Articles 1-5.    Articles 6-8.    Articles 9-13.    Articles 14-19 below on this page. Articles 20-26.    Articles 27-31.    Articles 32-39.    Home.

15.  16.  17.  18.  19.

ARTICLE  XIV

Of Works of Supererogation.

      Voluntary works, besides, over and above God’s commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

De Operibus Supererogationis.

      Opera, quae supererogationis appellant, non possunt sine arrogantia, et impietate praedicari.  Nam illis declarant homines, non tantum se Deo reddere, quae tenentur, sed plus in ejus gratiam facere, quam deberent, cum aperte Christus dicat: Cum feceritis omnia quaecunque praecepta sunt vobis dicite, servi inutiles sumus.

Section  I – History

      There is nothing in the earliest fathers which bears much on the subject of this Article, unless it be that they appear to have attached more than due importance to martyrdom.  Thus the baptism of blood was considered equivalent to baptism by water; and some perhaps appear to have ascribed merit to it such as to cancel sins.  Hermas for instance speaks of the martyrs as having “all their offences blotted out because they have suffered death for the name of the Son of God.” {Simil. IX. 29.}  And again says of them, when compared with the rest of the redeemed, that they have “some glory above the others.”  {Vis. III. 28.}  And so Tertullian says, that “all sins are forgiven to martyrdom.” {Omnia huic operi delicta donantur.  Apol. sub. fin.}  But with reference to the last-named writer, it has been clearly shown that, with all his high esteem for martyrdom, he expressly maintained that it was impossible for martyrs to have an excess of holiness above what was required, as not being in themselves sinless.  It was the custom in his days for persons who had lapsed in persecution to be restored to the communion of the Church, at the intercession of martyrs and confessors; a custom which was often much abused.  Writing on this subject, Tertullian says, “Who but the Son of God can by His own death relieve others from death?  He, indeed, delivered the thief at the very moment of His passion; for He had come for this very end, that, being Himself free from sin and perfectly holy, He might die for sinners.  You then, who imitate Christ in pardoning sins, if you are yourselves sinless, suffer death for me.  But if you are yourself a sinner, how can the oil out of your cruise suffice both for you and me?” {De Pudicitia, Cap. 22.  See Bishop Kaye, Tertullian, p. 336.  Like this is the language of Augustine, quoted by Bp. Beveridge on this Article: Etsi fratres pro fratribus moriantur, tamen in peccatorum remissionem nullius sanguis martyris funditur, quod fecit Ille (i.e. Dominus Christus) pro nobis.  August.  In Joh. tract 84.}

      In this admiration, however, of the early Church for martyrdom, and in the admission of the intercession of the martyrs for the deliverance of others from church censures, we may perhaps trace the germ of the doctrine of works of supererogation. {Rogare legem, to propose a law.  Erogare, to make a law for paying a sum of money out of a public treasury.  So the word is used for lending or paying out.  Hence supererogare, to pay over and above.  In Luke 10:35, προσδαπανάω is in the Vulgate supererogo, to spend more. – Hey, III. p. 403.}

      In the respect which they paid to virginity we may find another source for the same error; for it is well known, that they gave the fullest latitude to those words of our Lord and of St. Paul, in which they speak of celibacy as a favourable state of life for the development of Christian graces and for devotion to the service of the Cross.

      On this subject especially St. Paul writes, “Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my advice “ (1 Cor. 7:25); De virginibus autem praeceptum Domini non habeo, sed consilium do.  From this expression it was very early inferred that the Scriptures made a distinction between precepts, which are binding on all men, and counsels, which it is desirable to follow but which are not obligatory on the conscience.  Thus St. Cyprian, speaking of celibacy, says, “The Lord does not command this, but exhorts to it.  He lays not on a yoke of necessity, when the free choice of the will remains.  But whereas he says that in His Father’s house are many mansions, He points out the way to the better mansions.” {Nec hoc jubet Dominus sed hortatur: nec jugum necessitatis imponit, quando maneat voluntatis arbitrium liberum.  Sed cum habitationes multas apud Patrem suum dicat, melioris habitaculi hospitia demonstrat: habitacula ista meliora vos petitis, carnis desideria castrantes, majoris praemium in coelestibus obtinetis. – Cypr.  De Habitu Virginum, p. 102.}  St. Augustine writes, “It is not said, Thou shalt not marry, as it is said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill.  The latter are exacted, the former is offered.  If the one is observed, there is praise.  If the other is neglected, there will be condemnation.” {Non enim sicut Non maechaberis, non occides, ita dici potest, non nubes.  Illa exiguntur, ista offeruntur.  Si fiunt ista, laudantur: nisi fiunt illa, damnantur.  In illis Dominus debitum imperat vobis; in his autem si quid amplius supererogaveritis, in redeundo reddit vobis. – August.  De Sancta Virginitate, cap. 30.  Opera, Tom. VI. p. 355.}  And St. Jerome distinguishes between a precept and a counsel, as that the one involves necessity of obedience, the other leaves a liberty of accepting or refusing. {Ubi consilium, ibi offerentis arbitrium, ubi praeceptum datum, ibi necessitas est servientis.  Hieron. ad Eustochium, De Servanda Virginitate.  So in the Sermons De Tempore, ascribed to Augustine, Sermon LXI.  De Virginitate dicitur, Qui potest capere, capiat.  De justitia non dicitur, Qui potest facere, sed Omnis arbor, guae non facit fructum bonum exscindetur, et in ignem mittetur.  See these and some other passages quoted by Bellarmine, De Monachis, Lib. II. cap. 7, 11.  Tom. II. pp. 363, 380.  The words of S. Chrysostom are much to this purpose on Rom. 8: οι πνευματικοι πάντα πράττουσιν επιθυμία και πόθω, και τουτο δηλουσι τω και υπερβαίνειν τα υποτάγματα.  Thus rendered by Bp. Jer. Taylor, “Spiritual men do their actions with much passion and holy zeal, and give testimony of it by expressing it in the uncommanded instances.” – Rule of Conscience, II. 3, 12; which see.}

      The distinction thus early made may have had a legitimate foundation in Holy Writ.  But, in process of time there grew out of it the doctrine of works of supererogation, as connected with a belief in the merits of martyrdom, and of voluntary celibacy.  The increase of monasticism, and the increasing respect paid to every kind of ascetic observance, cherished this belief.  In the language of the confession of Augsburg, “The monks taught that “their mode of life was a state of perfection, because they observed not precepts only, but counsels also.  This error is greatly at variance with Gospel truth; for thus they pretended so to satisfy the commands of God as even to exceed them.  And hence arose the grievous error that they claimed merits of supererogation.  These they applied to others, that they might be satisfactions for other men’s sins.” {Sylloge, p. 223.}

      The full-grown form of the doctrine was that a man may not only keep the law of God, so as to do all that is actually enjoined on him, but may be so full of the grace of God as even to do more than God’s law enjoins, and thereby deserve even more than his own salvation.  This excess of merit, which was supposed to be attained by some of the greater saints, formed a deposit which was entrusted to the Church and which the Roman pontiff, the vicar of Christ, could for reasonable causes, by the power of the keys, unlock and grant to the faithful in the way of indulgences and for the remission of temporal punishment.

