry, nor, either by institution or collation, admitted to any Ecclesiastical living, nor suffered to preach, to catechize, or to be a Lecturer, or Reader of Divinity, in either University, or in any Cathedral, or Collegiate Church, City, or Market-town, Parish Church, Chapel, or in any other place within this realm, except he be licensed, 1 The following important subjects are not treated in the XXXIX. Articles : (1.) The work of the Son of God in Creation. (2.) The work of the Holy Spirit in nature. (3.) The intercession of the ascended Christ. (4.) The nature and office of the Holy Angels. (5.) The resurrection of men in general, the everlasting life of the righteous and everlasting punishment of the wicked. (6.) We may also add that the devil is only once mentioned (in Art. XVII.) as thrusting men to desperation or to unclean living. 2 Original Letters, vol. i. p. 17. 4 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the diocese where he is to he placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two Universities under their seal likewise; and except he shall first make and subscribe the following declaration, which, for the avoiding of all ambiguities, he shall subscribe in this order and form of words, setting down both his Christian and surname, viz. :— I, A. B., do solemnly make the following declaration : I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; I believe the doctrine of the [united] Church of England [and Ireland] as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in public prayer and administration of the Sacraments, I will use the form in the said hook prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall he ordered by lawful authority.” In former years subscription to the Articles was also required from all who graduated at the Universities. II A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES, &c., ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ENGLISH RE¬ FORMATION 1533. In repudiating the Papal Supremacy it was maintained (25 Hen. viii. c. 21):— “ That the King and Parliament did not intend by it to decline or vary from the congregation of Christ’s Church in anything concerning the very articles of the Catholic Faith of Christendom, and in any other things declared by Scripture and the Word of God necessary for salvation.” 1536. The Ten Articles. Negotiations had been going on in 1535 between England and the Germans who had accepted the Augs¬ burg Confession. Attempts were made to induce Henry VIII. to throw in his lot with the German Protestant Princes. The X. Articles were in reality a declaration as to how far England was at the time prepared to go with the German Protestants, viz., a very little way indeed, and the negotiations failed for the time. The most important advances in a Reform¬ ing direction in these Articles were :— (i.) The rejection of the Papal Supremacy and the substitution of the Royal Supremacy for it. Ti.) The prominence given to the authority of Holy Scripture. The rule of faith is the Bible, the Three Creeds, the first Four Councils, and the traditions of the fathers consistent with the Bible. (iii.) Three (not seven) Sacraments are treated of; Baptism, Penance, and the Sacrament of the Altar. 5 6 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES On the practical side, images, honour paid to saints, prayers offered to saints, rites and ceremonies, and practices connected with the doctrine of purgatory, are retained, but guarded from abuse. On comparing the Ten Articles with the Augsburg Confession, we notice that in the latter philosophical doctrines, such as Original Sin and Justification, occupy a much more prominent place. Concerning practice, the Augsburg Confession goes very much farther in a reforming direction than these English Articles: it prescribes the cup for the laity, admits the marriage of priests, con¬ demns vows, and exalts the communion aspect of the Holy Eucharist at the expense of its sacrificial aspect. 1537. The Institution of a Christian Man. (,Sometimes called The Bishops’ Book, because it was the outcome of the deliberations of a committee of bishops and divines appointed to draw up a book of religious instruction.) This is based to a great extent upon the Ten Articles, and is divided into four parts:— 1. An Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. 2. The Seven Sacraments. 3. The Ten Commandments. 4. The Lord’s Prayer and Ave Maria, with Articles on Justification and Purgatory. The prominence given to faith in this book may be accounted an advance in a Reforming direction, but this was balanced by a return to the Seven Sacraments. 1538. Negotiations with the Lutheran school of Reformers were at this time renewed, German deputies being sent over to this country to consult with English divines; the result of their deliberations was The Thirteen Articles, based upon the Ten Articles of 1536 and the Augsburg Confession. These Articles were not published, but have been found amongst Cranmer’s papers; they never had any authority in the Church, but they are important because (1.) They afford evidence of the desire for united action on the part of the Reformers. A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES 7 (2.) They show how far the Church in this country was at the time prepared to accept the Augs¬ burg Confession. (3.) The opinions of Cranmer were modified by his discussions with the German deputies. (4.) They are the medium through which the language of the Augsburg Confession passed into the XLII. Articles, and thence to the XXXIX. Articles. The Augsburg Confession had allowed the cup to the laity and the marriage of clergy, and had condemned vows and private masses. The English Church had not gone so far as this, and no agreement could be arrived at upon these points. When the German deputies expressed their opinion pretty freely about the Church in this country for withholding the cup from the laity, enforcing the celibacy of the clergy, &c., some defence was thought necessary. The King and Bishop Tonstal drew up a reply to the Germans, but the most effectual reply was, 1539. The Six Article Law. This marks the final failure of the attempts made in Henry’s reign to Lutheranise the English Church; it briefly reaffirms Transubstantiation, Communion in one Kind, Celibacy of the Clergy, the Obligation of Vows, the use of private masses, and of auricular confession. 1543. Xecessary Doctrine for any Christian Man. {The work of a committee of bishops, approved by the King and by Convocation, and published by Royal autho¬ rity, hence it is commonly called The King’s Book.) This is based on the Bishops’ Book, but contains additional Articles on Free-Will and Good Works; it also appends a general statement on the nature of Sacraments, and adds a preface on Faith. The King’s Book was now the authoritative standard of doctrine of the Church of England, and remained so until the XLII. Articles were issued ; it superseded the X. Articles, which up to this time had been in force. It is commonly stated that the King’s Book marks a retrograde step in the Reformation. It is true that 8 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES some Roman doctrines are affirmed more strongly than in the Bishops’ Book, yet the general spirit of the two hooks is the same. The doctrines of the nature of the Church, the Royal Supremacy, and the Rule of Faith are laid down with equal fulness, and in the same sense in both books. The King’s Book contains unre¬ formed doctrine more rigidly than the Bishops’ Book on the following important points :— (a) Communion in one kind. (b) Enforcement of celibacy of the clergy. (c) In treating of Penance, the necessity of absolution by a priest is more strongly affirmed. (d) The use of Scripture is restricted in the Preface to those of gentle birth. Both books condemn the theory of good works which had been encouraged by Roman abuses. 1 In the reign of Henry VIII. no real reformation in doctrine had been attempted. The formularies above mentioned were mainly protests against Protestantism, and were so understood on the Continent. The religion of England during the latter part of the reign was Roman Catholicism with the King put in the place of the Pope. 2 Up to the close of the reign the Refor¬ mation had proceeded on English lines, and the inter¬ ference of foreign Protestants had been rather resented. 1549. The First Prayer-Book of Edward VI. may be said to embody the ripe result of the English Reformation pro¬ perly so called. During the short reign of Edward VI. foreign divines were eagerly welcomed, and the most illustrious of them put into high positions; thus Bucer was made Divinity Professor at Cambridge, Peter Martyr holding the corresponding post at Oxford. The Prayer- 1 For a detailed comparison of the two hooks see Appendix II. 2 Compare the following allusions in Original Letters :— John Butler and others to Conrad Pellican and others, dated London, March 8, 1539— “We pass on then to the state of this our kingdom, which is as follows ; the ceremonies are still tolerated, but explanations of them are added.” Hooper to Bullinger, from Strasburg, January 27 [1546?]— “ Accept, my dear master, in a very few words, the news from England. As far as true religion is concerned, idolatry is nowhere in greater vigour. Our king has destroyed the pope, but not popery. . . . The impious mass, A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES 9 Book of 1549 was too conservative for such men as these/ and the alterations made in the Book of 1552 were due to their influence. 1552. The Second Prayer-Book of Edward VI. may thus be said to mark the extreme point reached in the attempt to conciliate foreign Reformers. The Council of Trent had now been sitting for some time and defining the doctrines of Rome in opposition to those of the Reformers. Those who had broken with Rome consequently felt more strongly than ever the need of defining their position, and of presenting, if possible, a combined front against their common ad¬ versary. Cranmer especially seems to have cherished the idea of drawing the Continental Protestants and Reformed together, and uniting them with the Eng¬ lish Church in the acceptance of a common confes¬ sion of faith. 2 It was with this object in view that the Archbishop invited the co-operation of so many foreigners. Bucer, Peter Martyr, Fagius, Dryander, John a Lasco, Calvin, and Bullinger were all solicited the most shameful celibacy of the clergy, the invocation of saints, auricular confession, superstitious abstinence from meats, and purgatory, were never before held by the people in greater esteem than at the present moment.” Dryander to Bullinger, from Cambridge, June 5, 1549— “Meanwhile this reformation must not be counted lightly of; in this kingdom especially, where there existed heretofore, in the public formularies of doctrine, true popery without the name.” Beza to Bullinger, from Geneva, September 3, 1566, referring to the state of religion in England, says— “The Papacy was never abolished in that country, but rather transferred to the sovereign.” Withers to the Elector Palatine— “Under the auspices of Henry, the eighth of that name, England drove away the Roman Antichrist from all her borders, but yet in such a manner as that his authority seemed, not so much suppressed, as transferred to the king. The mass and other relics of Popish filthiness retained their former place and estimation.” 1 Cf. the letter of Geo. Withers to the Elector Palatine ( Zurich Letters, vol. ii. p. 159), where, speaking of Edward’s first Prayer-Book, he says:— “ He set forth a form of public prayer written in English, which, however, scarcely differed in any respect from the Latin, except that all the most glaring errors were abolished. The administration of the Sacraments alto¬ gether savours of Lutheranism.” 2 Cranmer thus writes to Melancthon, from London, February 10, 1549:— “ I am aware that you have often desired that wise and godly men should take counsel together, and, having compared their opinions, send forth under the sanction of their authority some work that should embrace the chief B IO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES to aid in the settlement of disputed questions. Melanc- thon was also invited to help, but seems to have treated the idea as impracticable. It was doubtless from the hope of the various Reformed bodies eventually coming to an agreement that the publication of the Articles was so long deferred, but at length there appeared 1553. The Forty-Two Articles. 1 The Articles of 1538 were taken as the basis of these Articles, but the opinions of Cranmer were under¬ going a change; 2 he had, at this time, passed from his Lutheran to his Zwinglian phase, and accordingly we find that in 1553 the Augsburg Confession has receded very much into the background. Only six Articles were adopted from it, either wholly or in part, viz., I., II., IX., XIX., XXV., XXXI. ; and, what is more re¬ markable, distinctively Lutheran language was rejected, especially in the Articles on Justification and on the Sacraments. It is a very difficult question to decide whether these Articles really had any authority in the Church. The title runs thus :— “ Articles agreed on by the Bishoppes and other learned menne, in the Synode at London, in the yere of our Lorde Godde MDLII., for the auoiding of controuersie in opinions and the establishement of a godlie Concorde in certeine matiers of Religion.” subjects of ecclesiastical doctrine, and transmit the truth uncorrupted to posterity. This object we are anxiously endeavouring to accomplish to the utmost of our power .”—Original Letters , vol. i. pp. 21, 22. See also tlie Arclibisliop’s letter to Bullinger, dated Lambeth, March 20, I55 2 : — “ I considered it better, forasmuch as our adversaries are now holding their councils at Trent to confirm their errors, to recommend his Majesty to grant his assistance, that in England, or elsewhere, there might be convoked a synod of the most learned and excellent persons in which provision might be made for the purity of ecclesiastical doctrine, and especially for an agree¬ ment upon the sacramentarian controversy. . . .We must not therefore suffer ourselves to be wanting to the Church of God in a matter of such importance. I have written upon the subject to Masters Philip ( i.c ., Melancthon) and Calvin ; and I pray you to devise the means by which this synod may be assembled with the greatest convenience, either in England or elsewhere .”—Original Letters, vol. i. p. 23. 1 The XXXIX. Articles were little more than a revision of these. The points of difference will he noted later on. 2 Extracts from contemporary letters showing the change in Cranmer’s opinions are given in Appendix III. A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES 11 The natural inference from the wording of the title would be that the Articles had been submitted to Convocation. There is evidence, however, which tends to show that they were never presented at all. Cranmer himself admitted that the title was added without his permission, and meant nothing more than that Con¬ vocation was sitting at the time. 1 The Archbishop himself seems to have had the chief hand in the com¬ pilation of the Articles. 2 Finally, they were published by the “King’s Majesty’s commandment,” June 15 53, 3 and all beneficed clergy were ordered to sign them on pain of deprivation. King Edward, however, died in July of the same year, and all through Queen Mary’s reign the Articles were in abeyance. 1559. The Eleven Articles. After the accession of Elizabeth it was intended to revise the XLII. Articles, but meanwhile Arch- 1 Cranmer’s reply to Weston’s question runs thus— “ I was ignorant of the setting to of that title, and as soon as I had know¬ ledge thereof I did not like it; therefore when I complained thereof to the Council, it was answered thus by them, that the book was so entitled because it was set forth in the time of Convocation.”— Cranmer's Works,.TV, pp. 64-65. Cf. the words of Archdeacon Philpot in Convocation, Oct. 1553. In defence of the Catechism which had appeared under the same sanction as the Articles, he said— “ This house had granted the authority to make ecclesiastical laws unto certain persons to be appointed by the King’s Majesty ; and whatsoever laws they, or the most part of them, did set forth, according to the statute in that behalf provided, it might be well said to be done in the Synod of London, al¬ though such as be of this house have had no notice thereof before the promul¬ gation ; and in this point he thought the setting forth thereof nothing to have slandered the house.”— Britton, Ilorae Sacramentales, pp. 9-10. 2 In 1551 the Archbishop received an order from the King and Privy Council to frame a book of Articles of Religion for preserving and maintaining peace and unity of doctrine in the Church. “ In obedience hereunto he drew up a set which were delivered to certain other bishops to be inspected and subscribed,” &c. (Strype’s Cranmer, p. 272). In May 1552 the Privy Council sent for these Articles. The Archbishop forwarded them on September 19th to Sir John Cheke. About the beginning of October they were, by the King’s order, com¬ municated to other divines, and on November 23rd the Council once more sent them to Cranmer for final revision, the Archbishop returning them the follow¬ ing day. The Articles were thus privately prepared, and were not the result of any public discussion in Convocation. 3 There was prefixed to the Articles “A shorte catechisme or playne instruc¬ tion contaynynge the summe of Christian learning set fourth by the King’s Majestie’s authorities, for all schoolmaisters to teache.” This was composed by Poinet, Bishop of Winchester. THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES bishop Parker drew up XI. Articles for circulation amongst the clergy. The meaning and force of such formularies is well illustrated by these Articles. They make the barest reference to the fundamentals of the Eaith, merely affirming the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and referring to the Creeds, but they define the position of the Church of England upon points debated at the time. They lay down— (a) The authority of Scri}3ture. (b) The rights of National Churches, their power to decree ceremonies, &c. (c) The rights of the State ; the Royal, as against the Papal, Supremacy. (d) Points of divergence from Rome. Certain prac¬ tices, such as the use of images, relics, &c., and private masses, are condemned, and the right of the laity to partake of the cup is affirmed, but it is noteworthy that there is no condemnation of the doctrine of Transub- stantiation. This is the most comprehensive of all the series of English Articles. Points debated amongst the Re¬ formers are omitted, and even those who wished to hold Roman doctrine on the Sacraments might sub¬ scribe to these Articles, provided only they would accept the Royal Supremacy. The most prominent feature of this formulary is the assertion of the freedom from Papal interference of the National Church, which desires to embrace within itself the whole nation. A few words should be said about The Book of Common Prayer, published in this same year, because it throws light upon the state of religious opinion in England at the time. It was the wish of the Queen, Parker, and Cecil to restore the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI., but this was soon found to be impossible, owing to the number and influence of the returned Marian exiles, whose wish it was to remodel the English Church after the pattern of Geneva. The most that could be done was to revive the second Prayer-Book of Edward, which was A SHORT SKETCH OE FORMULARIES !3 of a much more strongly Reforming type than the first. Two very significant changes were however made, much to the annoyance of the returned refugees and their party. 