      In the Council of Trent, the last decrees read and approved were concerning the granting of indulgences.  The council anathematized those who said they were unprofitable and, though forbidding their sale and other abuses, yet commanded that they should be retained as profitable for Christian people. {Sarpi, p. 757.}  There is no express mention of works of supererogation.

      It is scarcely necessary to add that all the reformed Churches and sects of whatever class or denomination have rejected the doctrine of the Romanists concerning works of supererogation.

Section  II – Scriptural Proof

      The principal arguments in favour of the doctrine of the Roman Church on this subject may be found in the writings of Cardinal Bellarmine, in the second book of his treatise De Monachis.  He assumes the principle, a principle which rightly understood need not be controverted, that in some passages of Scripture advice is given where there is not a positive command: and then he infers that, “as our Lord distinguishes counsels from precepts, He plainly shows that men justified by the grace of God can not only fulfill the law, but even do some works most pleasing to God which have not been commanded.” {Controvers. General. Lib. IV.  De Indulgentiis, Tom. III. p. 1124.  Dominus consilia a praeceptis distinguens, ostendit posse homines justificatos per gratiam Dei non solum implere legem, sed etiam aliqua alia opera Deo gratissima facere, quae imperata non sint.  He quotes especially the case of the young man, Matt 19:16, &c.}

      Now this inference may fairly be considered a petitio principii; for advice, when coming from our Lord or His Apostles, may be a counsel tending indeed to spiritual good, but yet, if followed, not enabling to do more than is commanded, but only putting in the road to obtain more grace and strength from above.

      Bellarmine, besides referring to several passages of the fathers, some of which have been already quoted, brings forward very many texts of Scripture to prove his position.  The greater number of these appear so little relevant that I shall make no apology for considering those only which appear to have some weight.

      1.  The first which we may mention is the counsel given by our Lord to the man who came to Him, and asked, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”  Our Lord first replies, “Keep the commandments.”  The young man then says that he has kept all these from his youth, and adds, “What lack I yet?”  Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: and come and follow Me.” {Matt. 19:16–21.}  Bellarmine argues that this last sentence of our Lord’s could not have been a command, but was a counsel of perfection, which, if obeyed, would have been more than was the young man’s duty, i.e. a work of supererogation.  This he proves as follows: It was not a precept; for to the question, “What shall I do that I may have eternal life?” the answer is “If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments.”  Therefore the keeping the commandments would be sufficient for salvation.  And the advice afterwards given tended to perfection, not to salvation.*

            {*Lib. II. De Monachis, cap. 9, Tom. II. p. 368, &c.  The cardinal replies to many arguments which have been brought against his interpretation of this history : e. q. St. Jerome and Bede considered the young man’s question as a tempting of our Lord, but Chrysostom refutes this opinion, by showing that none of the Evangelists blame him, and Bellarmine adds, that St. Mark (10:21), says that “Jesus beholding him loved him.”  Calvin (Inst. Lib. IV. cap. 13) had argued that our Lord could not have placed perfection in selling all things, since in 1 Cor. 13:3, we read “though I give all my goods to feed the poor ... and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”  Calvin also observes, that the young man could not really have kept all the commandments, for one is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,” &c.; and he who does this will give up everything, and therefore, of course, all his wealth, for Him.  Peter Martyr too had said, that it could not be a counsel, but a precept, when our Lord said, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast”; for in Matt. 5:48, “Be ye perfect” is a precept; and therefore whatever teaches us to be perfect must be of the nature of a precept also.  To this Bellarmine tries to reply that there are different kinds of perfection, some necessary for salvation, but a higher degree for a higher grade of glory.  P. Martyr also says that this command was given to the young man alone, and that therefore it was necessary for his perfection, but not for every one’s, for he is perfect who obeys God’s laws.  Bellarmine answers, No!  The command was, “If thou will enter into life, keep the commandments”; this was addressed to all.  So we ought to infer that the saying, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast,” was equally addressed to all.  He quotes Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, as agreeing with him in this view.}

      But if we attentively consider the whole conversation, we shall see that this interpretation will not satisfy the case.  In the first place, the young man asks, “What good thing he should do to have eternal life”; to which our Lord gives the general reply, that, “if he would be saved, he must keep the commandments.”  The young man, evidently not ill disposed (see Mark 12:21), but with an undue notion of his own strength and goodness, then says that he has kept all the commandments from his youth, and, as though he could see no deficiency in his own conduct, asks again, “What lack I yet?”  Now it was to this question, “What lack I?” that our Lord gave the reply now under consideration.  That reply, therefore, was intended to show the young man what he lacked: and if he lacked something, it is quite clear that the supplying of that lack, or deficiency, could not be a work of supererogation, but a work of duty or obligation.  This is further proved by the conduct of the young man who, when he had heard our Lord’s reply, “went away sorrowful.”  That is to say, he felt not able and willing to do what our Lord had said was needful for him to do.  He had asked what was necessary for his salvation.  The first answer gave him satisfaction; for it did not fully convince him of his weakness.  The second probed him to the quick and showed him that the strength of purpose which he supposed himself to possess was not such as to lead him to renounce all for the kingdom of God.  And so, when he had gone away sorrowful, our Lord does not say, A rich man shall hardly become perfect, or do works of supererogation; but He says, “Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven.  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”  It was unfitness for the kingdom of Heaven, not unfitness for a supereminent degree of glory, which the rich man showed, when at our Lord’s bidding he could not sell all that he had.

      Whence it appears, that this saying of our Lord’s was a precept, and not a counsel.  It was like the command given to Abraham to kill his son.  It was a trial of his faith and of his readiness to obey.  The faithful servant of God will give up all, even that he loves the best, for Him whom he serves.  Abraham’s dearest treasure was his son, and he was ready to sacrifice him.  The young man’s treasure was his wealth, and he went away sorrowful.  The one was shown to be true and firm in the faith.  The other’s faith was proved to be doubtful and wavering.

      Bellarmine, however, farther contends that, whereas it follows in the 27th ,verse, “Peter answered and said unto Him, Behold we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?” if the command was only given to the young man, and not to all men, then our Lord would have said to Peter, “I will give nothing to you, I spoke only to this young man”; (Nihil vobis dabo, nam soli illi juveni loquutus sum); whereas the answer actually given is (Amen dico vobis, &c.) “Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed Me ... shall sit on twelve thrones ... and every one who hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”  The cardinal’s conclusion is therefore that to all men it is a precept, “keep the commandments,” and to all men it is a counsel, “sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.”  The Apostles obeyed the precept and the counsel both, and so did more than their duty; the young man kept only the precepts, and so won Heaven, but not more than Heaven.

      There is evidently a fallacy here.  No doubt, it is not commanded to all men to sell all that they have; for St. Paul bade Timothy “charge those who are rich in this world” (not to sell their possessions, but) “not to trust in uncertain riches,” “to do good, to be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate” (1 Tim. 6:17, 18).  But though all men are not expressly called to sell all that they have, yet at the time of our Lord’s presence upon earth, He did call all His immediate followers to give up everything for His sake; and the most obvious and decided way of giving proof of zeal for His service and love to Him, was to forsake parents and brethren, house and lands, and to follow Him who had no place to lay His head. {We must remember that there was a perfectly general precept to this effect: “ He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,” Matt. 10:37.  And again: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple,” Luke 14:26.}  Thus, as Abraham evidenced his faith by being ready to slay his son, so the Apostles evidenced theirs by forsaking their homes; and the rich young man could not find it in his heart to sacrifice so much, because his faith was not so true.  Here is no room for works of supererogation, nor even for counsels of perfection.

      2.  Another of Bellarmine’s proofs {Tom. II. p. 378.} is drawn from 1. Cor. 9 in which St. Paul asserts that he might have received payment for his ministry, that he might have led about a wife at the expense of the Church; but that he would not do anything of this kind, lest his glorying should be made void.  Taking the Latin version as his guide, Bellarmine reasons that, though St. Paul might have fulfilled all his duty if he had taken payment of the Church, yet he would not take reward, that he might obtain greater glory.  And he argues against Peter Martyr (who interprets the gloriam of ver. 15 to “mean glorying before men”) that St. Augustine had written, Bonum est magis mihi mori, quam ut gloriam meam quis evacuet.  Quam gloriam? nisi quam habere voluit apud Deum in Christo? {Lib. de Opere Monachorum, c. 10.}  But pace tanti viri, be it said, that the Greek word is καύχημα, which means boasting; and that a greater than St. Augustine has written that “no flesh should glory (or boast) in God’s presence.” {1 Cor. 1:29.  Comp. Rom. 3:27, 4:2.  Eph. 2:9.}  The passage in St. Paul can hardly mean anything but this: that, whereas he as an Apostle had a right to be chargeable to the Church, he had yet refused to be so, that he might have the more influence for good over those among whom he ministered.  As he says in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter, “Though he was free from all men, yet he made himself the servant of all, that he might gain the more.”  Thus he was able to boast that he had cost them nothing; and they therefore could not charge him with avarice or private views.  To make his glorying in this respect void would have been to deprive him of his influence over them, and therefore of that power to do good which lay so near his heart.

      3.  But the most cogent argument from Scripture in favour of works of supererogation is drawn from the passages in which our Lord and St. Paul, whilst highly honouring marriage, yet give the preference to a life of celibacy.  The passages in question are Matt. 19:10, 11, 12, and 1 Cor. 7. passim, especially 7, 8, 25–28, 32–40.

      On the first passage, Bellarmine observes that to live a life of celibacy cannot be a precept, because of the high commendation which our Lord had just bestowed upon matrimony, and yet, he says, it is evident that it has a reward in Heaven, because our Lord declares that “some have made themselves eunuchs” (i.e. have lived a life of celibacy) “for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake,” and then adds, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matt. 19:12).  In like manner, on 1 Cor. 7 he observes that the advice to abstain from marriage is evidently a counsel; and that it is a counsel of not merely human wisdom, but proceeding from the Spirit of God; which he fully proves from ver. 25, 40; where the Apostle declares that, though there had been “no commandment of the Lord,” yet he gave his judgment as one who had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful,” ver. 25; and that in thus giving his judgment, he felt assured that he had the Spirit of God, ver. 40. {Δοκω δε καγω Πνευμα Θεου έχειν, where, according to the well-known usage of St. Paul and others, δοκειν is far from implying doubt.}

      Luther, he says, only admitted a temporal advantage to be attached to celibacy, and such has been the exposition of many Protestants; namely, that so a man may escape cares, and anxieties, and that especially in time of persecution.  Against such Bellarmine quotes the words of St. Augustine; {De Sancta Virginitate, c. 13.  Unde mirabiliter desipiunt, qui putant hujus continentiae bonum non esse necessarium propter regnum coelorum, sed propter praesens saeculum, quod scilicet conjugia terrenis curis pluribus atque arctioribus distenduntur, qua molestia virgines et continentes carent, &c.} who truly maintained, that the Apostle spoke of spiritual as well as temporal benefits to be derived from celibacy.

      From Luther, Bellarmine passes to Melancthon, who went farther than Luther and admitted that some spiritual good might be derived from an unmarried state, such as more freedom and time for prayer and preaching. {In Locis, cap. De Castitate.}  But to the temporal benefits admitted by Luther, and to the spiritual benefits allowed by Melancthon, Bellarmine adds a third, namely, to please God and obtain greater reward.  He observes that the words propter instantem necessitatem, “because of the present distress” (ver. 26), do not mean that we may escape present troubles, but that they rather mean, propter brevitatem temporis, “because of the shortness of the time”; as it is said (ver. 29), “But this I say, brethren, the time is short.”  Against Melancthon he says that in ver. 34 the Apostle commends the state of an unmarried female, saying, that “she careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit”; and that this shows that virginity has of itself a sanctity both of body and spirit, according to the words of Jerome (lib. I. Contra Jovinian): Illa virginitas hostia Christi est, cujus nec mentem cogitatio, nec carnem libido maculant.  From ver. 35, where St. Paul says he speaks thus “for that which is comely,” ad id quod honestum est, Bellarmine argues that the apostle calls continence a thing per se honestam et decoram et proinde Deo charam, “a thing in its own nature comely and honourable, and therefore dear to God.”  And again, in ver. 40, the words “She is happier if she so abide,” he says, plainly mean, she will be happier in the world to come. {Beatior autem erit, si sic permanserit, id est, ut exponit, in futuro saeculo.  Bellarmine treats of Matt. 19.  Controv. Gener.  Tom. II. p. 367.  Cf. 1 Cor. 7.  Tom. II. p. 373.}