1 (i.) In the Communion Office the words of adminis¬ tration from the first Book were prefixed to the words of administration as contained in the second Book. So long as the words of the second Book only were used, it might be maintained that that part of the service favoured Calvinistic and anti-sacramental doc¬ trine ; but the addition of the words from the first Book was understood at the time, and was doubtless intended, to imply a recognition of the Real Presence. (2.) The “Ornaments Rubric” was inserted, which restored such vestments of the clergy and furni¬ ture of the Church “ as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” What may be called the “ Puritanism ” of the Prayer-Book of 1552 was thus altogether neutralised. 1562-3. Convocation met in January of this year. XLII. Articles were presented. These were the XLII. Articles of 1553, which had been revised by Archbishop Parker, aided principally by Cox (Bishop of Ely) and Guest (Bishop of Rochester). Pour of the XLII. Articles had been struck out, viz. :— (1.) On Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. (2.) On Grace. (3.) On the Moral Law [but part of this was in¬ corporated with Art. VII.]. 1 Their opinion is well illustrated by a letter of George Withers to the Elector Palatine— “The high Parliament of the whole realm was assembled, popery again east out, and the second form of Prayers, which Edward left behind him at his death, was restored to the Church. But the ceremonies which, as was above stated, were retained in the Church at the first reformation of Edward, are restored under the same name. ... In what way the Sacraments are disfigured by human inventions will easily appear from the public form of prayer, the royal injunctions, and the admonitions, or (as they call them) the advertisements of the Bishops. . . . What must we say when most of them (i.e., the English clergy) are popish priests, consecrated to perform mass?” —Zurich Letters , vol. ii. pp. 161-163. THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (4.) Against the Millenarians. Four Articles had been added, viz. :— (1.) On the Holy Ghost. (2.) On Good Works. (3.) On the non-participation of the wicked in the Holy Communion. (4.) On Communion in both kinds.. No less than seventeen Articles had been more or less modified. The Upper House of Convocation omitted three more Articles which condemned opinions no longer of much importance in the controversies of the time: these were:— Art. XXXIX. “ The resurrection of the dead is not yet brought to pass f Art. XL. “ The soids of them that depart this life do neither die with the bodies nor sleep idly.” Art. XLII. “ All men shall not be saved at length A few verbal changes were also made by Convocation. Thus the number of the Articles was reduced to XXXIX. In the Latin Articles sanctioned by the Queen two important changes were made :— (1.) A clause was added at the beginning of Art. XX. on the authority of the Church, “Habet ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis auctoritatem.” (2.) Article XXIX., on the non-participation of the wicked, was struck out. The Articles, thus reduced to the number of XXXVIII. by the omission of Article XXIX., were published in 1563 as agreed upon “by the Arch¬ bishoppes and Bislioppes of both prouinces and the whole cleargie, in the Conuocation holden at London in the yere of our Lord God MDLXII . . . for the auoiding of the diuersities of opinions, and for the stablishyng of consent touching true religion.” They do not seem, however, to have met with general acceptance between 1563 and 1571. In the last- named year they were re-issued both in Latin and A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES i5 1571. English, with the addition of the Article struck out by the Queen in 1563, and thus, forming XXXIX. in number, were subscribed by both Houses of Convoca¬ tion. Subscription was enforced by Act of Parliament, being required from all clergy, and from all taking degrees at the Universities. 1 In this same year the Reformatio Legum was brought into Parliament. The “ Submission of Clergy ” had provided that no new canons could be put forth by the clergy without the Royal sanction. The old Canon Law remained in force, but it was agreed that it should be revised by a Commission. Three times in Henry’s reign a statute was passed for the appoint¬ ment of the commissioners, 2 but it is not clear that any revision took place. By 3 & 4 Edward VI. 11, the king was empowered to appoint thirty two per¬ sons “ to compile such ecclesiastical laws as should be thought convenient.” The Commission was ap¬ pointed in October 1551, but in the next year the time allowed by the Act expired, and the work had not been completed. In the Parliament which met in 1571 an attempt was made to revive the “ Refor¬ matio Legum f but the attempt failed, and after this date the book disappears from Church history. As matters now stand, the Canons of the Church uni¬ versal are binding in this country when they have been accepted by English synods, and are not contrary to the statute law of the land. The “Reformatio Legum ” has thus no authority whatever, but its statements, especially in the section “ De Hseresibus,” illustrate the Articles, as they often throw light upon the contro¬ versies of the time. 1 The second section of the “ Act for ministers of the Church to be of sound Religion ” (13 Eliz. c. 12) contains the following passage :— “ If any person ecclesiastical, or which shall have any ecclesiastical living, shall advisedly maintain or affirm any doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said Thirty-Nine Articles, and being convicted before the Bishop of the diocese, or the Ordinary, or before the Queen’s Commissioner in causes ecclesiastical, shall persist therein, or not revoke his error, or, after such revocation, affirm such untrue doctrine, such maintaining, or affirm¬ ing, or persisting, shall be just cause to deprive such person of his ecclesi¬ astical functions, and it shall be lawful for the Bishop of the diocese, or Ordinary, or such Commissioner, to deprive such person.” 2 25 Hen. VIII. 19; 27 Hen. VIII. 15 ; and 35 Hen. VIII. 16. i6 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES 1595. The Lambeth Articles. The wide prevalence of Calvinistic theology in Eng¬ land during Elizabeth’s reign is indicated by the con¬ troversy at Cambridge between Whitaker, Regius Professor, and Baro, Margaret Professor, of Divinity, the latter of whom was compelled to resign for teach¬ ing that “ Christ died sufficiently for all,” and for maintaining that this was the doctrine of the English Articles. To this controversy the compilation of the • “ Lambeth Articles ” is ultimately traceable. Arch¬ bishop Whitgift, desiring to settle matters, called to his aid certain bishops and divines, and at Lambeth a paper of Articles was drawn up and agreed upon. These Articles are nine in number, and assert in most uncompromising form the main points of the Calvinistic Theology. They never had any authority whatever. At 1604. the Hampton Court Conference the Puritans petitioned that the “ Lambeth Articles ” might be added to the Thirty-nine, but the request was refused. 1 The history of these Articles suggests two important reflections:— (1.) The Calvinistic party could not have been by any means satisfied that the XXXIX. Articles were Calvinistic in sense, otherwise they would scarcely have thought it necessary to add a statement of Calvinistic doctrine to them. 2 (2.) When an express statement of Calvinistic doctrines was offered for the acceptance of the English Church, it was deliberately re¬ fused. Such doctrines therefore form no part of the theology of our Church. 1604. The fifth of the Canons of this date lays down that, “Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any of the nine- and-thirty Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and 1 They were, however, incorporated with the Irish Articles of 1615. See Appendix VI. 2 That the Calvinistic party was not satisfied with the Church of England Articles is also clearly shown by the action of the Westminster “Assembly of Divines,” who in 1643 commenced a revision of the Articles, “ with a design to render their sense more express and determinate in favour of Calvinism ” (s£e Neal, “History of the Puritans,” vol. i. p. 48, ed. 1754). The committee actually revised the first fifteen Articles. The text of these as revised is given at length in Appendix IV. A SHORT SKETCH OF FORMULARIES i7 Bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy, in the convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred and sixty-two, for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion, are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto; let him be excommunicated ipso facto , and not restored, hut only by the Archbishop, after his repen¬ tance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors.” 1628. His Majesty’s Declaration was prefixed to the XXXIX. Articles. Its immediate cause seems to have been the strong censure of Arminianism uttered by the House of Commons, and it was put forth with a view of settling or smoothing the raging controversy between Arminians and Calvinists. It enjoins that the Articles be taken “ in the literal and grammatical sense f and points to Convocation as the proper body for settling disputed points of doctrine or discipline. The “ Declaration ” was drawn up by Laud, but not submitted to Convo¬ cation, so that it had not the sanction of the Church, but was put forth solely on the King’s authority. 1635. The XXXIX. Articles adopted by the Convocation of the Church of Ireland. 1804. The Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church accepted the XXXIX. Articles. 1865. In this year there was passed “ An Act to amend the law as to the declarations and subscriptions to be made, and oaths to be taken, by the clergy ” (28 and 29 Viet. c. 1 1 2). This Act provides that a clergyman, on being instituted to a living, shall, on the first Sunday that he officiates there, “ publicly and openly in the presence of his congregation read the whole Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and immediately after reading them, make the declaration of assent to them.” c Ill ANALYSIS OF THE XXXIX. ARTICLES The Articles may be divided into groups under the following heads : I. Articles setting forth the Foundation Truths of Eeligion (I.-V.). The great truths embodied in the Ancient Creeds and held in all ages by the Church are here set forth, with very little in the way of comment or exposition. II. Articles giving the Eule of Faith (VI.—VIII.). The great principle which underlay the Eeformation is laid down, viz., the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as containing all things necessary to salvation. III. Articles dealing with Individual Eeligion (IX.-XVI 1 I.) These set forth the theory of man’s unregenerate and regenerate state, and deal with those points more par¬ ticularly upon which variety of opinion existed amongst those who had separated from Eome. Articles IX.— XIV. are concerned more especially with the great sub¬ ject of Justification, which had been brought into such prominence by Luther’s work in Germany. Articles XV.— XVIII. are connected rather with those questions upon which the systematic teaching of Calvin turned. IV. Articles dealing with Corporate Eeligion (XIX.- XXXVI.). These fall into two groups— (a) Those dealing with the nature, constitution, order, and authority of the Church (XIX.-XXL, XXIII., XXIV., XXXII.—XXXVI.). (6) Those setting forth the doctrine of the Sacraments, and including the condemnation of Purgatory, &c. (XXII., XXV.—XXXI.). It is in this group that we have the greatest divergence from the Church of Eome. V. Articles dealing with National Eeligion (XXXVII.- XXXIX.). These treat of the Church and of the individual Christian in their relation to the State. 18 ARTICLES AGREED UPON BY THE ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS OP BOTH PROVINCES, AND THE WHOLE CLERGY, IN THE CONVOCATION HOLDEN AT LONDON IN THE YEAR 1562, FOR THE AVOIDING OF DIVERSITIES OF OPINIONS, AND FOR THE ESTABLISHING OF CONSENT TOUCHING TRUE RELIGION I REPRINTED BY HIS MAJESTY’S COMMANDMENT, WITH HIS ROYAL DECLARATION PREFIXED THEREUNTO. * HIS MAJESTY’S DECLARATION 1 Being by God’s Ordinance, according to our just Title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor 2 of the Church, within these our Dominions, we hold it most agreeable to this our kingly office, and our own religious zeal, to conserve and main¬ tain the Church committed to our charge, in the unity of true Religion, and in the bond of peace; and not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in the Church and Commonwealth. We have, therefore, upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our Bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this Declaration following:— That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorised heretofore, and which our Clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England, agreeable to God’s Word; which we do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles: which to that end we com¬ mand to be new printed, and this our Declaration to be published therewith. That we are Supreme Governor of the Church of England: and that if any difference arise about the external policy, con¬ cerning the Injunctions, Canons, and other Constitutions what¬ soever thereto belonging, the Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our Broad Seal so to do: and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions; providing that none be made contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land. That out of our princely care that the Churchmen may do the work which is proper unto them, the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation, upon their humble desire, 1 Prefixed to the Articles in 1628, see p. 17. 2 For the history of this title see notes on Art. XXXVII. 21 22 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES shall have Licence under our Broad Seal to deliberate of, and to do all such things, as being made plain by them, and assented unto by us, shall concern the settled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established; from which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree. That for the present, though some differences have been ill raised, yet we take comfort in this, that all Clergymen within our Realm have always most willingly subscribed to the Articles established; which is an argument to us, that they all agree in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said Articles; and that even in those curious points, 1 in which the present differences lie, men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them; which is an argument again that none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established. That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in different times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, we will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God’s promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the Holy Scrip¬ tures, 2 and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England according to them. And that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense. That if any Public Reader, in either of our Universities, or any Head or Master of a College, or any other person respec¬ tively in either of them, shall affix any new sense to any Article, or shall publicly read, determine, or hold any public disputation, or suffer any such to be held either way, in either the Universities or Colleges respectively ; or if any Divine in the Universities shall preach or print anything either way, other than is already established in Convocation with our Royal Assent; he, or they the offenders, shall be liable to our displeasure, and the Church’s censure in our Commission Ecclesiastical, as well as any other; and we will see there shall be due execution upon them. 1 Viz., the points in dispute between the Calvinistic party and those whom, no account of their opposition to them, they designated Arminians. 2 See notes on Art. XVII. ARTICLES OF RELIGION ARTICLE I OF FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY. There is but one living and true j 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 unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. DE FIDE IN SACROSANCTAM TRINIT ATEM. Unus est vivus et verus Deus, aeternus, incorporeus, impartibilis, impassibilis; immensae potentiae , sapientiae, ac bonitatis ; Creator et Conservator omnium turn visi - bilium , turn invisibilium. Et in unitate hujus divinae naturae, tres sunt Personae, ejusdem essentiae, potentiae, ac aeternitatis, Pater, Films, et Spiritus Sanctus. § i .—SOURCE. Largely borrowed from the Augsburg Confession, Part 1 ., Art. I., through the medium of the XIII. Articles. The words printed in italics are common to all three formularies. § 2.— OBJECT. The Article of course excludes Arian and Sabellian heretics. Its immediate object doubtless was to condemn the Anabaptists, and kindred spirits, who had revived these heresies at the period of the Keformation, many of them having renounced all belief in the Holy Trinity. 1 1 That even those Articles which affirm the fundamental doctrines of the faith were called forth hy the needs of the time is abundantly proved by con¬ temporary documents; see, e.g., letter written hy Ridley to Bradford shortly before his death (Works, p. 367, ed. Parker Society) :— “ Whereas you write of the outrageous rule that Satan, our ghostly enemy, beareth abroad in the world, whereby he stirreth, and raiseth so pestilent and heinous heresies, as some to deny the blessed Trinity, some the Divinity 23 24 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES § 3.— EXPOSITION. (1) The Being of God. “ There is but one living and true God.” Belief in the existence of God is the very foundation of all religion (Heb. xi. 6). His existence does not admit of demonstration, yet is a matter of reasonable certainty, being testified to by (< a ) The phenomena of nature (Job xii. 7-10; Rom. i. 20). The argument for the existence of God from natural phenomena falls under two heads :— (i.) The argument from causation. The succession of causes which we observe in nature must have derived its origin from some First Cause. In the words of Herbert Spencer, “ The assumption of the existence of a first cause of the universe is a necessity of thought.” (ii.) The argument from adaptation. The order and use¬ fulness of the world, and all things therein, point to a wise and mighty Will behind it (Acts xiv. 17). So John Stuart Mill, in his work “ On Theism,” con¬ fesses, “ I think it must be allowed that, in the present state of our knowledge, the adaptations in nature afford a large balance of probability in favour of creation by intelligence.” ( b ) The moral sense of mankind (Rom. ii. 15). Should we not see in the obligatory influence of con¬ science, the sense of right and wrong, and of respon¬ sibility, the image, and therefore the proof, of the Divine Mind ? Thus we follow alike the strongest presumption of our reason, and the best intuition of the soul, when we believe that God is. The existence of God is confirmed, and His character more clearly manifested to us by Revelation. It was the work of Christ to declare to us the Father 1 (S. John i. 1 8 ; cf. xvii. 6). of our Saviour Christ, some the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, some the baptism of infants, some original sin, and to be infected with the errors of the Pelagians, and to re-baptize those that have been baptized with Christ’s baptism already ; alas, Sir, this doth declare this time and these days to be wicked indeed.” 1 This declarative aspect of Christ’s work is especially prominent in the Gospel according to S. John. ARTICLE I 2 5 Being Himself “ the Image of the invisible God” (Col. i. 15), He showed the Father by exhibiting in Himself the moral image of God. Those who saw Him saw the Father (S. John xii. 45 ; xiv. 9). Those who hearkened to Him heard the words of the Father (S. John vii. 16; viii. 28; xiv. 24). The whole of His perfect life was a manifestation of the Father, with Whom He is one (S. John x. 30), and from Whom He came forth (S. John xvi. 28), His mission being attested by (a) fulfilment of pro¬ phecies (S. John v. 46), and by (b) miracles (S. John v. 36; xv. 24). God is:— one (Deut. vi. 4 ; Isa. xliv. 8 ; S. Mark xii. 29 ; 1 Cor. viii. 4). living, i.e. self-existent, having life in Himself (Exod. iii. 14; Jer. x. 10; S. John v. 26 ; 1 Thess. i. 9). true (a\>iOivos, 1 Thess. i. 9 ; S. John xvii. 3)—the meaning of the Greek word is ‘genuine,’ denoting that which truly and completely is that which it professes to be. The sense is therefore that there is One only who perfectly fulfils the conception we form of what God should be. (2) The Attributes of God. “Everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.” The Divine attributes given in the Article may be classified as follows: — (a) Positive attributes , such as impute to God the possession of certain qualities. everlasting (Deut. xxxii. 