      Now in this reasoning of the distinguished Romanist divine there appears a considerable mixture of truth and error.  Let us admit, as we cannot doubt, that the Apostle wrote under the guidance of the Spirit; let us admit that he gave a counsel, not a precept; for plainly it is no commandment of God that men should not marry, but only that they should “abstain from fornication.”  Let us admit that both our blessed Lord and St. Paul spoke of abstaining from marriage, for the sake of some advantages which an unmarried life has, as regards spiritual employments and spiritual meditations.  The divines of our own communion have admitted this as freely as those of the Roman Church. {For example, see Bp. Burnet on this Article, and Milner, Hist. of the Church, Cent. I. ch. XI; Cent. XI. ch. VIII; divines of a school peculiarly disinclined from any concessions to the Romanists.  On the proper distinction between precepts and counsels, the student may read with great advantage Bp. Jer. Taylor, Rule of Conscience, Book II. ch. III. Rule 12.}  There seems no reason to doubt that both our Lord and St. Paul speak of some to whom a peculiar gift has been given, and who can by living unmarried devote themselves more unreservedly to the work of the Gospel and the service of the Lord.  Marriage brings with it the anxieties of family and worldly business, and many of those “cares of this life,” which may, if not checked, choke the good seed.  From all such celibacy is free.  Therefore, though marriage be a state ordained of God, yet some, thinking to give their whole lives to religious employments, have abstained from marriage, “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven’s sake”; and such a determination, in such as are “able to receive it,” our Lord has honoured with His sanction, “Let him receive it.”  And so it is with the counsel of St. Paul. He tells us, that “the time is short, it remaineth that they that have wives be as though they had none ... that they who use this world, be as though they used it not; {1 Cor. 7:31: “As though they used it not,” ως μη καταχρώμενοι.  Καταχρασθαι here probably signifies to use.  Comp. 1 Cor. 7:31, 9:18.} for the fashion of this world passeth away.”  Accordingly, to such as have the gift of continence he gives his advice that it may help them on more in their course of godliness, if they continue to live a life less burdened with the cares of this world than is the life of those who are united in marriage.  Such a life is not indeed to be commended to all men, and the Apostle carefully guards himself against forcing the conscience, or “casting a snare upon” them.  But it is a life which has many advantages.  The unmarried have nothing to do but care for the things of the Lord; whilst the married cannot but be anxious to please not only God, but the partner of their earthly pilgrimage.  Much therefore as there is of blessing in the married state, honourable as it is in all men, and a κοίτη αμίαντος, a state undefiled; still those who have contracted it are, like Martha, necessarily “cumbered about much serving,” whilst the unmarried, like Mary, have more leisure to “sit at the feet of Jesus,” able to “attend upon the Lord without distraction.” {1 Cor. 7:35.  In the words προς το ευπρόσεδρον τω Κυρίω απερισπάστως, it has been thought that St. Paul especially alludes to Mary’s “sitting at Jesus’ feet.”  Luke 10:39.}  Therefore it is that the Apostle counsels an unmarried life because of “the present distress”; because, it may be, of the distress and anxieties of this present life, which are much unfavourable to the attainment of holiness, and which especially beset those who are tied in the bond of matrimony. {Propter instantem necessitatem.]  Id est, praesentis vitae solicitudinem, quae multum potest obesse justitiae, et qua praecipue juncti matrimoniis implicantur. – Hieron. in 1 Cor. 7.}

      This exposition will fairly satisfy the language both of Christ and of His Apostle.  But we deny that St. Paul, when instituting a comparison between marriage and celibacy, speaks of the latter as having more merit than the former; or that the one shall ensure a higher place in Heaven than the other.  It may be to some persons a state more favourable for growth in grace, though for obvious reasons it may be a snare to others.  But, as marriage is a thing holy in itself, so we do not learn that celibacy is holier.  “One is not a better chastity than the other.  Marriage is a κοίτη αμίαντος, an undefiled state, and nothing can be cleaner than that which is not at all unclean.” {Jer. Taylor, as above.}  And therefore, though we fully admit the honour due to a holy celibacy, we yet deny that it has any merit at all, as nothing in man can merit from God; and still more do we deny that it can have merit of supererogation.*

            {*A passage, not noticed by Bellarmine, may seem to countenance the doctrine that the sufferings of the saints were beneficial, not only to themselves, but to the Church; and that therefore their merits were more than enough for their own salvation.  The passage is Col. 1:24, “Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the Church.”  But if we carefully consider the passage, we cannot suppose that the Apostle means that there was anything deficient in the sufferings of Christ, or that His infinite merits needed addition from the sufferings of His servant.  The true meaning of the passage is this: Every servant of Christ has need to be conformed to the likeness of the sufferings of his Lord.  St. Paul considered that there was somewhat lacking in him, that there was somewhat yet behind of “the affliction of Christ,” before he could be thoroughly conformed to His likeness; and earnestly desiring to be made like his Lord, he gladly took every additional trial as only bringing him nearer to His image; and all these trials he endured for the sake of the Church, which he served, and to which he preached the Gospel of Christ.  There is no mention of vicarious suffering on the part of St. Paul, of supererogatory merit, or of addition to the full, perfect, and sufficieut sacrifice of Christ up in the Cross.}

      The above are the only arguments from Scripture adduced by Bellarmine which can be considered as of weight or importance; and we may therefore fairly consider that in answering them we have shown that Scripture does not countenance the doctrine which our fourteenth Article condemns.  It remains to show that there are passages and statements in the Scriptures directly at variance with that doctrine and utterly inconsistent with it.

      1.  In the first place Scripture shows that all men, even those under the dominion of grace, are still imperfect and full of infirmity.  David says, that “there is none that doeth good, no not one” (Ps. 14:3); St. James says, that “in many things we offend, all” (Jas. 3:2); and St. John says, that “if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves” (1 John 1:8).  But if it be true that all men have sinned and “in many things offend,” then it is quite clear that no man can be so perfectly holy as not only to fulfill all God’s law, but even to exceed it.  And as the Psalmist spoke, in the fourteenth Psalm, “to those that were under the Law”, (see Rom. 3:10, 19), so St. James and St. John evidently spoke to those who were under grace; as the whole context evinces.  Hence we must conclude that even under grace no man lives actually spotless in God’s commandments.

      2.  But even if we could live wholly without spot, and never offend in thought, word, or deed, even so our Lord teaches us that such a spotless obedience would still leave us undeserving of reward.  “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10).  What room is there then for the doctrine which teaches, that a man may do enough for his salvation and attain to glory by keeping the precepts; and then by observing counsels may merit still more?  Even if we could keep all the precepts, we should be unprofitable, having no right to reward, but merely to exemption from punishment. {Quod sub praecepto est, si non impleatur, punit.  Impletum morte tantum caret; quia nihil ex se dat, sed quod debet, exsolvit. – Hieron. in 1 Cor. 7.  It is true, that the divines of the Roman communion always presuppose that it is the atonement of Christ which gives efficacy and merit to the works of the saints.  But we must remember that our Lord, in the passage from Luke 17:10, spoke to His own disciples, – those very saints who are supposed not only to have merited life, but to have laid up a store of good works, more than was needed for their salvation.}  Something more than obedience to precepts is required, even for salvation; and where, then, is the foundation on which to build still higher merit?

      3.  Again, in the parable of the ten virgins, when the five foolish virgins found their oil fail, they are represented as going to the wise virgins, and asking to borrow oil from them.  But the wise answered that they had not enough for themselves and others too, showing that no one can have holiness or grace enough to supply another’s deficiencies, but that each one must seek pardon and grace for himself (Matt. 25:9).

      4.  Then the precepts of the Gospel are so full and comprehensive that everything, even the highest degree of perfection, is contained in them.  Under the Law, indeed, if the letter only was observed, the statutes contained but a certain express catalogue of duties: but the spiritual sense of the Law, as enforced by our Saviour, enjoins such an entire surrender of all the faculties of the body, soul, and spirit to the service of Christ, that nothing conceivable can exceed or overpass it.  This will be quite apparent, if we read our Lord’s exposition of the Law, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:27, seq), where a thought or a look of evil is deadly sin; or His declaration that no one can be His disciple who hates not his nearest friends and his own life, if need be, for Christ’s service; or His summary of the commandments – unbounded love to God, and perfect love to man (Matt. 22:37, 38, 39); “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”  We cannot conceive either saint or angel more perfect than this: and yet all this is commanded – is of the nature of a precept, not of counsels only.  The language of St. Paul’s exhortation is equally strong; that we present Ourselves “as living sacrifices to God” (Rom. 12:1), that we “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1).  “Finally, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8).  Can anything go beyond these things which it is our duty to do?  But if any man seem to be contentious, St. Peter tells us, as a plain command, to aim “to be holy as Christ is holy” (1 Pet. 1:15, 16): and Christ Himself concludes His teaching concerning the strict and spiritual nature of the Law with the words, “Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).  Till then we can learn that God’s grace has ever made man as perfect as God, we can never believe that man has ever fully lived up to the precepts of the Gospel.  Where is the room for higher graces still?

      5.  Lastly, we may observe that the whole of the doctrine of works of supererogation arises from a false view of the principles of Christian obedience.  If we look for merit, it must be to Christ.  Christian obedience is not a task of so much work to be done, and so much reward to be expected.  When it is sound and perfect, it springs from a true faith and a holy love.  And as no degree of perfection can excel the obedience which would be yielded by perfect love, so nothing can excel that holiness at which every Christian is bound to aim.  The obedience of the Gospel is not the task-work of a slave, but the perfect freedom of a son.

Article  XV

Of Christ alone without Sin.

      Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except; from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His Spirit.  He came to be the lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world: and sin (as St. John saith) was not in Him.  But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in Us.

De Christo, qui solos eat sine peccato.

      Christus, in nostrae naturae veritate, per omnia similis factus est nobis, excepto peccato, a quo prorsus erat immunis, tum in carne, tum in Spiritu.  Venit ut Agnus, absque macula, qui mundi peccata per immolationem sui semel factam tolleret, et peccatum (ut inquit Johannes) in eo non erat: sed nos reliqui etiam baptizati, et in Christo regenerati, in multis tamen offendimus omnes.  Et si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est.

Section  I – History

      The history of the greater part of the doctrine contained in this Article may be considered as involved in the history of some of the preceding Articles, especially of the ninth.  We spoke there of the Pelagian heresy and observed that Pelagius held that it was possible for a man, even without the grace of God, to keep God’s law and live a life of perfect holiness.  St. Augustine, we saw in his arguments against Pelagianism, still expressed unwillingness to discuss the question of the sinfulness of the blessed Virgin Mary out of reverence to her Son and Lord.  Pelagius had held that it was necessary for our religion that we should confess the Virgin to be sinless (i.e. that we might not hold our Saviour to be born in sin).  St. Augustine answers, “Concerning the Virgin Mary, I am not willing, for the honour of our Lord, to hold any dispute, when we are talking about sin.  For how do we know what more grace was bestowed on her to overcome all sin, who had the honour to conceive and bring forth Him who certainly had no sin?” {August.  De Natura et Gratia.  Wall, Inf. Bapt. I. p. 404.  The passage from Augustine is from c. 42.  Tom. X. p. 144: – Excepta itaque sancta virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem.  Unde enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum &c.}

      This scruple, which early prevailed about the Virgin, in the course of years grew into a doctrine.  But for a length of time the doctrine was privately held, not publicly expressed.  In the year 1136 the Canons of Lyons brought the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin into the ecclesiastical offices; for which act of rashness they were severely censured by St. Bernard.  But about the year 1300, the celebrated Schoolman, John Duns Scotus, a Franciscan Friar, strenuously maintained the total exemption from sin of the Blessed Virgin, and grounded it upon the omnipotency of God who could free her from sin if He chose.  Thenceforward the Scotists and Franciscans ever advocated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. {Sarpi, Council of Trent, p. 178.}

      At the Council of Trent this question was hotly debated; the Franciscans excepting the Virgin from all taint of sin, the Dominicans labouring to comprehend her name under the common law.  The pope commanded that the contention on the subject should be omitted for fear of causing a schism.  Both parties acquiesced in silence on the condition that, when the decrees were made, it should merely be added that there was no intention to include the Blessed Virgin in the decrees concerning original sin. {Sarpi, pp. 164, 169, 171.}  It was therefore left an open question, although the Franciscans had the better reason of the two parties to be satisfied.*

            {*[Some further historical details may properly be added, relating to the action of the papacy.

            In 1476 Sixtus IV issued the Bull Cum Praecelsa.  In it he encouraged the celebration of the Festival of the Immaculate Conception.  In 1488, by the Bull Grave nimis, he forbade that either those who hold the opinion of the immaculate conception, or those who hold its contrary, should be charged with heresy or mortal sin.  These two Bulls were formally accepted by the Council of Trent.  Sess. V, Decree Concerning Original Sin.

            In 1570 Pius V issued the Bull Super Speculam.  This Bull allowed either opinion, and forbade all controversy in public, though it allowed discussion in the schools.

            In 1617 Paul IV. issued the Bull Beati pacijici, in which, under heavy penalties, he renewed the constitutions of Sixtus IV. and Pius V.

            In 1622 Gregory XV took a step in advance, by forbidding any one, till it should be otherwise ordered, to assert in public that the Virgin was conceived in original sin, though he declared that he did not deny or controvert the opinion that she was.  At the same time he allowed any one to assert the immaculate conception, only not attacking the other opinions while, without permission frona the Holy See, no one was permitted to assert the conception in original sin at all.  In the same year another Bull, Eximii atque Sinqularis, allowed the Dominicans, in their own schools, to discuss the opinion.

            Alexander VII in 1671 issued the Bull Solicitudo omnium Ecclesiaram, which, while it favoured the opinion of the immaculate conception, yet forbade those who held the opposite opinion to be charged with heresy.

            Finally on the 8th of December, 1854, Pius IX by the Bull Ineffabilis, created this opinion into an Article of the Faith without even the pretence of consulting a General Council, consolidating and concentrating in himself a power, in spiritualibus, which neither Hildebrand nor Innocent had ever attempted to exercise, and accepting, or rather demanding, assent to the most ultramontane theory of the papal authority.  There the matter rests at present, but the end is not yet.

            Already the claim is advanced, that the Blessed Virgin merited this grace of the immaculate conception, because of her holiness in a preexistent state.  How long will it take to extend that preexistence to eternity, and then to argue from eternal existence, participation in the Divine Nature?