40; Ps. cii. 27; Rev. i. 8). This follows upon recognition of God as the ‘ First Cause,’ which must exist of Itself, and therefore must always exist. of infinite power (S. Matt. xix. 26 ; but see 2 Tim. ii. 13; Heb. vi. 18). Thus ‘ Almighty ’ 1 is a title often applied to God in Holy Scripture. When we say “God can do everything,” we of course exclude those things which are in themselves impossible ; e.g ., that a thing should exist and not exist at the same moment. 1 ta, 7 ra.vTOKpa.Twp, Lat. ‘omnipotens,’ [i.e. strictly, “having power over all tilings”). D 26 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES We likewise except those things which contradict the perfection of God. He is of infinite power, but He cannot sin. Sin is, in fact, a mark of weakness, not of power. of infinite wisdom (Ps. cxlvii. 5 ; Rom. xi. 33). By wisdom we mean knowledge of things together with skill to apply that knowledge. of infinite goodness (Lev. xi. 45; S. Luke xviii. 19; S. James i. 17). He is perfectly good in Himself, and the Author and Giver of all good. (6) Negative attributes , such as deny to God the possession of certain qualities. without body (incorporeus), i.e., immaterial, spiritual (S. John iv. 24; v. 37 ; cf. S. Luke xxiv. 39). without parts (impartibilis), i.e., incapable of division. There can be nothing of the nature of conflict or change with God (Ps. cii. 26, 27). without passions (impassibilis), i.e., incapable of suffering. Whatever suffers does so from some agent stronger than itself; this therefore follows from the infinite power of God. 1 (3) God’s Relation to the Universe. “ The Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.” The relation of God to the universe is twofold. He is— {a) Maker. The universe is not eternal, or self-originated^ neither is it an involuntary development of the Divine Nature, but it is dependent for its existence upon the Will of God, having been called into being at a de¬ finite point of time by Him (Gen. i. 1 ; Acts iv. 24; Col. i. 16 ; Rev. iv. 1 1). Pantheism therefore, which confounds God with the universe, is not a true account of things. (b ) Preserver. Having created the world, God did not leave it to go on of itself, but He is omnipresent, 1 It should be noted that the English rendering of the last two attributes suggests a different sense :— ‘ without parts 5 — i.e., face, hands, eyes, &c. ‘without passions.’ ( See Num. xxiii. 19 ; Acts xiv. 15 ; S. Janies v. 17.) The organs and feelings of man are indeed often attributed to the Deity in Holy Scripture ( e.g ., Prov. xv. 3 ; Exorl. xx. 5), but this is done by a figure of speech, in accommodation to human understanding. ARTICLE I 27 immanent, guiding, controlling, and directing (S. John v. 17). We speak sometimes of the universe as governed by natural laws. Scientific research may discover certain general laws according to which the course of nature is ordered. Such laws are but the expression of the Divine will (Col. i. 17 ; Acts xvii. 28). Deism therefore, which separates the universe from God, so far as its present operations are con¬ cerned, is not a true account* of things. (4) The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. “And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Person—an individual moral agent. Substance (essentia)—the nature or essence whereof one or more persons subsist. “ Trinity ” is the word used by the Church to express shortly the Revelation of the Being of God contained in the New Testa¬ ment, that blessed Revelation which makes the New Testament what it is, viz., a new Covenant of God with man, through Jesus Christ the Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit the Sanctifier. Whilst the doctrine is not philosophically developed in the books of the New Testament, it is involved in the very substance of its teaching; e.g., the formula of Baptism given by our Lord Himself (S. Matt, xxviii. 19) clearly implies in the Godhead, (a) Distinction of Persons, (b) Equality of Persons, and (c) Unity of Persons, for it is said ef? to ovo^ia in the singular. God then is “ Three in One/’ we must not “ confound the Persons ” 1 (S. John xiv. 16); yet He is “One in Three,” we must not “divide the Substance” 1 (S. Matt, xxviii. 19; cf. S. John x. 30). 2 This doctrine is opposed to— (a) Tritheism or Polytheism of any kind. “We are forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say there be three Gods.” 1 ( b ) Sccbellianism, according to which God, Who is one person, reveals Himself at one time in the character of the Father, at another in that of the Son, at another in that 1 Athanasian Creed. 2 I11 the latter passage notice the neuter eV, implying ‘one essence,’ not * one person.’ 28 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of the Holy Spirit. But thus the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would be personations rather than persons. (c) Arianism, and kindred doctrines such as Unitciricmism , Socinianism, &c., according to which the Father alone is God in the full and proper sense of the term. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is no mere abstract doctrine, or dark speculation without practical value, but as it is funda¬ mental to theology, so also it is to practical piety, having an intimate bearing upon the Christian life. "We are baptized into the Name of the Holy Trinity, and it is our blessed privilege to rejoice in the knowledge of the Father’s love (i S. John iv. 19), and to experience the power of the Son, through His death and resurrection, to cleanse us from sin and keep us in newness of life (Phil. iii. 10), a power which we share through the presence of the Holy Spirit with us, Who brings us ever into closer union with the living Christ (2 Cor. xiii. 14). ARTICLE II OF THE WORD, OR SON OF GOD, WHICH WAS MADE VERY MAN. The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from ever¬ lasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one Substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance : so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; Who truly suffered, w r as crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men. DE VERBO, STVE FILIO DEI, QUI VERUS HOMO FACTUS EST. Films, qui est verbum Patris, ab aeterno a Patre genitus, verus et aeternus Deus, ac Patri con- substantialis in utero Beatae Vir- ginis , ex illius substantia, naturam humanam assumpsit , ita at duae naturae, divina et hum ana, integre atque perfecte, in unitate personae, fuerint inseparabiliter conjunctae, ex quibus est Unus Christas, verus Deus, et verus Homo, qui vere passus est, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepidtus, ut Fatrem nobis re- conciliar et, essetque hostia, non tantum pro culpa originis, verum etiam pro omnibus actualibus liomi- num peccatis. § i.—, SOURCE. Mainly from the Augsburg Confession, Part I., Art. III., through the medium of the XIIT. Articles. The clause in thick type was added in 1563 from the Wurtemburg Confession, Art. II. § 2 .—OBJECT. The doctrinal excesses of the Anabaptists made it necessary for the Church, at the time of the Reformation, to reaffirm the Catholic doctrine of our Lord’s Incarnation. The prevalence of heresies on this central doctrine of the Christian faith is clear from the following evidence :— By Stat. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 49, 29 11, those were excluded 30 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES from the king’s pardon who held “ that Christ took no bodily substance of our blessed lady.” Hooper, writing to Bullinger from London, June 25, 1549, says:— “The Anabaptists flock to the place ( i.e ., of public lecture), and give me much trouble with their opinions respecting the Incarnation of the Lord ; for they deny altogether that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh.”— Original Letters , vol. i. p. 65. Martin Micronius, in a letter to Bullinger, dated London, May 20, 1550, writes :— “And indeed it is a matter of the first importance that the Word of God should be preached here in German, to guard against the heresies which are introduced by our countrymen. There are Arians, Marcionists, Libertines, Danists, and the like monstrosities, in great numbers. A few days since, namely, on the 2nd of May, a certain woman was burnt alive for denying the Incarnation of Christ.” 1 — Original Letters , vol. ii. p. 560. Micronius, writing again to Bullinger from London, August 14, 1551, says:— “ We have not only to contend with the Papists, who are almost everywhere ashamed of their errors, but much more with the Sectaries and Epicureans, and pseudo-evangelicals. In addition to the ancient errors respecting paedo-baptism, the Incarnation of Christ, the authority of the magistrate, the lawfulness of an oath, the property and community of goods, and the like, new ones are rising up every day, with which we have to contend. The chief opponents, however, of Christ’s Divinity are the Arians, who are now beginning to shake our Churches with greater violence than ever, as they deny the conception of Christ by the Virgin.”— Original Letters , vol. ii. p. 574. Richard Hilles writes to Bullinger from London, March 8, 1571 “ But I grieve very much that the pestiferous sect of Arians is budding forth again in many other places besides Switzerland.”— Zurich Letters , vol. ii. p. 182. See also Ridley’s letter to Bradford, quoted above, pp. 23, 24, and compare £ Reformatio Legum,’ De Haeresibus, cap. 5 :— “ Circa duplicem Christi naturam perniciosus est et varius error : ex quibus alii sunt ex Arianorum secta, Christum ita ponentes 1 The woman referred to is Joan Bucher, sometimes called Joan of Kent. ARTICLE II 3 1 hominem ut Deum negent. Alii eum sic Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore nugantur de coelo divinitus assumpto, et in virginis uteruni lapso, quod tanquam in transitu per Mariam quasi per canalem aut fistulam praeterfluxit.” § 3 .—EXPOSITION. (1) The Nature of the Son of God. “The 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.” the Word (S. John i. i). The significance of the title as applied to the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity is that as a word declares thought, so does the Son reveal the Father (S. John i. 18); as a man makes known his will by word of mouth, so God reveals His will by His Son (Heb. i. i). begotten expresses here not an event, but a relationship which has subsisted from everlasting. He is “ be¬ gotten ” or else He would not be “ Son/' but “ from everlasting” or else He would not be God (Col. i. i 5 ; Heb. i. 5-12). very and eternal God. Christ is not metaphorically but properly and truly called God (Rom. ix. 5 j 1 S. John i. 18; 2 v. 26; 1 S. John v. 20). of one substance with the Father (Patri consubstantialis). These words correspond to the well-known clause of the Nicene Creed, o/jloovo-iov t« TLarpl. “ Of one essence ” would be a better representation of the meaning in English (S: John x. 30; v. 26). (2) The Doctrine of the Incarnation. “ Took man’s nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man.” Took man’s nature (Phil. ii. 6—8). An important state¬ ment. The Divine Nature did not become human, neither did the Son of God take a mans nature , but man’s nature , i.e. human nature , assuming the same 1 The doxology in this passage is doubtless rightly taken as referring to Christ. 2 Note that the reading of this passage according to NBCL is 6 /xovoyevrjs debs. 32 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES nature which is in all other men, assuming it in its first original element before it had come to have any personal subsistence (Heb. ii. 16). in the womb of the Blessed Virgin (S. Matt. i. 20 ; S. Luke i. 30-35 ; Gal. iv. 4). The Divine Nature did not descend upon the man Jesus at some period , of his earthly life, as Nestorians taught, but He Who was born of Alary was really God, so that the Blessed Virgin may be called Oeoroicog} Cf. the Apology of Aristides, 2 § II., “ God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew Virgin took and clad Himself with fiesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God.” The followers of Cerinthus and the Ebionites are thus excluded, who held that Jesus Christ had no existence before His Mother, so that two whole and perfect natures . . . were joined together in one person, never to be divided. There were four great heresies on this subject in early times. (a) Allans denied the Divinity of Christ. (b) Apollinarians tampered with His Manhood. (c) Nestorians divided the Divinity and the Manhood, making Christ two Persons. (d) Eutychians confounded the two natures, so as to make from them one composite nature, neither human nor Divine. The Church defended the faith at four General Councils. (a) At Nicsea, A.D. 325, affirming that Christ is truly (aXriOcog) God. (b) At Constantinople, a.d. 381, affirming that He is per¬ fectly (reXecog) man. (c) At Ephesus, a.d. 43 1, declaring that the two natures are indivisibly (dScaipercog) united. (d) At Chalcedon, a.d. 451, laying down that at the same time He is distinctly (acrvy^yrcog) God and man. See Rev. i. 5, 6, 17, 18 ; Acts xx. 28. 1 The title was authoritatively adopted at the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, Nestorius having raised an objection to it. It is the common title of the Blessed Virgin in the Eastern Church at the present day. 2 An Apology for Christianity presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius by Aristides, an Athenian philosopher. It was written between 120 and 140 A.D., and recovered in a Syriac Version at the Convent of S. Katherine, Sinai, by Mr. Rendel Harris, in 1889. ARTICLE II 33 We have seen that the two natures are joined together in Christ, but not confused: from these two natures, each of which still remains entire, is made one Person, 1 of the whole of which Person that is sometimes predicated which is proper only to one of the natures ; see, e.g., Acts xx. 28. This manner of expression is called “ communicatio idiomatum ” ( i.e ., sharing of properties). By this it is not meant that there is ever any mutual participa¬ tion of both natures, but always a co-operation and association of the two. The words “never to be divided” are important. The humanity was not laid aside at the Ascension. (3.) The Doctrine of the Atonement. “ Who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” truly suffered. Thus are excluded all forms of the Docetic heresy, which teach that the Son of God became man in appearance only, and that His humanity, His sufferings, &c., were therefore unreal, to reconcile . . . to be a sacrifice. When treating of the change brought about in the relation of man to God by the death of Christ, the following words are used in the New Testament:— (a) KaraWdua-eLv and cognate words. Man was in a state of enmity against God (Eph. ii. 3), but Christ reconciles the two (Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 18—20; Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 20). We should notice that while the Article speaks of God being reconciled to us by the death of Christ, 2 on the other hand in the passages of Scripture 1 This is called the “hypostatic union," a technical term of theology denoting the joining of the two natures in one viroaTacns. 2 The expression of the Article “ ut Patrem nobis reconciliaret ” is taken, as stated above, from the Augsburg Confession; the same manner of presenting the truth is also found in the Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XI. “ Porro passione et morte sua, omnibusque adeo quae a suo in carne adventu nostra causa fecit et pertulit, reconciliavit omnibus fidelibus Dominus noster Patrem ccelestem.” See also the Homily of Repentance, First Part, p. 564 “We have need of a Mediator for to bring and reconcile us unto Him, who for our sins is angry with us. The same is Jesus Christ; who, being true and natural God, equal and of one substance with the Father, did at the time appointed take upon Him our frail nature, in the blessed Virgin’s womb, and that of her undefiled substance ; that so He might be a Mediator betwixt God and us, and pacify His wrath.” E 34 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES referred to the enmity is represented as on man’s side, and man is spoken of as reconciled to God. Though the ex¬ pression is not used, nevertheless, in the New Testament, God is thought of as being reconciled to man; we read of an opyt] Oeov (Rom. i. 18 ; Eph. ii. 3, v. 6), which must not be considered merely as an anthropomorphic mode of expression, but as representing something real in the nature and disposition of God towards man in his natural state. ( b ) a 7 ro\vTf)Goo-is , \vrpov, and cognate words. These give the idea of deliverance as from slavery (S. Matt. xx. 28 ; Rom. iii. 24 ; 1 Cor. i. 30; Eph. i. y ; Col. i. 14). Man was in a condition of slavery to sin (Rom. vii. 14; cf. S. John viii. 34), but Christ paid the ransom (1 Tim. ii. 6) and redeemed him (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 ; Acts xx. 28). (c) IXao’TrjQiov , l\acriu. 6 $. These words have in the New Testament the sense of “ expiation ” which takes place by means of sacrifice or offering (Rom. iii. 25; 1 S. John ii. 2). 1 (d) 7 rpoc(pop(x , Qucria. See Eph. v. 2, where these words are used of Christ’s death, signifying its virtue as a propitiatory sacrifice. The Article, within Holy Scripture, strongly insists on Christ’s Death as an atoning sacrifice; thus our Church discards any merely exemplary view of the Death of Christ, as also the theory which sees in it only an impressive moral exhibition. for original guilt. See notes on Art. IX. for all actual sins of men. The omission of the word “all” in some modern copies is entirely without authority. The wording is important because strongly anti-Calvinistic, 2 Calvinism teaching that Christ did not die for all sins, but for those of the elect only. That the Calvinistic party considered the word “all” hostile to their doctrine is proved by the fact that 1 i\aaT 7 ]pi.ov in LXX. generally represents the Hebrew rn' 33 , the Cover of the Ark, the Mercy-Seat {cf. Heb. ix. 5). 2 The English Church emphatically asserts the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice “for the sins of the whole world.” {Cf. Art. XXXI., where see notes.) ARTICLE II 35 in the text as revised by the Westminster divines it is wanting. 1 Original guilt and actual sins are both mentioned in the Article in order to emphasise the truth that the effect of the Atonement wrought by Christ’s Death is utterly to abolish all sin. 1 See Appendix IV.; and cf . Westminster Confession, xi. 4:— “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins.” ARTICLE III OF THE GOING DOWN OF CHRIST INTO HELL. As Christ died for us and was buried, so also it is to be believed that He went down into Hell. DE DESCENSU CHRISTI AD INFEROS. Quemadmodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est et sepultus, ita est etiam credendus ad inferos de- scendisse. § i .—SOURCE. This Article was composed by the English Reformers. It was a good deal longer as it stood in the XLII. Articles, being con¬ tinued as follows:— For the bodie lay in the sepulchre, Ham corpus usque ad resurrec- untill the Resurrection: but his tionem in sepulchro jacuit, Spiri- Ghoste departing from him, was tus ab illo emissus, cum spiritibus with the ghostes that were in qui in carcere sive in inferno de¬ prison, or in Helle, and didde tinebantur, fuit, illisque praedi- preache to the same, as the place cavit, quemadmodum testatur Petri of S. Peter dooeth testifie. locus. This paragraph was omitted in 1563. § 2 .