            The Abbb Laborde, On the Impossibility of the Immaculate Conception, may well be consulted; while to see the weakness of the arguments in defence of this fearful novelty one need only read the Treatise of the Cardinal Lambruschini. – J. W.]}

      It was also decreed in the Council of Trent that all the taint of original sin is washed away in baptism. {Sess. V. Can. 5.}  And the Lutherans were condemned for saying that God’s commands were not possible to the just. {Sess. VI. Can. 18.}  From these canons of the council it might naturally follow that a person baptized and justified may fully keep God’s commands and live a life of spotless holiness.  But what is even more to the purpose still is the Romish doctrine of works of supererogation.  For, if such works are possible, it must first be possible that he who does them should be perfectly sinless.  Otherwise he could not do, not only his duty, but more than his duty.  Accordingly this Article of our Church, “Of Christ alone without sin,” follows immediately on that concerning Works of Supererogation.  The one is very probably intended as a supplement and strengthener to the other; so that, whereas in the last Article it was said that no man can do more than God’s law requires, so in this it is added that no man in this life can fully live up to its requirements, but all offend many times; and none, even of the baptized and regenerate, is quite free from sin.

      That part of the Article which alleges that Christ was free from sin need not be considered historically, for none but those who deny His Divinity can deny His sinlessness.  And the greatest heretics, even mere Humanitarians, have respected the Saviour as a pure and holy Being.

Section  II – Scriptural Proof

      The subjects treated on in the Article are, –

      I.  That Christ was without sin, although in all other things made like unto us.

      II.  That all other men (even though baptized and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things.

      I.  That Christ, though perfect man, was yet free from sin, properly forms a part of the doctrine of the Incarnation and is therefore intimately connected with Article II.

      The eternal Son of God, the second Person in the Godhead, took into that Person the perfect nature of man.  That nature of man had become defiled and debased.  And it was that He might purify and restore it that He took it into Himself.  But the question is whether, when He took the nature, He was obliged to take its corruption with it.  If so, we may well believe that the Incarnation would have been impossible.  God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.  Much less can we suppose that God would take iniquity and corruption to Himself into union with His own spotless purity and holiness.

      But though human nature, in all naturally engendered of Adam, is stained with the sin of Adam, yet sin is not a part of human nature, but a fault of it.*  The Manicheans held that matter was essentially evil, and so human nature was evil because matter was a part of it.  But matter as well as spirit comes from God and so is of itself, like all His creatures, “very good”.  Sin, therefore, which we all inherit, is a corruption and evil addition to our nature, not an essential and integral part of it.  Whether it consists in a withdrawal of the indwelling and presence of God, and a consequent rebellion of the lower principles of man’s nature,** or whether there be moreover a kind of taint or poison, which, working in him, produces sin and renders him liable to death; in either case original sin is not human nature, but an accident of that nature; a quality as distinct from humanity as is any particular bodily disease, such as madness, or consumption, or neuralgia.

            {*The Manichees held that sin was a natura non a culpa: i.e. because they thought one portion of our nature (i.e. the body ) essentially evil.  But the fathers taught that it was not της φύσεως, αλλα της κακης προαιρέσεως: “not of nature, but of an evil determination of the will” (see History of Art. IX. note).  And our ninth Article teaches, not that it is part of our nature, but “the fault and corruption of our nature.”}

            {**“Man’s corruption consists, first, in the deprivation of the Divine guidance, which he has rejected, for ‘the light shined in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not’; and secondly, in the correspondent rebellion of the lower principles of his body and his soul.” – Wilberforce on The Incarnation, p 74.}

      When therefore Christ took our nature, it was not essential to its perfection that He should take our sinfulness.  Sin not being a part, but a fault of nature, He might be “made in all things like unto us,” even though sin were excepted.  Our liability to sin indeed He must have taken; for else He could not have been “in all things tempted like as we are”.  Adam had a liability to sin and therefore was susceptible of temptation before he was actually guilty of sin and so defiled and corrupted by it.  And Christ, who was the second Adam who came on purpose that He might conquer where Adam had fallen and so restore that nature which Adam had debased, was, by the constitution of that nature which He adopted, liable to be assailed by the same dangers that Adam had been assailed by.  But His own essential holiness and the supporting power of his Godhead enabled Him to endure temptation and so made it impossible that He should fall under it.  Thus He became a fit representative of our race as much as Adam was.  He had all our nature with all its natural weaknesses; and all that He lacked was that which was no proper part of, but only a vicious addition to our nature, namely, our sin.  Nay, He even condescended to take our sicknesses.  He was liable to hunger and weariness and death.  Many indeed of our sicknesses are the natural results of sin, of gluttony or intemperance, anger or passion.  These He, who had no sin, could not have.  Yet He took not only human nature, but mortal nature; and though He was too holy to defile Himself with our sin, yet He was not too glorious to submit to our death.

      The passages of Scripture which prove this part of the doctrine of the Article are sufficiently numerous and familiar.  Thus it is announced to Mary, “That Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).  “The prince of this world,” said our Lord, “hath nothing in Me” (John 14:30).  He was “the Holy One, and the just” (Acts 3:14).  God “made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21).  “He was in all things tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).  “An High Priest, holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens”; not like those “high priests who have infirmity,” and needing to “offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people’s” (Heb. 7:26, 27, 28).  He “did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22).  He “was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin” (1 John 3:5).

      The words of the Article that “He came to be the Lamb without spot” are from the following: –

      “He was led as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth” (Isai. 53:7).  “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  “Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God” (Heb. 9:11).  Redeemed “with the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19.  Comp. Exod. 12:5; Lev. 22:19, 20, 21).

      II.  The second part of the Article that “all other men offend in many things, even though baptized and born again,” has been already considered at some length under the ninth Article.  It was there shown that the taint of sin pervaded the whole human race, and that every one naturally born of Adam was subject to it; that even the regenerate had still the remains of such corruption; and that that concupiscence, which still remains in them, has the nature of sin. {Ανθρώπων ουδεις αναμάρτητος, ενι γαρ μαρτυρειται, ότι αμαρτίαν ουκ εποίησε.  Basil.  M.  Orat. de Poenitentia.  Suicer. I. 207.}

      It may be sufficient here to recite a few of the passages of Scripture on which more especially the proof of this assertion depends.

      “If they sin against thee,” says Solomon, “for there is no man that sinneth not” (1 Kings 8:46).  “In Thy sight,” says David, “shall no man living be justified” (Ps. 143:2).  “Who can say,” asks the wise man, “I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?” (Prov. 20:9).  “We have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin” (Rom. 3:9).  “Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).  “The Scripture hath concluded all under sin” (Gal. 3:22).  “In many things we offend, all” (James 3:2).  “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).  “Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” (Rom. 6:12).  “I had not known sin but by the Law: for I had not known lust except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7).  So “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit” (Gal. 5:17).

      The last two passages show that lust or concupiscence hath the nature of sin.

      2.  The principal objections which may be urged against this part of the doctrine of the Article are such as the following.