—OBJECT. The doctrine of our Lord’s descent into Hell seems to have been much agitated in this country. Micronius, writing to Bullinger from London, May 20, 1550, says:— “They are disputing about the descent of Christ into Hell.”— Original Letters , vol. ii. p. 561. The violence of the controversy on this subject, and especially- concerning the bearing of the text of S. Peter referred to on the doctrine, was most likely the cause of Convocation dropping the latter part of the Article in 1563. Alley, Bishop of Exeter, 36 ARTICLE III 37 drew up papers for this Convocation, in which he thus alludes to the subject:— “First for matters of Scripture, namely, for this place which is written in the Epistle of S. Peter, that Christ went down into hell and preached to the souls that were in prison. There have been in my diocese great invectives between the preachers one against the other.” 1 § 3. — EXPOSITION. The use of the word hell in the Article, as in the Apostles’ Creed, is a little unfortunate, because it is often used to signify the place of torment. Here it is used in the sense of the Greek aSr)$j or the Hebrew iiKP, meaning the place of departed spirits. The purport of the Article, therefore, is that our Lord was true man as well in death as in life; that His Body lay in the grave, and Llis Spirit went to the place of departed spirits (cf. S. Luke xxiii. 43). For Scripture testimony see the following passages :— (a) Acts ii. 25—31, where S. Peter quotes the words of the Psalmist, “ Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption ” (Ps. xvi. 10), and applies them to the Resurrection of our Lord, “ Whose soul was not left in hell.” This argument implies that the soul of Christ had been in hell. (b) 1 S. Peter iii. 18, 19. This famous passage represents the soul of Christ as acting, after the death of the body, among the souls who were in the place of departed spirits, those especially being mentioned who were disobedient at the time of the flood. Christ is said to have preached (eiajpu^ev) to these. The word is one generally used in the Gospels of the work of Christ in proclaiming the Gospel of the King¬ dom, preaching repentance ( e.g ., S. Matt. iv. 17, 23). If we so understand the passage our interpretation is confirmed by a comparison with 1 S. Peter iv. 6—all are to be on the same footing at the Judgment; therefore all, dead as well as living, have the offer of the salvation of Christ. 2 1 Strype, “Annals,” i. 348 (ed. 1725). 2 Of course, when thus interpreted, the passage does not support the idea that those who have had the offer of Christ’s salvation in this life, and refused it, will have another chance after death. Inadequate explanations of S. Peter’s meaning are—( a ) that given by Bishop Pearson, viz., that the Spirit of Christ 38 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES We have seen that the disputes as to the meaning of the pas¬ sage in S. Peter caused the reference to it in the Article to be struck out. Our Church, however, has expressed her view of its meaning by appointing the passage to be read as the Epistle on Easter Even. preaclied by the mouth of Noah to the ante-Diluvians; (6) that the proclama¬ tion spoken of was one of condemnation. ARTICLE IV OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. DE RESURRECTIONS CHRISTI. Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again Iiis body, with flesh, hones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith He as¬ cended into Heaven, and there sittetli, until He return to judge all men at the last day. Christus vere a mortuis resur- rexit, suumque corpus cum carne, ossibus, omnibusque ad integri- tatem humanae naturae pertinenti- bus, recepit, cum quibus in coelum ascendit, ibique residet, quoad ex- tremo die ad judicandos homines reversurus sit. § i .—SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3. § 2.— OBJECT. This Article is supplementary to the Second and Third, affirm¬ ing the true and proper Manhood of our risen and ascended Lord, and thus excluding the theories of certain sectaries of the Reformation period who inclined to the Docetic heresy; e.g., Caspar Schwenkfeld, a Silesian nobleman (1528), contended that the flesh of Christ had never been the flesh of a created being, and is now, since the Ascension, so deified as to retain no semblance of humanity. § 3.— EXPOSITION. (1.) The Resurrection of Christ. Christ did truly rise again from death. See S. Matt, xxviii. 6; Acts x. 40, 41; 1 Cor. xv. 1-20. and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things apper¬ taining to the perfection of Man’s nature. See S. Luke xxiv. 39, 40; S. John xx. 27. The Lord’s Body after the Resurrection was the identical Body in which He suffered, but in some measure spiritualised (S. John xx. 19—27). 39 40 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES The Resurrection is represented as God the Fathers testi¬ mony to the claim of Jesus. He had been condemned by the Sanhedrin because of His claim to be the Son of God (S. Matt, xxvi. 63—66). The Resurrection was the Divine vindication of this claim (Rom. i. 4; Acts xiii. 33). The chief work of the Apostles was to bear witness to its literal truth as an historical fact (Acts i. 22; ii. 32; iv. 33); thus it occupies the central position in Apostolic preaching (Acts ii. 32; x. 40; xiii. 30; xvii. 1 8), and is set forth as the very basis of our Religion (1 Cor. xv. 14-17). It must be admitted on all hands that Christianity would never have become the Religion it is without belief in the Resurrection of Christ. 1 We put a vital question, therefore, when we ask, “Is the belief in the Resurrection well grounded?” (a) It is sometimes urged that the age was a superstitious, a credulous one; that the Apostles would readily imagine that they saw their Master, and would believe that He had risen. But the Evangelists seem to take special pains to make it clear that the followers of Christ were by no means prepared for His Resurrection, nor were they at first even willing to believe it; on the other hand, it was quite a difficult matter to convince them of its truth. (See S. Matt, xxviii. 17; S. Mark xvi. 11, 13, 14; S. Luke xxiv. 11, 41 ; and note especially the case of S. Thomas, S. John xx. 24—29). Further, it is scarcely credible that the five hundred brethren who saw the risen Lord at once (1 Cor. xv. 6) could have been the victims of illusion. ( b ) It is said, again, that Christ, after His Resurrection, ap¬ peared only to friends (Acts x. 41), and that this makes us suspect collusion. But the testimony of the enemies of Christ to the Resurrection should not be overlooked (S. Matt, xxviii. 11-15); neither should we forget that on one memorable occasion Christ did appear to an enemy, viz., to Saul the persecutor (Acts ix. 3 et seqq., xxii. 14; 1 Cor. 1 Thus Strauss admits that ‘‘Christianity in the form in which Paul, in which all the Apostles understood it, as is presupposed in the Confessions of all Christian Churches, falls with the resurrection of Jesus.” (See Oosterzee, “Christian Dogmatics,” p. 565). Again, the Rev. C. J. H. Fletcher of Oxford, in a sermon the main purpose of which seems to be to proclaim the “failure” of the historical evidence of the Resurrection, has the following passage :— “Would the disciples have rallied from the shock of their Master’s unexpected death without a supernatural reassertion of His life ? Could they have been transformed into enthusiastic death-defying Apostles unless they had believed they had seen their risen Lord ? No ” (“ The Taking Away of the Veil,” p. 15). ARTICLE IV 4i xv. 8), and the fact that when He did appear to an enemy, that enemy became a friend, an Apostle, a martyr, is surely strong testimony to the fact of the Resurrection. ( c ) There are yet other theories which see the real and pro¬ found cause of faith in Christ’s corporeal Resurrection in the ineffaceable impression which His religious grandeur had left on the minds of His faithful followers, 1 and which hold that the story of the Resurrection is a parable of the immortality of the influence of Christ, and typical of the spiritual death and resurrection of humanity. 2 But any such substitution of the abiding influence of the life of Christ, or the onward progress of mankind, for the literal fact that “ Christ did truly rise from death,” would render many undisputed facts of history unaccountable, 3 and reduce Christianity itself to the impossible position of an effect without a cause. The evidence, indeed, is such that a great scholar, himself born and brought up in the Jewish Religion, was constrained to say, “ The Resurrection may be unhesi¬ tatingly pronounced the best-established fact in history.” 4 (2.) The Ascension of Christ. wherewith He ascended into Heaven. We have three accounts of the Ascension in the New Testament: S. Mark xvi. 19; S. Luke xxiv. 50, 51; Acts i. 9 ; cf. also 1 S. Peter iii. 2 2. S. Stephen, when arraigned before the Council, saw our Lord in Heaven at the right hand of the Father (Acts vii. 56). and there sitteth (Ps. cx. 1). The word conveys two ideas— (a) That of dwelling, abiding, in glory at the right hand of God (Heb. x. 12, “for ever sat down”). ( b) That of reigning, sitting enthroned, sharing the Father’s royal power (Eph. i. 20—22). 1 Reville, “History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ,” Chap. ii. 2 Strauss, at the conclusion of his “Leben Jesu” (first edition), writes :— “ Humanity it is that dies, and rises again, and ascends to Heaven. . . . Through faith in this Christ, specially in His death and resurrection, man is justified before God.” s e.g ., The startling rise and spread of the Christian Church, the institution and observance of the Lord’s Day (Acts xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Rev. i. 10), and the acceptance and observance of the Holy Eucharist. If that rite be only a reminder of the utter disappointment of the first disciples, how shall we explain its unceasing celebration from the earliest times ? How shall we account for the manner in which it has so completely superseded the ancient sacrificial system? (See Maclear’s “Evidential Value of the Holy Eucharist.”) 4 Ederslieim, “Jesus the Messiah,” vol. ii. p. 626 (first edition). F 42 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES We must not suppose that inaction is implied in the word “ sitteth.” A glance at those passages where we have accounts of appearances of Christ after His Ascension will prevent mis¬ understanding on this point. In Acts vii. 5 5 > 56, we read that S. Stephen “ looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Again, the Lord appeared to S. John in Patmos, walking in the midst of the golden candlesticks (Rev. ii. i). Of. also S. Mark xvi. 20, where it is said that after the Ascension the Apostles “ went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them” It is in the Revelation of S. John and in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the activity of the Ascended Christ is especially brought before us. In his exile for the testimony of Jesus Christ, S. John sees a vision of the Lord in glory (Rev. i. 13—20), and the very object of His appearing is, that He may send mes¬ sages to the Churches of Asia. He knows the circumstances of each Church (Rev. ii. 2, 9, 13, &c.), watches over it, and over individual members of it (ii. 13); He warns, encourages, and directs. In the same book He is seen in Heaven as the Lamb that was slain, before the throne of God He bears the marks of His wounds, pleading His Sacrifice (v. 6, 9, 12, &c.). Cf. Rom. viii. 34, where Christ is referred to as interceding for us at the right hand of God. But it is in the Epistle to the Hebrews that the thought of Christ exercising His High Priestly Office in Heaven is most dwelt upon (see Heb. vii. 24—28 ; ix. 24-26). 1 (3.) The Return of Christ. until He return (Acts iii. 21 ; Heb. ix. 28). Our Lord Himself spoke of His return to earth in glory (S. Matt. xxiv. 30; S. John xiv. 3). At His Ascension the attendant angels gave a promise to the wondering disciples that He should return (Acts i. 1 1); accordingly we find the Apostolic writers continually looking forward to His coming again (Phil. i. 6, 10; 1 Tliess. iii. 13, iv. 16; 2 Thess. i. 7 ; 1 Tim. vi. 14), which is generally regarded as close at hand (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 17); but the exact time of the second Advent is 1 It may be noted in this connection that the dress in which the Lord appears to S. John (Rev. i. 13) is that of a priest engaged in active service. ARTICLE IY 43 uncertain, so that it will come unexpectedly upon those who are not constantly watching (i Thess. v. 2, 3 ; 2 S. Peter iii. 1 o; Rev. iii. 3 ; cf. our Lord’s words in S. Matt. xxiv. 36—44, xxv. 13; S. Luke xii. 35-40). (4.) The Last Judgment. to judge all men at the last day. Judgment is the issue of Christ’s second coming (S. Matt, xvi. 27; 2 Tim. iv. 1). Three points are clearly brought out in Holy Scripture in this connection:— (a) Christ Himself is to be the Judge (S. John v. 22, 27 ; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31 ; Rom. ii. 16). (b) All men are to be judged (Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. 10; Heb. ix. 27 ; 1 S. Peter iv. 5), both quick and dead. (c) The works done in the body form the ground of judgment (S. Matt. xvi. 27 ; Rom. ii. 5, 6; Rev. xx. 12, xxii. 12). It should be noted that in this last clause of the Article there is implied the truth of a resurrection and a future state for man. ARTICLE V OF THE HOLY GHOST. The 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. DE SPIRITU SANCTO. Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre et Filio procedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentiae, majes- tatis, et gloriae, verus, ac aeter- nus Deus. § i .—SOURCE. This was one of the new Articles added in i 563. It is found, word for word, in the third Article of the Wurtemburg Confes¬ sion, from which it was no doubt derived. § 2 .—OBJECT. This Article seems to have been added to make the dogmatic statements of the Church against the Arians more complete. 1 Considerable danger, we know, threatened the Church from this quarter in the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign. See, e.g., a letter of Archbishop Parker in which he says, “ They say that the realm is full of Anabaptists, Arians, Libertines, Free-will men, &c., against whom only I thought ministers should have needed to fight in unity of doctrine” (Parkers Correspondence , p. 61). § 3.— EXPOSITION. (1.) The Twofold Procession of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son. The title “ Holy Spirit” is used by our Lord Himself of “the Comforter” Whom the Father would send (S. John xiv. 26), and is also found twice in the Hew Testament in the mouth of an angel from heaven (S. Matt. i. 20; S. Luke i. 35), in each instance with reference to the Incarnation. 1 That at the Reformation period some denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost appears from Ridley’s letter, quoted pp. 23, 24. 44 * t ARTICLE Y 45 That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is clear from the words of our Lord in S. John xiv. 16, xv. 26, and elsewhere. For the Procession from the Son we may refer to S. John xvi. 7 ; Acts xvi. 7 ; 1 Rom. viii. 9 ; Phil. i. 19; 1 S. Peter i. 11 ; see also S. John xx. 22, where the Holy Spirit is bestowed by the Son upon the Apostles. The Creed of the Council of Nicaca (a.d. 325) simply said, “ I believe in the Holy Ghost.” The Council of Constantinople (a.d. 381) added the words, “ the Lord and the Life-giver, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the prophets.” The Western Church has further added the famous Filioque clause, which is traceable as far back as the Council of Toledo (a.d. 589), but did not win general acceptance in the Latin Church until the middle of the ninth century, when, during the Pontificate of Nicholas I., it was adopted at Rome. The controversy upon this ended, in the eleventh century, in the schism between East and West, not yet healed. 2 While we hold that the word Filioque expresses a Scriptural truth, at the same time we are bound to admit that its insertion in the Nicene Creed, without CEcumenical authority, is on no ground justifiable. (2.) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost ... is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God. The true and proper Divinity of the Holy Spirit is indicated by the fact that Divine homage is rendered to Him in the formula of Baptism (S. Matt, xxviii. 19) and in S. Paul’s Benediction in 2 Cor. xiii. 14. There are not wanting, moreover, passages in Holy Scripture which directly testify to His Godhead; see especially 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; Acts v. 3, 4. 1 In this passage the correct reading is T6 J\vevp.a T rjaov ; so Revised Version following the oldest extant MSS., KABCDE.; and Vulgate, “Spiritus Jesu.” 2 With regard to the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox Confession of the Greek Church speaks thus, StfacrKe i (scil. eK/iX-pcria) 7ru)s TO 7 rvevp.a TO ayiov eKxopeueTcu £k /x 6 rov too nrctTpos cos ir'pyrj'i /cat apxh s r??s dedTr/TOS. ARTICLE VI OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION. Holy Scripture containetli all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to he required of any man, that it should he believed as an article of the Faith, or he thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and Hew Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. DE DIVINIS SCRIPTURIS QUOD SUFFICIANT AD SALUTEM. Scriptura Sacra continet omnia quae ad salutem sunt necessaria, ita ut quicquid in ea nec legitur, neque inde probari potest, non sit a quoquam exigendum, ut tanquam articulus fidei credatur, aut ad salu- tis necessitatem requiri putetur. Sacrae Scripturae nomine eosCano- nicos libros Veteris et Novi Tes- tamenti intelligimus, de quorum auctoritate in Ecclesia nunquam dubitatum est Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Boohs. Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. J oshua. Judges. Ruth. The First Book of Samuel. The Second Book of Samuel. The First Book of Kings. The Second Book of Kings. And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners : hut yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following :— The First Book of Chronicles. The Second Book of Chronicles. The First Book of Esdras. The Second Book of Esdras. The Book of Esther. The Book of Job. The Psalms. The Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, or Preacher. Cantica, or Songs of Solomon. Four Prophets the greater. Twelve Prophets the less. Alios autem libros (ut ait Hiero¬ nymus) legit quidem Ecclesia ad exempla vitae et formandos mores, illos tamen ad dogmata confirmanda non adhibet: ut sunt:— 46 ARTICLE VI 47 The Third Book of Esdras. The Fourth Book of Esdras. The Book of Tohias. The Book of Judith. The rest of the Book of Esther. The Book of Wisdom. Jesus the Son of Sirach. All the Books of the Hew Testa¬ ment, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical. 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. Novi Testamenti omnes libros (ut vulgo recepti sunt) recipimus et habemus pro Canonicis. § i .—SOURCE. As it stood in the XLII. Articles of 1553 this Article com¬ menced as follows:— “Holie Scripture conteineth all things necessary to Salvation: So that whatsoever is neither read therein, nor may he proved thereby, although it be sometime receiued of the faithful, as godlie, and profitable for an ordre and comelinesse: yeat no manne ought to bee constreigned to believe it, as an article of faith, or repute it requisite to the necessitie of Saluation.” The wording was altered to its present form in 1563, and at the same time the clause in thick type was added from the Article “ De Sacra Scriptura ” in the Wurtemburg Confession. § 2 .—OBJECT. (a) This Article enunciates the great principle which under¬ lay the Reformation, 1 the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as 1 With the statement of our Article we may compare the following :— Tetrapolitan Confession, Cap. I., De Materia Concionum: “Mandavimus iis, qui concionandi apud nos munere fungebantur, ut nihil aliud quam quae sacris literis aut continentur, aut certe nituntur, e suggestu docerent.” French Confession, Art. V.: “ Cumque haec sit omnis veritatis summa, complectens quicquid ad cultum Dei et salutem nostram requiritur, neque hominibus, neque ipsis etiam Angelis fas esse dicimus, quicquam ei verbo adjicere vel detrahere, vel quicquam prorsus in eo immutare.” Scotch Confession, Art. XIX., Scripturarum Authoritas : “Credimus et confitemur Scripturas Dei sufficienter instruere, et hominem Dei perfectum reddere.” Belgic Confession, Art. VII. : “Credimus autem sacram hanc scripturam perfectissime omnem Dei volun- 48 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES containing all things necessary to salvation. Our Church thus repudiates scholastic errors on the subject of the “unwritten Word.” 1 ( 5 ) The Article also condemns the sectaries of the period who disparaged the authority of the Bible, as compared with the immediate inspiration of which they conceived themselves to be the channel. 2 It is worthy of remark that the Helvetic Confessions and the Westminster Confession 0 put an Article on the Holy Scriptures in the first place, beginning by laying down the authority upon which they relied in their departure from the historic Church. The XXXIX. Articles follow the order of the ancient Creeds in opening with a declaration of faith in God. This latter is the logical order ; we first say, “ I believe in God,” before we acknow¬ ledge Holy Scripture as the Word of God. tatem complecti, et in ilia abunde ea omnia doceri, quaecunque ab hominibus credi necesse est, ut salutem consequantur.” Second Helvetic Confession, Art. I.: “Et in hac Scriptura sancta habet universalis Christi ecclesia plenissime exposita quaecunque pertinent, cum ad salvificam fidem, turn ad vitam Deo placentem, recte informandam. Quo nomine distincte a Deo praeceptum est, ne ei aliquid vel addatur vel detrabatur.” 1 Contrast tlie decree of the Council of Trent, Session IV. (April 1546): “ Synodus . . . perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis, et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab Apos- tolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt; orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tarn Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietate affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur.” See also the Orthodox Confession of the Greek Church, p. 18 : 4 >ai >epov tvCjs ra apdpa rr/s iriaTecjs ?x ovcri r o Kvpos /cat tt\v doKLpLaaiav, fxepos di ro tt]v aylav ypacppp, p.tpos curb ttjp eKKXrjcnaaTiKpp irapabocnv. . . . ’H7 ovv 5 vo A oytwv eZVat tcl dby/uara. "AAAa 7 rapabibec 17 ypacpr], ra 07 rota irepL^x oVTa '- ds tcl OcoXoyLKa (3l(3\lcl tt)s ayias ypa(pr)s, kcll dWa elvat doypLCLTa TrapabidopLcva e’/c (TTopLCLTOS d, 7 ro tovs diToaToXovs, KCLL tovtcl kpixt]vd)Or\(jo.v oltco tcls avpo 8 ovs Kai tovs ayLovs 7rarepas, /cat et’s ra 8 vo tovtcl t] ttlgtls dvaL retfe/xeAtto/i^to?. 2 Cf. Calvin’s Institutes, I. ix. 1 : “ Emerserunt nam nuper vertiginosi quidam, qui Spiritus magisterium factuosissime obtendentes, lectionein omnem ipsi respuunt, et eorum irrident simplicitatem qui emortuam et occidentem, ut ipsi vocant, literam adhuc con> sectantur.” s So also the Irish Articles of 1615. See Appendix VI. ARTICLE VI 49 § 3.— EXPOSITION. (1.) The Rule of Eaith—Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may he proved thereby, is not to he required of any man that it should he believed as an article of the Faith, or he thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Thus does our Church unmistakably lay down the principle that Holy Scripture contains, explicitly or im¬ plicitly, all things necessary relating both to faith and practice, beyond which God requires nothing from us (2 Tim. iii. 15—17). We may compare the words of S. Cyprian, “ Unde est ista traditio ? Utrumne de dominica et evan- gelica auctoritate descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque epistolis veniens ? Ea enim facienda esse quae scripta sunt” (Ep. lxxiv. p. 223, ed. Goldhorn). We should notice how, in accordance with what is here laid down, Scripture is constantly referred to as the basis of doctrine in the Articles themselves; see Articles VIII., IX., XIV., XV., XVII., XVIII., XX., XXI., XXII., XXIV., XXV., XXVIII., XXXII., XXXIV., XXXVII., XXXIX. (2.) What is to be reckoned as Scripture, and upon what Ground is it so reckoned ? In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. According to the first clause of our Article, the Church’s teaching must be founded on, or provable by, Holy Scrip¬ ture ; in the second clause, now under consideration (which was borrowed, as we have already seen, from the Wurtem- burg Confession), it is asserted that what constitutes Holy Scripture is determined by the general consent of the Church. The Gospel teaching was at first oral (S. Luke i. 4), and the deposit of sound doctrine was transmitted by word of mouth in the earliest times (2 Tim. i. 13; 1 Tim. i. 10, 1 1 ; Tit. i. 9), but the consent of the Christian com¬ munity as a whole soon singled out certain writings of Apostles and Apostolic men as embodying in permanent form the great truths of the Gospel for the use of the G 5o THE TIIIKTY-NINE AKTICLES whole Church. These books, which were thus stamped as authoritative, constitute the New Testament Canon, and are spoken of as the “ Canonical Books.” The word “ Canon ” properly signifies a rule or standard ; hence “ Canonical ” as applied to the books of Scripture means authorised by the general consent of the Church as a standard of Divine Truth. When it is said in the Article “ of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,” we must of course under¬ stand “ the Church Universal,” because in some parts of the Church there was for a time a doubt concerning some of the books we account Canonical, e.y., the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of SS. James and Jude, 2 and 3 S. John, and 2 S. Peter, as well as the Eevelation. In referring to the consent of the Church as determining the Canon of Scripture, the Church of England altogether parts company with those bodies which were influenced by the teach¬ ing of Zwingli, Calvin, and their school, and with which, in the reign of Edward, she had been so closely associated. The insertion of the clause from the Wurtemburg Confession is one of the many indications of a desire on the part of the authorities of the English Church in the early years of Elizabeth to return to a more Catholic position. Contrast with our Article the following extracts from formu¬ laries of the Swiss School:— Calvin, Institutes, I. vii. 1 : “Invaluit autem apud plerosque perniciosissiinus error, Scrip- turae tan turn inesse momenti, quantum illi Ecclesiae sufFragiis conceditur; ac si vero aeterna inviolabilisque Dei veritas, homi- num arbitrio niteretur.” Ibid., I. vii. 5 : “Maneat ergo hoc fixum, quos Spiritus sanctus intus docuit, solide acquiescere in Scriptura, et hanc quideni esse avTOTna-Tov , 1 neque demonstration et rationibus subjici earn fas esse; quam tamen meretur apud nos certitudinem, Spiritus testimonio consequi.” French Confession, Art. IV. : “ Hos libros agnoscimus esse Canonicos, id est, ut fidei nostrae normam et regulam habemus, idque non tantum ex communi Ecclesiae consensu, sed etiam multo magis ex testimonio et intrinseca Spiritus sancti persuasione: quo suggerente docemur, illos ab aliis libris ecclesiasticis discernere.” 1 i.e. } Self-authenticated, ARTICLE VI Si Scotch Confession, Art. XIX.: “ Asserimus itaque quod qui dicunt Scripturas non aliam habere auctoritatem, sed earn quam ab Ecclesia accepit, sunt in Deum blasphemi, et verae Ecclesiae injuriam faciunt.” Belgic Confession, Art. V. : “ Ilosce libros solos recipinius tanquam sacros et Canonicos, quibus fides nostra inniti, confirmari, et stabiliri possit. Et credimus absque ulla dubitatione ea omnia, quae in illis con- tinentur, idque non tam quod Ecclesia illos pro Canonicis recipiat et comprobet, quam quod Spiritus Sanctus nostris conscientiis testetur illos a Deo emanasse: et eo maxime quod ipsi etiam per se sacram banc suam auctoritatem et sanctitatem testentur atque comprobent.” Second Helvetic Confession, Art. I. : “Credimus et confitemur Scripturas canonicas sanctorum pro- phetarum et apostolorum utriusque Testamenti, ipsum verum esse verbum Dei; et auctoritatem sufficientem ex semetipsis non ex hominibus habere. Ham Deus ipse loquutus est patribus, pro- pbetis et Apostolis, et loquitur aclhuc nobis per Scripturas sanctas.” The Westminster Divines, in their revision of the Article, omitted altogether the clause referring to the general consent of the Church, 1 and gave expression to their own views in the Westminster Confession, Art. I. § iv. : “The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (Who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God.” (3.) Estimation of the Apocrypha. 2 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. The Apocryphal Books (commonly so called) are not classed with the Canonical Books, because they do not stand the test laid down, viz., acceptance by the general consent of the Church. At the same time it is distinctly affirmed that these books have a value of their own. The Council 1 See Appendix IV. 2 The precise signification of the title Apocrypha is uncertain. The Greek word literally means “hidden.” The books in question may have been so called (a) on account of the obscurity of their origin, or (b) because they were relegated by the Church to comparative obscurity. 52 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES of Trent in a decree of the Fourth Session (April 1546) places Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Old Testament Canon. The Apocryphal Books were not formally included in the Canon of Scripture by the Eastern Church until 1692. The value set upon the Apocrypha by the English Church may be gathered from the following facts:— ( a ) The Benedicite from the Apocrypha is appointed as a Canticle for use at Morning Prayer. (b) Lessons are appointed from the Apocrypha at Morning and Evening Prayer. See the Prayer Book Calendar, October 27-November 18, Holy Innocents Hay, and the feasts of S. Luke and All Saints. (c) Two of the Offertory Sentences in the Communion Service are taken from the Book of Tobit. (d) In the Homilies the Apocrypha is very often quoted, and is even spoken of as the Word of God, e.g .:— “And Almighty God by the Wise man saith, That man which sweareth much shall be full of sin, and the scourge of God shall not depart from his house.”—Ecclus. xxiii. 11. (Against Swearing, p. 75.) “The invention of them was the beginning of spiritual fornica¬ tion, as the Word of God testifieth, Sap. xiv.”—Wisdom xiv. 12. (Against peril of Idolatry, p. 258.) “ The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry places of the Scripture, saying, Mercifulness and almsgiving purgeth from all sins,” &c.—Tobit iv. 10. (Of Almsdeeds, p. 414.) “ Let us learn also here (Wisdom vi. 1-3) by the infallible and undeceivable Word of God.” (Of Obedience, p. in.) Other examples may be seen on pp. 103, 119, 189, ed. S.P.C.K. The passage of S. Jerome to which reference is made in the Article occurs in the Preface to the Books of Solomon:— “Sicut ergo Judith et Tobiae, et Machabeeorum legit quideni Ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit; sic et liaec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctori- tatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam.” ARTICLE Y11 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The Old Testament is not con¬ trary 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 touching Cere¬ monies and Kites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil pre¬ cepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth : yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. DE VETERI TESTAMENTO. Testamentum Yetus Novo con- I trarium non est, quandoquidem I tarn in veteri quam in novo, per Christum, qui unicus est Mediator Dei et hominum, Deus et homo, aeterna vita humano generi est proposita. Quare male sentiunt, qui veteres tantum in promissiones temporarias sperasse confingunt. Quanquam lex a Deo data per Mosen, quoad Ceremonias et Ritus, Christianos non astringat, neque civilia ejus praecepta in aliqua republica necessario recipi debeant: nihilominus tamen ab obedientia mandatorum, quae mo- ralia vocantur, nullus (quantum- vis Christianus) est solutus. § i.—SOURCE. We owe the form of this Article to the English Reformers. The latter part, printed in thick type in the Latin Version, was added in 1563, being taken from the 19th of the XLII. Articles of 1 5 53 - § 2.—OBJECT. The Article is directed against Anabaptist opinions concerning the Old Testament, which were rife at the Reformation period. See “ Reformatio Legum,” De Haeresibus, c. 4 :— “ Multi nostris temporibus inveniuntur, inter quos Anabaptistae praecipue sunt collocandi, ad quos si quis Yetus Testamentum 53 t 54 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES alleget, illud pro abrogato jam et obsoleto penitus habent, omnia quae in illo posita sunt ad prisca majorum nostrorum tempora referentes. Itaque nihil eorum ad nos statuunt pervenire debere.” Some (c.g., Servetus and his followers) denied the vital con¬ nection of Judaism with Christianity/ and maintained that the Old Testament saints had no hope of life beyond the present. Cf. Calvin, “ Institutes,” II. x. i :— “ Quinetiam quod utilissimum alioqui futurum erat, necessarium nobis fecerunt prodigiosus nebulo Servetus ac furiosi nonnulli ex Anabaptistarum secta, qui non aliter de Israelitico populo sentiunt quam de aliquo porcorum grege, utpote quern nugantur a Domino in liac terra saginatum, citra spem ullam coelestis immortalitatis.” The latter part of the Article excludes the Antinomianism prevalent amongst the sectaries of the time, as is shown by the words which followed when the latter half of our present Article stood as a separate Article :— u Wherfore tliei are not to be harkened unto, who affirme that holie Scripture is geuen onlie to the weake, and do boaste theim- selues continually of the spirit, of whom (thei sai) thei liaue learned soche things as thei teache, although the same be most euidentlv repugnaunt to the holie Scripture.”—Art. XIX., 1553. § 3.— EXPOSITION. (1.) The Unity and Vital Connection of the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ. Our Lord Himself declared that He came, not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law (S. Matt. v. 17, 18); the Old Testa¬ ment does not, therefore, stand to the New in the relation of an opposed dispensation, but in that of a preparation. The Law pointed forward and led up to Christ and His Dispensation (Gal. iii. 24; Acts x. 43 ; Rom. iii. 21), its ordinances, sacrifices, &c., deriving their spiritual efficacy 1 It will be remembered that the Old Testament was set in opposition to'the New by the Gnostic heretics of the second century, being ascribed to a being inferior, or even hostile, to the Supreme Deity. The Old Testament was thus regarded, e.y., by Saturninus, Basilides, and Marcion, and by such sects as the Cainites and Ophites. , ARTICLE YII 55 from the Sacrifice of Christ, His death redeeming the transgressions of those who lived nnder the Old Dispen¬ sation (Heb. ix. i — 15 ; x. i —14). The prophets spoke beforehand of His Kingdom, His Work and Sufferings (S. Luke xxiv. 27, 44 ; S. John v. 39, 46 ; Acts xviii. 28, xxvi. 22, xxviii. 23), and the promises given through the inspired writers of the Old Testament have reference not merely to temporal welfare, but spiritual and eternal blessings are promised to men, and in both Old and New Testament alike are connected with the work of the Messiah (per Christum); see, e.g ., Job xix. 25-27; Ps. xvi. 8—11 ; Isa. xxvi. 19. We might exhibit the unity of the Old and New Testament under two main heads :— (a) Unity of doctrine runs through both. Both proceed from the One God (Heb. i. 1, 2); both tell of His Unity and Personality, His government of the world, His holiness, His choice of certain to be in a special relation with Himself. (b) Testimony to Christ. Both tell of Him, the Old Testament being typical in character, its rites, ordinances, and even its history, pointing onward to Him. It is in the Epistle to the Hebrews especially that this aspect of the Old Testament is enlarged upon. Who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Moses is called a mediator (Gal. iii. 19), as being the agent through whom the Law was given to the tribes of Israel. He represented the people to God, and was divinely commissioned as a servant (Heb. iii. 5) to represent God to the people. The Incarnate Son of God, being perfect man, is qualified to represent human nature in its perfection before God, and at the same time, being very God, to represent God to man in an infinitely higher and fuller manner than it was possible for the servant to do. Thus, in Christ, God and the human race are brought together in a wonderful and transcendent way, and by virtue of union with Him mankind is brought into such near relation with God as would not be possible without His mediating work. He has wrought the Atonement which none other could effect, and is therefore the only Mediator between God and Man. 56 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Wherefore they are not to he heard which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. That holy men of old understood the spiritual and eternal significance of the promises made to them under the Old Dispensation is distinctly asserted by our Lord Himself (S. John viii. 56) and by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. xi. 10, 14, 26). Our Church thus insists on the great value of the Old Testa¬ ment Scriptures {cf. Rom. xv. 4), and especially shows her sense of their value by appointing Lessons from the Old Testament to be read daily at Morning and Evening Prayer, side by side with the New Testament. But it must not be inferred from this that the two are exactly on a level. Christ is TeXo? vo/jlov (Rom. x. 4); i.e.— (a) To Christ the Law pointed forward, so that there is a vital connection between the Law and the Gospel. (b) With Christ the Law ended, so that the Law and the Gospel are not on the same level for Christians (Rom. vi. 14). (2.) The Force which the Precepts of the Mosaic Law have for Christians. ' The precepts of the Law are treated in the Article under three heads; it is stated that— (a) Ceremonial Laws do not bind Christian men. (b) Civil precepts ought not of necessity to be received in any commonwealth. See Jer. xxxi. 31, 32 ; Acts xv. 10, 11 ; Gal. v. 1 ; Col. ii. 16, 17; Heb. vii. 12. But with regard to (c) Moral Commandments , it is laid down that no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. (See especially S. Matt. v. 17—20.) 1 The question may here be asked, How then are we to ex¬ plain those passages of S. Paul which speak of the Moral Law as the occasion of sin, and represent the Christian as free from it? Cf. Rom. iii. 20; iv. 15; v. 20; vii. 7—13. 