      In some passages of Scripture people are called blameless: as (Luke 1:6), Zacharias and Elizabeth are spoken of as “both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless.”  In a like manner St. Paul speaks of himself as having “lived in all good conscience before God to this day” (Acts 23:1); as exercising himself “to have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man” (Acts 24:16); as having been before his conversion, “touching the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless” (Phil. 3:6).

      Such passages seem to argue blameless perfection.  But we may answer that Zacharias could not have been perfect, or he would not have disbelieved the Angel when he promised him a son, and so have been smitten with dumbness for his want of faith (Luke 1:20).  St. Paul, when he speaks of himself as blameless touching the righteousness of the Law, was a persecutor of the Church, and though he did it ignorantly in unbelief, and so obtained mercy, yet we can hardly consider it as consistent with perfection; and though be speaks of himself as exercising himself to have a conscience void of offence, yet we know that he did “not count himself to have apprehended,” that he was sensible of “infirmities” (see 2 Cor. 11:30, 12:10, &c.); that he felt it necessary to “keep under his body, and bring it into subjection” (1 Cor. 9:27).  Nay, we know that he was liable to infirmity, for so sharp a contention rose between him and Barnabas, that they could not continue together in the work of the Gospel, but were obliged to separate one from another.  We must therefore understand the word blameless in a more popular sense, not as if those of whom it is predicated were free from all stain of sin, but as meaning that they lived an upright, godly life, ever striving to keep a conscience free from offence, and never yielding to those wilful sins which offend society, or destroy the work of God’s grace in the soul, or even give cause of deep and bitter regret to him who yields to them.

      Again, it is said of the Christian under grace, that “the law of the Spirit of life makes him free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).  This is true of all good Christians, but it does not mean that they are made perfect and wholly free from sin, but that the Spirit of God sets them free from the bondage and slavery of sin, and gives them freedom and strength to “fulfill the righteousness of the Law.”

      The same reasoning nearly applies to the words of St. John, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” (1 John 3:9).  This is true of every regenerate man as regards his new nature, the new man created in him.  That new man is pure and holy, hating sin and avoiding it.  Still however there are the remains of the old man, causing in him those infirmities which more or less are common to all.  A regenerate man does not live in admitted sin.  If he does, his new life has failed and is stifled.  But, he still “in many things offends,” and, “if he says he has no sin, he deceives himself” because in this world the old nature may be kept in subjection and bondage but is never thoroughly extinguished until the last enemy has been destroyed and all things are put in subjection under the feet of Christ.

      It is true, we are bid to be holy as Christ is holy (1 Pet. 1:15); to “be perfect, as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).  But we can infer from these exhortations no more than this.  It is our part to set before us the highest possible standard at which to aim.  Christ took our nature that He might make us partakers of His nature; and we are never to be satisfied unless we grow daily more and more like to Him.  But it does not follow that we shall ever attain to such perfect conformity to His Image until we become “like Him, by seeing Him as He is.”

      We come lastly to consider the case of the Blessed Virgin.  That she was a person of most singular holiness, most highly honoured of God, and most affectionately beloved by her Divine Son, no candid reader of Scripture can doubt.  The Angel salutes her, “Hail, thou that art highly favoured: {Κεχαριτωμένη.  The margin has “Or, graciously accepted, or, much graced.”} the Lord is with thee; Blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:28).  Her cousin Elizabeth saluted her, by the Holy Ghost, saying, “Blessed art thou among women”; and though she was her near kinswoman, yet wondered at the honour done to herself in that “the Mother of her Lord should come unto her” (Luke 1:42, 43).  Mary herself said of herself, that “all generations should call her blessed” (Luke 1:48).  The Lord in His youth was subject to her (Luke 2:51).  At His death, and with His dying accents, He commended her to the care and guardianship of His most devoted and best loved disciple (John 19:26, 27).  We learn of her that she was the first who, hearing the blessed teaching of her Son, “kept all His sayings in her heart” (Luke 2:51).  We find her following Him with unwearied and dauntless affection to the foot of His Cross (John 19:25); and, when all but His most faithful followers were dispersed, continuing with the Apostles “with one accord in prayer and supplication” (Acts 1:14).

      All this is but what we should expect.  Doubtless among women there never lived a holier than she who was chosen to the highest honour that ever befell created being.  That honour, indeed, to be the tabernacle of Incarnate Godhead, to cherish the infant years, minister to the wants, and soothe, if such there were, the early sufferings of the Redeemer of mankind, to be the only earthly instrument by which God wrought the mystery of the Incarnation, is an honour so high that we can hardly wonder if ages of ignorance gave undue reverence to her who had such favour of God. {“Man is a creature of extremes ... Because Papists have made too much of things, Protestants have made too little of them ... Because one party has exalted the Virgin Mary to a divinity, the other can scarcely think of that most highly favoured among women with common respect.” – Remains of the Rev. Richard Cecil, p. 364.  Ninth Edition.  Lond. 1830.}

      Yet it has been remarked that on three separate occasions our Lord and her Lord used of, and to her, language at least bordering on censure.  At the marriage in Cana, the words, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4) (though not sounding so strong in the Greek as in the English language) have been esteemed in all ages as words of rebuke.*  Before this, when He was but twelve years old (Luke 2:49), as His mother and Joseph sought for Him, He reproves them for not knowing the high mission on which He came: “How is it that ye sought Me?  Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?”  Lastly, when His mother and His brethren sought to speak with Him, the answer to those who told Him of it was, “Who are My mother and My brethren?  And He stretched forth His hand towards His disciples and said, Behold My mother and My brethren!  For, whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in Heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. 12:48, 49, 50).

            {*τι εμοι και σοι γύναι; the word γύναι may easily be used as a term of respect, and might as well have been rendered “lady” as “woman.”  Every one knows that ladies of the highest rank would have been so addressed in Greek.  But the fathers all acknowledged rebuke in the sentence.  επέπληττε τη μητρί, says Athanasius (Contra Arian. Orat. 4); επετίμησεν ακαίρως αιτούση, says Chrysostom (In Matt. hom. 45); Ο δε επιτιμα αυτη ουκ αλόγως, says Theophylact.  See Beveridge on this Article.  Epiphanius says that these words were used that no one might esteem the Blessed Virgin of a higher nature than woman, with special view to the heresies which would one day arise (Haeres. 79, Collyridiani).}

      Very similar to this was that saying, when a certain woman “lifted up her voice and said unto Him, Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked.  But He said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:27, 28).  There was indeed no denial of the blessedness of being His mother; still less was there any denial that His mother was blessed.  But the privilege of being the mother of Jesus was not in itself so great as the blessing of doing the will of God.  Now those who argue that the Virgin was perfectly free from sin, argue so from the very fact of her being the mother of the Immaculate Saviour.  But surely, if the fact of being His mother proved that she was sinless, it would have brought with it, or have been the proof of, a blessing so great that there could have been no room for the “Yea! rather blessed.”