1 Cf. Westminster Confession, Art. XIX. § v. : “The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof: and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, Who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the Gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.” AETICLE YII 57 The Apostle represents the Law as— (i.) Intensifying the sense of sin (Eom. vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 56). God’s holiness is therein set forth clearly (cf. Lev. xi. 45). He is righteous, loves righteousness, and demands it from man (Lev., ibid.). Thus the Law is vogos toov evroXdv ev Soy/iao-L (Eph. ii. 15); it said to man, “Thou shalt ” . . . “ Thou shalt not ”... but this only made him contrast the requirements of God with his own shortcomings, and brought his sin into relief. (ii.) Bringing man into condemnation. The very prohibitions of the Law excited opposition between the flesh and the spirit (Eom. vii. 7—1 1); the inward man approved the Law, the conscience recognising the justice of its demands (Eom. vii. 22), but the flesh could not act up to it, and man, finding himself powerless to perform that which he knew to be good, stood con¬ demned (Eom. vii. 18—23). The Law itself gave no help by which the spirit might overcome the flesh, and hence it is called “ the ministration of condemnation” (2 Cor. iii. 9), “the ministration of death” (2 Cor. iii. 7), and a the letter that killeth” (2 Cor. iii. 6; Eom. vii. 9-11); the result was a sense of misery, and of the impossibility of fulfilling the Law (Eom. vii. 21—24). What man needed, therefore, was pardon for the past (Acts xxvi. 18), and for the future not merely moral teaching, but power to enable him to carry out such teaching in his life. Christ has satisfied the need (Eom. vii. 23-25), bringing to man a new power—Divine grace (Eom. vi. 14)— and delivering him from his condition of helplessness under the Old Dispensation; thus it is that S. Paul speaks of Christ as having redeemed us from being under the Law (Gal. iv. 4, 5), and of Christians who are led by the Spirit as being under the Law no longer (Gal. v. 18). At the same time the Apostle emphatically repudiates Antinomianism (Eom. vi.. 15). In one sense the Law is re-established (Eom. iii. 31), no longer, however, as an exter¬ nal command, but as an indwelling principle. Christian obedience is not like that of a slave, but is the obedience of a son who delights to do his father’s will (Eom. viii. 14—16), and, being thus a matter of grace, completely fulfils the ideal of righteousness of which the Law was H 58 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES the expression (Rom. viii. 1-4). Not merely, therefore, does the outward obedience of a Christian fulfil the bare letter of the Law, but the thoughts and intents of his heart are, through the indwelling Spirit, brought into harmony with the will of God, Who gave the Law. Thus the Law of Christ is not merely a ratification of the Moral Law, but goes far beyond it. (See especially S. Matt, v. 20-48.) Luther developed S. Paul’s teaching into Anti- nomianism; e.g., in his Commentary on Galatians he maintains that the Ten Commandments have no right to accuse or alarm the conscience wherein Christ reigns. Even the more cautious Melanchthon, too, seems to have held that the Law may not con¬ demn the Christian although it is not fulfilled by him. Our Article is directly opposed to such dangerous teaching, and simply reaffirms the teaching of the Schoolmen, and, as we have seen, of Scripture on the subject. ARTICLE VIII OF THE THREE CREEDS. DE TRIBUS SYMBOLIS. The Three Creeds, Hicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be re¬ ceived and believed : for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. Symbola tria, Hicsenum, Atlia- nasii, et quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur, omnino recipienda sunt et credenda. Ham firmissimis Scrip- turarum testimoniis probari pos- sunt. § i.—SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 1552-3. We may compare the first of the X. Articles of 1536, which declares that the fundamentals of religion are— “Comprehended in the whole body and canon of the Bible, and also in the three Creeds or Symbols; whereof one was made by the Apostles, and is the common creed which every man useth: the second was made by the holy council of Xice, and is said daily in the Mass; and the third was made by Athanasius, and is comprehended in the Psalm ‘ Quicunque vult.’ ” § 2 .—OBJECT. To assert the Catholic character of the English Reformation the three ancient Creeds of Catholic Christendom are retained without addition or alteration. By thus accepting the three Creeds, all those heresies, whether of ancient or of modern growth, are condemned which assail the cardinal truths of the Christian Religion. The order in which the Creeds are named in the Article is not without significance. The Nicene Creed appropriately stands first as being the most ancient, and also the most universally used. 59 6 o THE THIRTY NINE ARTICLES § 3 .— EXPOSITION. (1.) The Three Creeds are to be Received. The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’, ought thoroughly to he received and believed. From the very earliest times those who were baptized were required to make public profession of their faith. The early addition to the New Testament text in Acts viii. 37 1 affords an example of a formula of this kind :— EiVe Se 6 Qi\i7T7rog “ Ef 1 ncrTeveig eo\r]g Trjg KapSlag e^ecTTiv.” ’A.7roKpiOe'ig $e ehre , “ TYicrTevu* tov viov tov 0 ~ ? \ jT - V / » 60V 6ivai TOV itjcrow J^piCTTOV. Traces of early Creeds are also discernible in the follow¬ ing passages of the Epistles :— I Cor. viii. 6— -tj/JLiv eh Oeog o 7 rarr/p, eov ra iravra, kol fjjJLeig eh avrov , kou elg K vpiog 'Itjo-ovg XpivTog, Si ov to. 7 rdvTa, kcu rj/aeig Si avTOV. I Cor. xv. 3—5 —II apeScoKa yap vjaiv ev 1rpWTOig, o teal irapeXafiov , oti XpicrTOS anreOavev virep tcov a/uapTicov fj/aoov, kuto. Tag ypacpag' Ka\ oti eTacpt 7, Kal oti eyr/yepTai Ttj ij/J-epa tv\ TpiTp, koto, Tag ypacpag. I Tim. iii. 16—- O9 2 ecpavepcoOrj ev crap/cl, eSucaicoOrj ev 7 rvevjuaTi, cocpOrj ayyeXoig, eKrjpv^Oi] ev eOveariv , eiriTTevOr] ev Kocrjuup , aveXrj/JMpOr] ev Sofyj. The recently recovered Apology of Aristides (second century) contains a passage which reads like a quotation from a Christian Creed of that period, or at any rate indicates that the Apologist was familiar with some form of Creed:— “The Christians then reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, Who is named the Son of God Most High, and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews: and He had twelve disciples, in order 1 The passage is not found in the MSS. NABC, and was probably inserted from an early form of baptismal profession. 2 This is the reading of KAC, and is adopted in the Revised Version. Other MSS. give Geos. ARTICLE VIII 61 that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews: and He died and was buried : and they say that after three days He rose and ascended into heaven.” References to statements of doctrine as being in use in Apos¬ tolic times may be seen in such passages as i Tim. iv. 6, vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 13 (yiroTvirwo-iv eye vyiaivovTiov Xbywv). The earliest name given to the form of profession of Christian faith was crv/af 3 oXov 1 — i.e., a sign or watchword by which believers were distinguished from those who did not accept Christianity. Such forms were at first no doubt very simple; but with the spread of the Church, the Christianising of Greek thought, and the rise of false teachers, came the necessity for precise and detailed statements of the Faith; hence our Creeds in their present form. The Nicene Creed. The Council of Nicaea was summoned in 325 a.d. by the Emperor Constantine, with the view of allaying the dissensions in the Church to which the heresy of Arius had given rise. Eusebius of Caesarea presented to the Council the Confession of Faith which had been in use for very many years in the churches of Palestine :— Jha-Tevo/mev el<$ eva Qeov, II arepa iravTOKpaTOpa, tov tcov diravTwv oparwv re Kal aopareov r KOLr\Ty')v. ai ei$ eva s\vpiov Irjaovv 2±pi(TTOv, tov tov yjeov A oyov, Qeov e/c Oeou, dP&k e/c dktrrd?, Zcoqv e/c Z corjg, Y ibv /uovoyevij, irpcoTOTOKOv 7r do-rjg KTicrecog, irpo ir olvtcov tcov auovcov e/c tov Qeov 7r aTpo$ yeyevvrjiaevov, Si ov Kal eyeveTO ra iravTa. Tov Sid ty\v rj/JieTepav crcoTrjpiav crapKCoOevTa, Kai ev av6p(jt)7roi<5 TToXiTevcrdiaevov, Kal 1 raOovTa : Kal dvaerTavTa Ty TpiTrj rjM-Spa, Kal aveXOovTa irpos tov YLaTepa, Kal ij^ovTa irdXiv ev So^p Kpivai (^corra? Kal veKpovs. IhcFTevoiaev Kal ei$ ev II vev/JLa f 'A.yiov. This Creed, however, seemed to the Council not to speak decidedly enough on the very point in dispute; certain clauses were therefore added by the assembled bishops, 2 under the guidance of Athanasius, in order to affirm in 1 See the Latin Version of the Article. 2 The bishops present at the Council of Nicma numbered three hundred and eighteen in all, besides their attendant clergy. 62 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES unmistakable language that the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity is true God, of one essence with the Father. These clauses were :— etc t>7? ovcrlag tov UaTpog. dXtjOivbv Oeov e/c Oeov dXrjOivov. 6/j.oovctiov Tip II arpL. At the same time an anathema was appended which ran as follows:— T ' W ' i'TT ^ 1 ? \ ovg oe A eyovTag, riv ttotc ore ovk ijv, rj ovk rjv irpiv yevvrjOrjvai, rj e£ ovk ovtcov eyeveTO, rj e £ eTepag virocrTaireiog rj ovcrlag (pacrKOVTag elvai , i] ktkttov , rj TpeUTOV, rj oXXoiCOTOV TOV YlOV TOV Oeov , TOVTOVg avaOe/uLciTi^ei i) KaOoXiKtj Kal dirocrToXiKr] tov Oeov €KkX i](TLO. The Council of Constantinople (a.d. 381), at which one hundred and fifty bishops were present, added clauses treating of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, in view of the false teaching of Macedonius. The concluding clauses were also adopted at the same time, while the anathema was omitted, and a few unimportant changes were made in the wording of the earlier part of the Creed. As supposed to have been put forth by the Council of Constantinople the Creed ran thus :— II icrTevo/uiev eig eva Oeov II are pa iravTOKpaTOpa, 7roit]Trjv ovpavov koi yrjg, oparoov re iravTWv Kal dopaTwv. ai eig eva I\vpiov f itjcrovv s±.picrTOv, tov hov tov Ueov tov /uovoyevtj, tov ck tov IlaTpo? yevvrjOevTa irpo 7 ravTcov tcov aicovcov, <3? <09 e/c QooTog, Oeov dXrjOivbv e/c Oeov aXrjOivov , yevvtjOevTa ov iroirjOevTa , 6/j.oovctiov Tip HaTpl Si* ov tcl irdvTa eyeveTO. 1 ov 01 tj/aag Tovg avupcoirovg Kai 01 a Ttjv tj/aeTepav (TCOTrjplav KaTeXOovTa e/c twv ovpavwv , Kal crapKioOevTa €K n vevjuaTog A ylov koi M aplag Tijg II apOevov, Kal evav0pa)7rr]oravTa. 2t avpooOevTa Te virep rj/acov ei ri II ovtiov YLiXoltov, Kal 7 raOovTa, Kal TacpevTa' ICcd avacTavTa t\] TpiTrj rjiaepa koto, Tag ypaipdg * Kai aveXOovTa eig Tovg ovpavovg, Kal KaOe^ojaevov e/c Se^icov tov n arpo?, Kal iraXiv ep^ojaevov /xeTa Sotyg Kpivai ^covTag Kal veKpovg' ov Tvjg fiacriXelag ovk ecrTai TeXog. T7- ' ’ ' TT ~ ' f/ A ' TZ t ' ' Iva/ eig to llvevjaa to Jxyiov, to IYi jpiov, Kai to ARTICLE VIII 6 3 ^coottolov, to e/c rod Tlaryoo? eK7rop6vdjULevov, to —NOTEWORTHY EXPRESSIONS IN THIS ARTICLE. (i.) o-apKog (Rom. viii. 6). The key to the true meaning of (ftpovruuLa in this phrase is to be found in the use of the cognate verb in the New Testament. Cf. the following passages :— 1 Cf. the text of our Art. IX. as revised by the Westminster assembly of divines, Appendix IV. 2 See the use of the same Latin phrase in Art. XIII. ARTICLE IX 77 r Yiraye oitlctcjo /ulov, Varava . . . on ov (ppoveis to. tov Qeou, a\\a to tgov dvOpcoircov (S. Matt. xvi. 23). Ot yap Kara crdpKa ovreg rd Ttj$ crapKos (ppovovcriv (Rom. viii. 5). ra yy^tjXa (ppovovvres (Rom. xii. 16). Ot ra eirlyeia (ppovovvres (Phil. iii. 19). Ta awo (ppoveire, gr) tcl en rrjg yrj$ (Col. iii. 2). In the light of these passages we understand (ppovyga crapKog to signify the directing of the thoughts and energies to the interests of the flesh. (ii.) An incidental use of language in the Article is doctrinally important, and should not be overlooked. The way in which renatis, which occurs twice in the Latin version, is represented in the one case by “ them that are regenerated ,” and in the other by “ them that are baptized” implies the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. ARTICLE X OF FREE-WILL. The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he can¬ not turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God : wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and ac¬ ceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and work¬ ing with us, when we have that good will. DE LIBERO ARBITRIO. Ea est hominis post lapsum Adae conditio, ut sese natura- libus suis viribus et bonis operi- bus ad fidem et invocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare non possit. Quare absque gratia Dei (quae per Christum est) nos prae- veniente, ut velimus, et cooperante dum volumus, ad pietatis opera facienda, quae Deo grata sunt et accepta, nihil valemus. § i .—SOURCE. The first part of the Article (printed in thick type in the Latin version) was added in 1563, the words from “ut sese naturalibus ” down to “ praeparare non possit ” being taken from the Article “ De Peccato ” in the Wurtemburg Confession. The Article of 1553, which forms the second part of our present Article, agrees almost verbatim with words of S. Augustine in his treatise “ De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio,” Cap. xvii. The expression “ working with us ” was altered in 1571 from “ working in us ” of the previous English versions. This change, though slight, is significant, since it brings into prominence the fact that man is not so utterly depraved but that he is able to co-operate with God. § 2 .—OBJECT. This Article is really supplementary to the last, stating clearly the necessity of Divine grace, which was denied by the Pelagians and Anabaptists. 78 ARTICLE X 79 Cf. Reformatio Legum, ‘ De Haeresibus,’ Cap. 7 : “Nobis contra illos progrediendum est, qui tantum in libero arbitrio roboris et nervorum ponunt, ut eo solo sine alia speciali Christi gratia recte ab hominibus vivi posse constituant.” In the case of this Article the title scarcely corresponds to the contents. “ Of the Necessity of Divine Grace ” would be a more suitable heading. § 3. — EXPOSITION. (1.) Man’s Incapacity for Good since the Fall. The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. In other words, man in his natural state is in a condition of slavery to sin (Rom. vii. 14; viii. 8. Cf. S. John viii. 34). We should keep in mind the distinction in the technical language of theology between 4 liberum arbitrium ’ and 4 voluntas.’ 4 Liberum arbitrium ’ signifies the power of freely choosing. 4 Voluntas ’ denotes an act of will, the determination of the 4 liberum arbitrium * in a particular direction. S. Augustine, whose writings had great influence with the Reformers, gives the following account of man’s will. The 4 liberum arbitrium ’ was— (i.) At Creation a media vis , 1 capable of being inclined either to good or to evil, but coloured with good. (ii.) Since the Fall it has been captivatum , and hence in the power of sin. (iii.) But through the work of Christ it is now liberatvm , so that by His grace it may be again turned in the direction of good. Statements of other formularies of the Reformation period should be compared with the wording of our Article:— Augsburg Confession, Art. XVIII.: “ De libero arbitrio docent, quod humana voluntas habeat ali- quam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam, et deligendas res rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto effi- 1 See “ De Spiritu et Littera,” Cap. xxxiii. So THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES ciendao justitiae Dei sen justitiae spiritualis, quia animalis homo, non percipit ea, quae sunt Spiritus Dei.” Saxon Confession, Art. Y. : “ Sed homo nequaquam potest se liberare a peccato, et morte aeterna, viribus naturalibus: sed haec liberatio et conversio hominis ad Deum, et novitas spiritualis, fit per Filium Dei vivi- ficantem nos Spiritu suo Sancto.” French Confession, Art. IX.: “Item, quamvis voluntate sit praeditus, qua ad hoc vel illud movetur, tamen quum ea sit penitus sub peccato captiva, nullam prorsus habet ad bonum appetendum libertatem, nisi quam ex gratia et Dei dono acceperit.” Second Helvetic Confession, Art. IX. : “Non sublatus est quidem homini intellectus, non erepta ei voluntas, et prorsus in lapidem vel truncum est commutatus: caeterum ilia ita sunt immutata et imminuta in homine, ut non possint amplius quod potuerunt ante lapsum. Intellectus enim obscuratus est: voluntas vero ex libera, facta est voluntas serva.” Westminster Confession, IX. 3 : “ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as laid down at the Council of Trent is as follows (Session VI., Jan. 1547):— “Declarat synodus . . . oportere, ut unusquisque agnoscat et fateatur, quod cum omnes homines in praevaricatione Adae inno- centiam perdidissent, facti immundi . . . usque adeo servi erant peccati . . . tametsi in eis liberum arbitrium minime exstinctum esset, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum.” Accordingly the Council anathematises those who say that the ‘ liberum arbitrium ’ is ‘ extinctum ’ and has become ‘ figmentum/ c titulum sine re.’ 1 The Council further lays down that free¬ will without grace cannot make man righteous; that-there is no justification without Divine grace. The necessity of preventing grace is also strongly asserted; and they are anathematised who affirm that the free-will of man, when it has been roused and called, does not co-operate with God’s grace, but is passive. 1 Luther had affirmed at Heidelberg (1518) in one of his ‘ Paradoxes k that free-will after original sin ‘res est de solo titulo’—a matter of name only, without any corresponding reality. ARTICLE X 81 (2.) The Necessity of Divine Grace in order that Man MAY CHOOSE AND PERFORM THAT WHICH IS GOOD. wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ pre¬ venting us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. (See I Cor. ii. 14; xii. 3-) Man can neither form good resolutions apart from God’s grace, nor carry them out by his own unassisted strength. There must be :— (a) The grace of God “ Preventing” i.e., going before: the very first desire to turn to God must come from Him (S. John vi. 44; Acts xvi. 14; Phil. ii. 13). ( b ) The grace of God “ Co-operating f i.e., working together with man’s will, so that our better self is strengthened, but not superseded (Phil. ii. 13). Note that the Article expressly speaks of the grace of God ‘ by Christ ’ (quae per Christum est). Cf. Phil. iv. 13. All spiritual benefits which God confers upon men He confers through Christ alone, Whose merits extend to all men, in all ages of the world (Rev. xiii. 8). The teaching of our Article is opposed to— (a) Pelagianism, which said that man’s condition by nature is such that he can keep God’s commandments if he will, without any special Divine assistance. Cf. Augsburg Confession, Art. XVIII.: “ Damnant Pelagianos, et alios, qui docent, quod sine Spiritu Sancto, solis naturae viribus possimus Deuni super omnia diligere: item praecepta Dei facere, quoad substantiam actuum.” (b) Calvinism, according to which Divine grace, where it is really given, is irresistible, so that those who are saved are saved of necessity, their own will being superseded. (See the quotations given from Calvin in the notes on Art. XVI. § 3 -) Cf. First Baptist Confession, § 23 : “All those that have this precious faith wrought in them by the Spirit can never finally nor totally fall away.” L 82 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES [After Art. X., in 1553, came an Article on Grace, which was omitted in 1563. It ran thus:— OF GRACE. The grace of Christ, or the holie Ghost by him geuen, dothe take awaie the stonie liarte, and geueth an harte of fleshe. And although those that haue no will to good thinges, he maketh them to wil, and those that would euil thinges, he maketh them not to wille the same: Yet neuerthelesse he en- forceth not the wil. And ther- fore no man when he sinneth can excuse himself as not wortliie to he blamed or condemned, by alleging that he sinned unwillinglie, or by compulsion. DE GRATIA. Gratia Christi, seu Spiritus Sanc- tus qui per eundem datur, cor lapi- deurn aufert, et dat cor carneum. Atque licet ex nolentibus quae recta sunt, volentes faciat; et ex volen- tibus prava, nolentes reddat, volun- tati nihilominus violentiam nullam infert. Et nemo hac de causa cum peccaverit, seipsum excusare potest, quasi nolens aut coactus peccaverit, ut earn ob causam accusari non mereatur aut damnari.] ARTICLE XI OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN. We are accounted righteous be¬ fore 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 a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. DE LIOMINIS JUSTIFICATIONS. Tantum propter meritum Do¬ mini ac Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, per fidem, non propter opera et merita nostra, justi coram Deo reputamur. Quare sola fide nos justificari, doctrina est salu- berrima, ac consolationis plenissima: ut in liomilia de justificatione homi- nis fusius explicatur. § i .—SOURCE. In 1553 the Article on Justification was very brief:— “Justification by onely faith in Jesus Christ in that sence, as it is declared in the homelie of Justification, is a most certeine, and holesome doctrine for Christien menne.” The wording of this was slightly altered and the first part (printed in thick type in the Latin version) prefixed in 1563. The new part agrees with the Art. “ De Justificatione ” of the Wurtemburg Confession, from which it was doubtless taken :— “Homo enim fit Deo acceptus, et reputatur coram eo justus propter solum filium Dei Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum per fidem.” We may compare the rather fuller statement in the fifth of the much earlier English formulary, the X. Articles :— “ That sinners attain this justification by contrition and faith joined with charity, after such sort and manner as we before mentioned and declared; not as though our contrition or faith, or any works proceeding thereof, can worthily merit or deserve to attain the said justification: for the only mercy and grace of the Father, promised freely unto us for His Son’s sake, Jesu Christ, and the merits of His Blood and Passion, be the only sufficient and worthy causes thereof.” 83 8 4 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES § 2.—OBJECT. The Article is directed against theories of human merit so prevalent in the Mediaeval Western Church, and so strongly protested against at the Reformation, especially by Luther. It may also be aimed at the tenets of the Anabaptists, whose error is thus alluded to in Archbishop Hermann’s Consultatio :— “ They boste themselves to be ryghtuous and to please God, not purely and absolutely for Christes sake, but for theyr owne morti¬ fication of themselues, for theyr owne good workes and persecution, if they suffre any.” § 3 .—EXPOSITION. (i.) What is meant by Justification? We are accounted righteous before God, e Justification ’ in the writings of S. Paul signifies the entering by man (who through sin, original and actual, is by nature in a condition of alienation from God) upon a state of diKaiocrvvti Geou (Rom. i. 17; iii. 22), i.e., upon a state of righteousness which God considers as such; in other words, the entering into a right relation with God, which is the starting-point of the Christian life. (2.) The Ground of our Justification. only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: The state of Siicaiocrvvtj before God is not attained by any efforts or merits of our own (Rom. x. 3 ; Phil. iii. 9); nothing that man can do of himself can bring him into right relation with God, but the reconciliation comes from God Himself, Who gave His own Son (Rom. v. 8—10, viii. 32, 33 ; 2 Cor. v. 21). (a) Objectively , therefore, the ground of our justification is the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Rom. iii. 24). It is necessary for man on his part to accept what God has done for him—he must accept the Gospel message and receive Baptism (Tit. iii. 5) ; this he does by faith. (1 b ) Thus, considering the matter subjectively , the sole requisite for entering upon a state of SiKcuoo-uvti before God is Faith (Rom. i. 17, iii. 22, 30, v. 1 ; cf. Acts xiii. 39, xvi. 31 ; Gal. v. 6 ; Eph. ii. 8). ARTICLE XI 85 On the subject of ‘Justification ’ the following extracts should be compared with our Article :— The Council of Trent understands the term ‘ Justification ’ in a wider sense than that explained above, taking it to include ‘ Sanctification ’; thus the decree of the Council (Session VI.) differs from our Article in defining Justification as not merely the “ accounting ” but the “ making” of us righteous: “ Justificatio non est sola peccatorum rcmissio, sed et sanctifi- catio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariani susceptionem gratiae et donorum, unde homo ex injusto fit jugfus. et ex inimico amicus, ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae acternae . . . justitia dei, qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes.” Augsburg Confession, Art. IY.: “ Item docent, quod homines non possint justificari coram Deo propriis viribus, meritis aut operibus, sed gratis justificentur propter Christum per fidem, cum credunt se in gratiam recipi, et pcccata remitti propter Christum, qui sua morte pro nostris peccatis satis- fecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro justitia coram ipso (Rom. iii. et iv.).” Confessio Variata, Art. “ De Fide ” : “Cum igitur dicimus, Fide justificamur, non hoc intelligimus quod justi simus propter ipsius virtutis dignitatem. Sed haec est sententia, consequi nos remissionem peccatorum, et imputationem justitiae, per misericordiam propter Christum.” Saxon Confession, Art. III.: “ Hac fide cum erigitur, certum est donari remissionem pecca¬ torum, reconciliationem et imputationem justitiae, propter ipsius Christi meritum.” Formula of Concord (p. 685): “Vocabulum justificationis in hoc negotio significat justum pronuntiare, a peccatis et aeternis peccatorum suppliers absolvere propter justi tiam Christi, quae a Deo fidei imputatur.” It will be noticed that three of the formularies just quoted, which express the views of the Saxon, or Lutheran, school of Reformers, speak of the “ imputation ” of righteousness. Calvin also, in dealing with this subject, uses the term “ imputation.” See Institutes, III. xi. 2 :— “ Ita nos justificationem simpliciter interpretamur acceptionem qua nos Deus, in gratiam receptos, pro justis habet. Eamque in r 86 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES peccatorum remissione, ac justitiae Christi imputatione positam esse dicimus.” Cf. also the following quotations from Confessions belonging to the Swiss school:— French Confession, Art. XVIII. : “Credimus totam nostram justitiam positam esse in peccato¬ rum nostrorum remissione, quae sit etiam, ut testatur David, unica nostra felicitas. Itaque ceteras omnes rationes quibus homines existimant se coram Deo posse justificari, plane repudiamus: omnique virtutum et meritorum opinione abjecta, in sola Jesu Christi obedientia prorsus acquiescimus, quae quidem nobis impu- tatur, turn ut tegantur omnia nostra peccata, turn etiam ut gratiam coram Deo nanciscamur.” Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XV.: “ Proprie ergo loquendo, Deus solus nos justificat, et duntaxat propter Christum nos justificat, non imputans nobis peccata, sed imputans ejus nobis justitiam . . . ideo docemus et credimus cum apostolo, hominem peccatorem justificari sola fide in Christum, non lege, aut ullis operibus.” The Westminster divines, in their revision of the eleventh of the XXXIX. Articles, inserted a clause:— “ His (Christ’s) whole obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed unto us.” 1 Our Article differs from the great number of Continental Confessions, in that it does not discuss at length the meaning of ‘ Justification.’ The only approach to a definition of the term is that which is implied in the wording of the Article, “justi coram Deo reputamur.” The fourth of the XIII. Articles, which were the outcome of an attempt to draw the English and German Reformers together, runs thus :— “ Item de justificatione docemus, quod ea proprie significat remissionem peccatorum et acceptationem seu reconciliationem nostram in gratiam et favorem Dei, hoc est veram renovationem in Christo.” It is somewhat remarkable that in subsequent English for¬ mularies this phraseology is altogether departed from. 1 See Appendix IV. ARTICLE XI 37 (3.) Having Special Regard to the Needs of the Time, the Article further emphasises the Doctrine of Justifica¬ tion by Faith only, and refers to the Homily on the Subject. Wherefore, that we are justified hy Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. It is obvious that the best works of man are faulty and imperfect; if, therefore, God were to enter into judgment with man, no one living would be able to stand before Him (Ps. cxliii. 2), and we might well despair if it were left to us to bring ourselves into right relation to God by our own merits. It is, therefore, most comforting to be assured that we enter into SiKouoavvri before God by accepting in faith what Christ has done for us. There is no homily with the title “ Homily of Justification,” but the “ Homily of Salvation/’ which deals with the subject, is evidently the one to which reference is made. In illustration of the statements of the Article we may quote a short passage from this homily:— “And therefore St. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively faith : which nevertheless is the gift of God and not man’s only work without God. And yet that faith doth not shut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with faith in every man that is justified; but it shutteth them out from the office of justifying. So that although they be all present together in him that is justified, yet they justify not all together. Nor that faith also doth not shut out the justice of our good works, necessarily to be done afterward of duty towards God, (for we are most bounden to serve God in doing good deeds commanded by Him in His Holy Scripture, all the days of our life;) but it excludeth them so that we may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing of them ” (pp. 22, 23 ; ed. S.P.C.K.). ARTICLE XII OF GOOD WORKS. Albeit 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 neces¬ sarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit. DE BONIS OPERIBUS. Bona opera quae sunt fructus Fidei et justificatos sequuntur, quanquam peccata nostra expiare et Divini judicii severitatem ferre non possunt, Deo tamen grata sunt et accepta in Christo, atque ex vera et viva fide necessario profluunt, ut plane ex illis, aeque fides viva cognosci possit, atque arbor ex fructu judicari. § i .—SOURCE. •% This was one of the new Articles added in 1563, and appears to have been borrowed to some extent from the Article “ De Bonis Operibus” in the Wurtemburg Confession, in which the following passage occurs :— “ Non est autem sentiendum, quod iis bonis operibus, quae nos facimus, in judicio Dei, ubi agitur de expiatione peccatorum, et placatione divinae irae, ac merito aeternae salutis, confidendum sit. Omnia enim bona opera, quae nos facimus, sunt imperfecta, nec possunt severitatem divini judicii ferre.” § 2 .—OBJECT. Article XI. emphasises the great Reformation doctrine of Justification by Faith only; Article XII. was drawn up with the view of guarding against the practical evil which had been seen to arise from the misunderstanding of that great doctrine. Luther laid so much stress on faith that he came to depreciate works, and even to deny them their proper place, and to speak of S. James’ Epistle, which emphasises the necessity of good 88 ARTICLE XII 89 works, as “ straminea epistola.” 1 Calvin’s exaggerated teaching on the subject of Predestination also tended to depreciation of man’s work. The matter, of course, did not rest with the authors of these teachings; their followers went much ‘further, with the result that antinomianism became widely prevalent. It was in order to meet this evil outcome of the teaching of some of the Reformers that this Article was framed in 1563. § 3.— EXPOSITION. (1.) Good Works are in themselves not Meritorious. Good works . . . cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgment: Two things are here affirmed with regard to good works :— (a) They cannot put away (expiare) sin. Only the Blood of Christ can expiate sin (1 S. John i. 7) ; and it is a fatal error to put human merit in its place, as was too often done in mediaeval times. ( b) They cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment. We must all acknowledge that there is something of imperfection even in our best deeds (Ps. cxliii. 2). 2 Good works, therefore, are not rewarded “ de condiyno , ” i.e ., because of their deserving it. 3 & With the teaching of the Article 'on this head we should contrast— (i.) The doctrine of the Church of Rome, according to which the good works of those who are justified are in themselves meritorious. See Council of Trent, Session VI., Canon XXXII.:— “ Si quis dixerit, hominis justificati bona opera ita esse dona Dei, ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati merita; aut ipsum 1 Preface to the New Testament, 1524, p. 105. 2 Cf. the Homily “ Of the Misery of Man,” Part ii. p. 17 : “Neither may we rejoice in any works that we do, which all be so im¬ perfect and impure that they are not able to stand before the righteous judgment-seat of God.” 3 As to the meaning of the scholastic phrase “mcritum de condiyno ” see notes on Art. XIII. The doctrine expressed by it was repudiated by the Continental, as by the English, Reformers. See, e.g., Saxon Confession, Art, IX. : . “ Ideo inanis est imaginatio fingentium obedientiam placere sua dignitate, et esse meritum condigni, ut loquuntur, et justitiam coram Deo, quae sit meritum vitae aeternae.’ M 9 ° THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES justification bonis operibus, quae ab eo per Dei gratiam et Christi meritum fiunt, non vere mereri augmentum gratiae, vitam aeternam et ipsius vitae aeternae, si tamen in gratia decesserit, consecutionem, atque etiam gloriae augmentum; anathema sit.” (ii.) The tenets of Pelagius and his followers, who held that some men have lived perfectly sinless lives, 1 so that their works would be able to endure the severity of God’s judgment. (2.) Good Works are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ. yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, Though not meritorious in themselves, yet the good works of Christians are pleasing to God, because of our union with Christ (see 1 S. Pet. ii. 5 ; Eph. ii. 10; Tit. ii. 14, iii. 8 ; ITeb. xiii. 16, 20, 21). To deny this is to divorce morality from religion. Some of the Reformers, however, did deny it, 2 and no more severe blow could be struck at Christian morality. (3.) The Relation of Good Works to Justifying Faitii. Good works . . . are the fruits of faith, and follow after Justi¬ fication, . . . and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit. The relation of good works to faith is here very clearly and carefully stated :— ( the use of the surplice in Divine Service, and of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, are Ceremonies decreed by the Church, and not contrary to Holy Scripture, although, at the same time, neither have they direct Scriptural sanction. (b) With regard to Doctrine. In this case it is necessary that what is laid down by the Church should have the express authority of Scripture. The Church hath . . . authority in controversies of Faith: . . . yet . . . besides the same (viz., Holy Writ) ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation. Our Article further makes it clear what is meant when it is said that doctrine laid down by the Church should have the express warrant of Scripture; it is meant, not that a text or two must be found to support it, but that the Church must see that such doctrine is consistent with the whole tenor of Scripture. neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. On the subject dealt with in this Article the words of the Creed of Pope Pius IV. should be compared:— “Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones, reliquasque ejusdem Ecclesiae observations et constitutiones firmissime admitto, et amplector. “ Item sacram Scripturam juxta eum sensum, quern tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto, nec earn unquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam, et interpre¬ tabor.” s x 3 8 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES Two incidental, but significant, points should be noted in the above extract:— (i.) t: Ecclesiastical traditions ” have the first place, being men¬ tioned before the Holy Scripture. (ii.) While of the former it is said “ firmissime admitto,” with regard to Holy Scripture the formula used is simply u admitto.” See also the decree of the Council of Trent, “ De Canonicis Scripturis ” (Session IY.) :— “ Synodus . . . orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Yeteris, quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, nec non traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem, turn ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in ecclesia catholica con- servatas, pari pietatis affectu et reverentia suscipit et veneratur.” ARTICLE XXL OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS. General Councils may not be gathered together without the com¬ mandment and will of Princes. And when they he gathered to¬ gether (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and 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. DE AUCTORITATE CONSILIORUM GENERALIUM. Generalia Concilia sine jussu et voluntate principum congregari non possunt, et ubi convenerint, quia ex hominibus constant, qui non omnes Spiritu et Verbo Dei reguntur, et errare possunt, et interdum errarunt, etiam in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent: ideoque quae ab illis constituuntur, ut ad salutem necessaria, neque robur habent, neque auctoritatem, nisi ostencli possint e sacris literis esse desumpta. § i.—SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers, 1552—3. § 2.—OBJECT. To assert the sole right of the Civil Power to call General Councils, and to express the conviction that some of the Councils, which were at the time commonly reputed General Councils, bad fallen into error. § EXPOSITION. (1.) General Councils. This Article is closely related to the preceding. In Article XX. it is laid down that the Church has authority in contro¬ versies of Faith; the present Article is concerned with General Councils, by which the Church exercises that authority, for they 139 140 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES are an important stage in the process by which the judgment of the Church on matters of Faith has been ascertained. In order that a Council may be ranked as a General Council it is necessary that two main conditions should be fulfilled; it should be— (a) Representative of the Church at large; and (b) Free; i.e ., there must be no constraint placed upon the members by any civil or spiritual ruler, or by any faction within the Church itself. The real test, however, of the oecumenicity of a Council con¬ sists in the reception of such Council and its work by every portion of the Church. The Divine Spirit is promised to the whole Church, and the consentient witness of the whole Church is therefore necessary. If this principle be kept in mind, defer¬ ence to the decisions of General Councils is quite intelligible ; the actual deliberations of Synods may perhaps be marked by polemics and by bitterness of tone, but they are the regular machinery for registering the agreement of the Church, and their authority only becomes decisive after their verdict has been accepted by the Church at large. Their decisions, therefore, in the result, represent, not the tyranny of chance majorities, but the working out in balanced formulae of complex Scriptural truth. The opinion of our English Reformers with regard to General Councils may be illustrated from the Reformatio Legum, “ De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica,” Cap. 14:— “Nam quaedam illorum, qualia sunt praecipua ilia quatuor, Nicenum, Constantinopolitanum primum, Ephesinum et Chalcedo- nense, magna cum reverentia amplectimur et suscipimus. Quod quidem judicium de multis aliis quae postea celebrata sunt ferimus, in quibus videmus et confitemur sanctissimos patres de heata et summa Trinitate, de Jesu Christo Domino et Servatore nostro, et humana redemptione per eum procurata, juxta Scripturas divinas multa gravissime et perquam sancte constituisse. Quibus tamen non aliter fidem nostram obligandam esse censemus, nisi quatenus ex Scripturis sanctis confirmari possint. Nam concilia nonnulla interdum errasse, et contraria inter sese definivisse, partim in actionibus juris, partim etiam in fide, manifestum est.” Gf. also Stat. 1 Elizabeth, c. i, quoted under heading (5.) below. ARTICLE XXI 141 The opinion of both Saxon and Swiss schools of Reformers may be gathered from the following extracts : 1 — Hermann’s Consultatio : “ Which thinges nevertheless we set furth to he receyued and obserued of men committed to our charge, none otherwise than as a beginninge of so holie and necessary a thinge, until a general reformacion of congregacions be made by the holie empire, by a fre and Christian council vniuersall or national.” Wurtemburg Confession, Art. XXXIV., “ De Conciliis ” : “ Fatemur sua debere esse in Ecclesia de dogmatis et sacris judicia, et magnam esse legitimorum Conciliorum auctoritatem. Sed longe omnium maxima sit auctoritas verbi Dei necesse est. . . . Testantur quoque exempla, non Pontifices tantum, sed etiam Concilia erasse.” Scotch Confession, Art. XX. : “ Quemadmodum non temere damnamus illud quod viri pii, congregati in generali concilio legitime convocato, nobis pro- posuerunt; ita sine justo examine non admittimus quicquid hominibus, generalis concilii nomine obtruditur : manifestum enim est, quod sicut fuerunt homines, ita etiam eorum quidam manifeste errarunt, idque in rebus maximi ponderis et momenti. Quatenus ergo concilium, sententiam et mandatum quod dat, probat piano Dei verbo, eatenus statim idipsum reveremur et amplectimur.” Second Helvetic Confession, Art. II. : “ Quapropter non patimur nos in controversiis religionis vel fidei causis urgeri nudis Patrum sententiis, aut conciliorum deter- minationibus, multo minus receptis consuetudinibus, aut etiam multitudine idem sententium, aut longi temporis praescriptione. Ergo non alium sustinemus in causa fidei judicem, quam ipsum Deum per Scripturas sanctas pronunciantem, quid verum sit, quid falsum, quid sequendum sit, quidve fugiendum.” Cf. the Declaration of the Faith, Church Order, and Discipline, of the Congregational or Independent Dissenters. “ Prin¬ ciples of Church Order and Discipline,” § 2 : “ They believe that the New Testament contains, either in the form of express statute or in the example and practice of the Apostles and Apostolic Churches, all the Articles of Faith neces¬ sary to be believed, and all the principles of order and discipline requisite for constituting and governing Christian societies; and that human traditions, fathers and councils, canons and creeds, possess no authority over the faith and practice of Christians.” 1 Luther himself appealed more than once to a future General Council. 142 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (2.) General Councils should be summoned by the Civil Power. General Councils may not be gathered together without the com¬ mandment and will of Princes. Cf. a letter of Cranmer to Melanchthon dated Lambeth, March 27, 1 5 5 2 “ I could wish, therefore, that those who excel others in erudi¬ tion and judgment should he assembled together, after the example of the Apostles, and declare their judgment, as well respecting other subjects of dispute, as likewise especially respecting this controversy, and attest their agreement by some published docu¬ ment. But you will perhaps say, ‘ And I also have often expressed the same wish; but this matter cannot be effected without the aid of princes.’ I have therefore [consulted with] 1 the king’s majesty, who places his kingdom of England at your disposal, and most graciously promises, not only a place of security and quiet, but also his aid and assistance towards these godly endeavours.”— Original Letters , vol. i. p. 26. Under the Roman Empire large bodies of bishops would not have been allowed to assemble from all parts without the sanction of the civil power, and at the present time, when the time- honoured intimate relation between Church and State is still, in many nations, maintained, the statement of the Article holds good. There can be no doubt, however, that the union between Church and State is loosening all over Christendom, and in the event of its being everywhere dissolved, the commandment and will of Princes would have no concern with the Councils of the Church. 2 (3.) General Councils may err, and sometimes have erred. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred, 1 One or more words are here wanting in the original. 2 Some of the Reformers were inclined to give a much more prominent posi¬ tion to the civil power in the Councils of the Church than our Article affirms. See, e.g ., Westminster Confession, XXIII. 3 :— “ The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in wor¬ ship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.” ARTICLE XXI i 43 even in things pertaining unto God (in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent). The words of the Article are strictly true, as the evidence of history shows ; e.g .:— (a) The Council of Ariminum, a.d. 359, at which about 400 bishops were present, secured a temporary triumph for Arianism. (b) A Council was held at Ephesus a.d. 449, the violent and dis¬ orderly proceedings of which gained for it from Pope Leo the title of ‘Latrocinium’ ( i.e ., Ruffian-synod), by which it is com¬ monly known. It pronounced in favour of Eutychianism. These were fairly representative Councils, but are not, of course, reckoned as General Councils, because their decisions have not been accepted by the Church at large. The in¬ fallibility of a Council can never be guaranteed at the moment, but the test of the value of its decisions is, as we have seen, their after-reception by the Church. The object which the compilers of our Article here had in view seems to have been to record the conviction that some of those Councils which were commonly spoken of in the Western Church at the time as “General Councils” had erred, “in his quae ad normam pietatis pertinent; ” thus :—- (i.) The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had laid down the doctrine of Transubstantiation. (ii.) The Council of Constance (1414) had withheld the cup from the laity in the Holy Eucharist. (4.) Decisions of Councils as to things necessary to Salva¬ tion MUST BE FOUNDED ON SCRIPTURE. 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. A General Council is summoned to declare what has always been the Faith, not to propound a new faith. The Faith has been once, for all delivered (S. Jude 3), and is enshrined in Holy Scripture, which is thus the Church’s standard of doctrine; nothing may, therefore, be taught as an article of Faith unless it be traceable to Holy Scripture. Our Church is here simply to carry out the great Reforma¬ tion principle which has been already laid down—that “ Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva¬ tion.” (See Article VI., and notes there.) t 144 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES (5.) Table of Councils accounted (Ecumenical. a.d. 325. Nicsea (1). 381. Constantinople (1). 431. Ephesus. 451. Chalcedon. 553. Constantinople (2). 681. Constantinople (3). 787. Nicsea (2). 869. Constantinople (4). 1123. Lateran (1). 1139. Lateran (2). 1179. Lateran (3). a.d. 1215. Lateran (4). 1245. Lyons (1). 1274. Lyons (2). 1311. Yienne. 1409. Pisa. 1414-18. Constance. 1430, Basle. Removed to Florence. 1512. Lateran (5). i 545~ 6 3- Trent * 1869. Vatican. All these Councils are recognised as General Councils by the Church of Rome. The English Reformers reverently accepted the first four. See the extract from the Reformatio Legum quoted above (under heading (1) of this section), and cf. Stat. i Elizabeth, c. i, by which it is determined that nothing shall be henceforth accounted heresy but that which has been so adjudged, “ By the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils, or any of them, or by any other General Council, wherein the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said Canonical Scriptures.” The Act has been repealed, but the words quoted may be taken as indicating the mind of the Reformers. The second and third Councils of Constantinople merely confirmed decrees of the pre¬ ceding General Councils; hence they also may be considered as recognised by the English Church. The Orthodox Eastern Church acknowledges the first seven Councils in the list given above as CEcumenical Councils. Cf. the * Holy Catechism ’ by Bernadaces, p. 16 :— Q. What is an (Ecumenical Council ? A. An assembly of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church from all parts of the world to inquire and decide concerning ques¬ tions of the Christian Faith. Q. How many (Ecumenical Councils of this sort have there been 1 A. Seven, and the first of them composed the Creed. The authorities of the Eastern Church were also willing to recognise the sessions at Florence, which were a continuation of the Council opened at Basle (1430). ARTICLE XXI I 45 \ It will have been already gathered from the examples we have given that the formularies which give expression to the views of the Swiss School of Reformers do not assign a very high value to the decisions of Councils. The very important and widely approved Second Helvetic Confession, however, in Article XI., holds to the first four Councils:— “Et ut paucis multa hujus causae dicamus, quaecunque de incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi mysterio definita sunt ex Scripturis sanctis, et comprehensa symbolis ac sententiis quatuor primarum et praestantissimarum Synodorum, celebratarum, Xiceae, Constantinopoli, Ephesi et Chalcedone, una cum beati Athanasii symbolo, et omnibus his similibus symbolis, credimus corde sin- cero, et ore libero ingenue profitemur, condemnantes omnia his contraria. ” T ARTICLE XXII OF PURGATORY. The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images, as of Reliques, and also Invoca¬ tion of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. DE PURGATORIO. Doctrina Romanensium de Pur- gatorio, de Indulgentiis, de venera- tione et adoratione turn imaginum turn reliquiarum, nec non de In¬ vocation Sanctorum, res est futilis, inaniter conficta, et nullis Scriptu- rarum testimonies innititur, imo verbo Dei contradicit. § i SOURCE. Composed by the English Reformers. In 155 3 the Article began with the words “ Scholasticornm doctrina ”—“ the doctrine of the Scholeaucthoures.” The phrase “doctrina Romanensium” 1 was substituted for this in 1563. Another change was also made in the wording of the Article at the revision in 1563. The adverb “ pernitiose,” which stood before the verb “contradicit” in the Latin text of 1553, was struck out. § 2 .—OBJECT. To repudiate the teaching of the Church of Rome on the heads named in the Article. It should be remembered, however, that the decree of the Council of Trent which deals with the subjects treated of in this Article bears date December 4, 1563, so that the framers of our Article (1553) could not have had this in their mind, but were rather referring to the current corrupt teaching of the Latin Church in the times immediately preceding the Re¬ formation. This is, indeed, sufficiently indicated by the wording of the original Article, which speaks of “ the doctrine of the School- 1 The words ‘ Romanenses ’ and ‘Romanistae’ occur as early as 1520, being used by Lutlier, and by Ulrich von Hutten (the author of the ‘Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum ’), to designate the extreme Mediaeval party. 146 ARTICLE XXII 147 authors.” The change of this expression to “ Romish doctrine ” in the Elizabethan revision is significant; it was doubtless made because our Reformers were realising that the Church of Rome, at the Council of Trent, was adopting the teaching of the later Schoolmen as its own. The decrees of the Council upon the particular subjects in hand could not, however, have been before the revisers at the time when the change in the wording of our Article was made. § 3.— EXPOSITION. This Article condemns the Romish doctrine on the following heads, as not satisfying the test which has been already laid down, viz., that doctrine decreed by the Church must have the warrant of Holy Scripture. On the contrary, it is affirmed of the doctrine here dealt with, that it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (1.) Purgatory. The doctrine of Purgatory depends upon the distinction between the temporal and the eternal punishment of sin, to which every man is liable. It is held that God does indeed, for the sake of the merits and intercession of our Lord Jesus Christ, pardon sin, and at the same time remit the eternal punishment due to it. The sinner is, however, still liable to temporal punishment, 1 which he must expiate by acts of penance in this life. Whatever is not expiated in this life must be expiated after death ; the soul, there¬ fore, continues to bear, in the next world, the temporal punish¬ ment of its sins. In order to shorten this purgatorial punishment, the prayers and supererogations of men on earth, and especially the offering of masses, are of great efficacy. Such is the “ Romish doctrine,” which led to serious results both in practice and doctrine. The souls of those that depart hence in the Lord are conceived as lying in flames, enduring torments equal to those of the lost, for a longer or shorter period between death and the day of judgment. 2 Their friends on earth may obtain mitigation of their 1 The Council of Trent (Session XIV.) declares :— “ Falso omnino esse et a verbo Dei alienum, culpam a Domino nunquam remitti, quin universa etiam poena condonetur.” Cf Canon XIII. on the Sacrament of Penance (the same Session) :— “Si quis dixerit . . . fictionem esse, quod, virtute clavium sublata poena aeterna, poena temporalis plerumque exsolvenda remaneat, anathema sit.” 2 1 Cor. iii. 11—15 is sometimes quoted in support of this. 148 THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES punishment by prayers, and by paying the priest to say mass for their souls; hence arose a most shameful traffic in holy things. Serious doctrinal consequences also followed. Purgatory was often so taught as to invalidate the power of the Passion of Christ, and to imply that there is an expiatory virtue in human suffering and merit; 1 so much sin must be atoned for by just so much suffering, either inflicted upon the sinner by God, or voluntary penal visita¬ tions upon himself, or possibly the balance may have to be made up from the supererogatory works of saints. It is this popular doctrine of Purgatory which is justly condemned in our Article. The Council of Trent affirmed the doctrine of Purgatory, but at the same time made an attempt to clear away abuses connected with it. See Session XX V. (December 1563):— “ Cum Catholica ecclesia, a Spiritu Sancto edocta ex sacris litteris et antiqua patrum traditione, in sanctis conciliis et novissime in hac oecumenica synodo docuerit, purgatorium esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis potissimum vero acceptabili altaris sacrificio juvari, praecipit sancta synodus episcopis, ut sanam de purgatorio doctrinam, a sanctis patribus et sanctis conciliis traditam, a Cliristi fidelibus credi, teneri, et ubique praedicari diligenter studeant: apud rudem vero plebem difficiliores ac subtiliores quaestiones, quaeque ad aedificationem non faciunt, et ex quibus plerumque nulla fit pietatis accessio, a popularibus concionibus secludantur; incerta item, vel quae specie falsi laborant, evulgari ac tractari non permittant; ea vero, quae ad curiositatem quandam ant superstitionem spectant vel turpe lucrum sapiunt, tanquam scandala et fidelium offendicula prohibeant.” We must not, of course, understand that when the compilers of our Article censured ‘ the Romish doctrine of Purgatory/ they at the same time intended to reject the doctrine of the Primitive Church concerning the Intermediate State. Those who depart this life in a state of grace go to be with Christ (Phil. i. 23), and pass into a state of blessed rest and peace (Rev. xiv. 13); 2 1 The Council of Trent saw the danger involved, and attempted to guard against it:— “Accedit, quod dum satisfaciendo patimur pro peccatis, Christo, qui pro peccatis nostris satisfecit, conformes efficimur. . . . Neque vero ita nostra est satisfactio haec, quam pro peccatis nostris exsolviirms, ut non sit per Chris¬ tum ; nam qui ex nobis tanquam ex nobis nihil possumus, eo co-operante omnia possumus. Ita non habet homo unde glorietur, sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est” (Session XIV.). 2 Cf. the words of the prayer in the Burial Service :— “ Almighty God, with Whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord, and with Whom the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity.” ARTICLE XXII 149 but we must not conceive of them as altogether inactive, or as though asleep; 1 the work of grace, begun in this life, goes on in their souls, they attain to higher and higher degrees of perfection, till at last they will, with joy, behold the Face of God in Heaven. It is obvious that in many at the time of their departure from this life there is much good, mingled with much evil as yet un¬ subdued. We cannot for a moment think of such as lost souls; neither, on the other hand, can we imagine them as fitted, at the moment of death, for the Beatific Vision of Heaven. Should we not, therefore, conclude that the good work begun in them will be con¬ tinued in the waiting state beyond the grave, the evil being, by the continued operation of the Spirit of God, purged away, till they too are fitted, with all saints, to behold the Face of God with joy ? Further, we should not forget that the members of Christ who have departed this life are still, by virtue of the common union with the living Lord, in close communion with us on earth ; the Church Militant here and the Church Expectant in Paradise are vitally and indivisibly one, so that our brethren who have been taken from us into Paradise still have their part in the mutual offices of the members of the One Body. Of all the mutual helps we enjoy in the Body of Christ, there is nothing that binds us so closely to one another as the ministry of prayer. We pray continually for those we love in Christ while they are living here, and natural impulse and deep instinct of piety alike prompt us to continue to pray for them when they have passed from our sight to join the waiting Church beyond the grave. 1 This error was revived Ly some at the Reformation period, and was ex¬ pressly condemned by the 40th of the XLII. Articles of 1553 :— THE SOULLES OF THEM THAT DEPARTE THIS DEFUNCTORUM ANIMAE NEQUE CUM COE- LIFE DOE NEITHER DIE WITH THE BODIES, PORIBUS INTEREUNT, NEQUE OTIOSE NOR SLEEP IDLIE. DORMIUNT. Thei whiche saie that the soulles of suche as departe hens doe sleepe, being without al sence, fealing, or perceiuing vntil the daie of iudgement, or affirme that the soulles die with the bodies, and at the laste daie shalbe raised vp with the same, doe vtterlie dissent from the right beliefe declared to vs in holie Scripture. Qui anirnas defunctorum praedicant usque ad diem judicii absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corporibus mori, et extrema die cum illis excitandas, ab orthodoxa fide, quae nobis in sacris litteris traditur, prorsus dissentiunt. See also Reformatio Legum, ‘De Haeresibus,’ Cap. 12: “ Quidam impie philosophantur animas hominum ex hac vita migrantium, quando semel ex corporibus excesserunt, usque ad supremum ultimi judicii tempus, vel soinno involvi, vel prorsus ad nihilum recidere; turn autem cum extremi judicii dies erit, illas rursus vel a somno excitari, vel cum propriis corporibus ab interitu resurgere.” THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES T 5 ° There is abundant evidence which goes to prove that the prac¬ tice of Prayer for the Dead prevailed in the Primitive Church. 1 (a) The ancient Liturgies all contain commemoration of and intercession for the departed. A few quotations are here given:— The Greek Liturgy of S. James of Jerusalem 2 : M vrjorOrjTL, K vpte 6 Geos, twv Trvevpdrivv Kal 7 racr^s c rapKos, v, 7rpwTov, 7raT/napywv, rrpo^rkov, arrocrroXov, paprvpav, oVws 6 deos Tats ei’yats auTWV Kal Trpccrfdetats irpojs els tov I'Siov B acnXea Kal AiSacrKaXov. cov yevoiro kcu rj/Jids crvyKOivcovovg re Kal v 7Tvevp.a.TiKu>v toijtuv Kal eirovpavlwv SioCkexdrjvou pLvarripicjv, aWcos re Kal x (t} PV TLK0 1 T ^v Oeiorepuv KareaTrjTe p.VGTr\pl