      We may conclude, therefore, that the Virgin Mary, though “highly favoured,” “blessed among women,” and, doubtless, unusually sanctified, was yet no exception to the rule that all mankind, Christ only excepted, are stained with sin, and liable to offend in many things. {The subject of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary, which has some affinity to the question discussed in the text, may be seen treated at length by Pearson On the Creed, Article, “Born of the Virgin Mary.”  See especially the notes.  See also Jer. Taylor’s Life of Christ, § 2.  Bp. Bull’s Works, I. Serm. IV; and Professor Mill’s Accounts of our Lord’s Brethren.}

Article  XVI

Of Sin after Baptism.

      Not every deadly sin willingly committed after baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable.  Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism.  After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives.  And therefore they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

De Peccato Post Baptismum.

      Nox omne peccatum mortale post baptismum voluntarie perpetratum, est peccatum in Spiritium Sanctum, et irremissibile.  Proinde lapsis a baptismo in peccata, locus poenitentiae non est negandus.  Post acceptum Spiritum Sanctum possumus a gratia data recedere, atque peccare, denuoque per gratiam Dei resurgere, ac resipiscere; ideoque illi damnandi sunt, qui se, quamdiu hic vivant, amplius non posse peccare affirmant, aut vere resipiscentibus veniae locum denegant.

Section  I – History  The Article as it now stands is very nearly the same as the fifteenth Article of A. D. 1552.  But in the Articles of 1552, the sixteenth Article followed out the subject of the fifteenth and treated expressly of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

      The Article which we now have treats of, or alludes to:

      I.  Deadly sin after baptism, and the possibility of repentance for such sin.

      II.  The sin against the Holy Ghost.

      III.  The possibility of falling from grace.

      The first of these three divisions is that which forms the main subject of the Article, the other two being incidentally alluded to.  The third, however, is spoken of in somewhat decided terms and, being a point on which there has been no little controversy, requires to be considered.

      I. As regards the possibility of repentance and forgiveness for sins committed after baptism and the grace of God, there was some stir even in early ages of the Church.

      Some of the Gnostics, who affected great asceticism, appear to have held also very rigid notions of the divine justice and the irremissibility of sins.  Clement of Alexandria says that Basilides taught that “not all sins, but only sins which were committed involuntarily or through ignorance, were forgiven.” {Clem. Alex. Strom. IV. p. 634, Potter; Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constant. saec. 2, C. 48; King, On the Creed, p. 358; Bp. Kaye’s Clem. Alex. p. 269.}

      The Church itself in early times was very severe in its censures against heinous crimes and very slow in admitting offenders to Church-communion.  It appears that in the second and third centuries, persons who committed small sins might be admitted frequently to repentance, but that great and flagrant offenders were put to penance and reconciled to the Church but once.  In the case indeed of some very grievous, deadly, and often-repeated sins, the Church seems to have refused communion even at the last hour.  The meaning of which severity doubtless was that offenders might not mock God and the Church with feigned repentance, turning again to sin like the swine to their wallowing in the mire. {See this subject fully considered by Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. Bk. XVI. C. X; Bk. XVIII. C. IV.  He quotes Hermas, Clem. Alex., Tertull., Origen, the Council of Eliberis, Ambros., Augustine, &c.; see especially Bk. XVIII. c. IV. § 1.}

      The Montanists carried this rigour much farther than the Catholics; for they not only refused repeated penances and reconciliation, but did not allow to the Church the power of forgiving great sins after baptism, even once.  Tertullian, in those writings which he composed before he became a Montanist, speaks of grievous sins as once, and but once, remitted by the Church.  After he had joined the sect of the Montanists, he distinguishes between venial sins, (such as causeless anger, evil speaking, rash swearing, falsehood,) and sins of a heinous and deadly character, such as murder, idolatry, fraud, denying Christ, blasphemy, adultery, fornication.  Of these latter he says there is no remission, and that even Christ will not intercede for them. {Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 20, 254, 339; Tertullian, De Pudicitia, c. 19; see also Lardner, Hist. of Heretics, Bk. II. ch. XIX. sect. 8; Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. Cent. II. pt. II. ch. V.}

      St. Clement of Alexandria in one place seems to say that there is no repentance but once after baptism.*  It is probable that he refers to a passage in the Pastor of Hermas, where we read that there is but one penitence, namely, when we descend into the water, and so receive remission of sins. {Herm.  Past. Mandat. IV. 3; Cotel. p. 96.}  But whereas it is pretty certain that Hermas speaks of the repentance and remission of sins in baptism to be once given and never repeated, but does not thereby mean to exclude from repentance after baptism; {Consult Cotelerius’s note on this passage of Hermas.} so it appears that Clement of Alexandria speaks either of one public penance, which might be conceded by the Church,** or that he simply means that to repent and return again continually to former sins proves the repentance not to have been real, but feigned and hypocritical.  Yet some have thought that the language both of Hermas and Clement prepared the way for the severity of Origen and the errors of the Novatians.

            {*Ο μεν ουν εξ εθνων και της προβιότητος εκείνης επι την πίστιν ορμήσας, άπαξ έτυχεν αφέσεως αμαρτιων.  ο δε και μετα ταυτα αμαρτήσας, ειτα μετανοων, καν συγγνώμης τυγχάνη, αιδεισθαι οφείλει, μηκέτι λουόμενος εις άφεσιν αμαρτιων ... δόκησις τοινυν μετανοίας, ου μετάνοια, το πολλάκις αιτεισθαι συγγνώμην, εφ οις πλημμελουμεν πολλάκις. – Stromat. II. § 13, p. 460.}

            {**So his words are explained by Lumper, Hist. Theolog. Crit.  Tom. IV. p. 388.  Bp. Jeremy Taylor writes, “Whereas some of them” (i. e. of the fathers) “use to say that after baptism, or after the first relapse, they are ‘unpardonable’, we must know that in the style of the Church, ‘unpardonable’ signifies such to which, by the discipline and customs of the Church, pardon may not be ministered.  They were called ‘unpardonable’, not because God would not pardon them, but because He alone could.” – On Repentance, ch. IX. § 3.  All that is said in this section about the fathers’ doctrine of repentance is well worth reading.}

      Origen appears to have thrown out the opinion, that persons who had once embraced the Gospel and been baptized, and then denied the faith, could not be readmitted to repentance nor obtain pardon of sin. {Origen.  Tract. 35 in Matthaeum; see Abp. Potter’s note on the before-cited passage of Clem. Alex.}

      The sect of the Novatians arose about the middle of the third century.  Novatian, their founder, a presbyter of Rome, had on a former occasion been chosen by the Church of that city to write to Cyprian on the subject of restoring the lapsed to communion. {The letter is in the collection of the letters of Cyprian, Epis. XXX.}  In the year 251 Cornelius was elected Bishop of Rome, a post to which Novatian aspired.  Novatian had himself secured three bishops, ignorant and inexperienced men, to consecrate him to the bishopric.  But not succeeding in his hopes of holding possession of the see, he set up a schismatical communion.  He does not appear to have held any heretical doctrine; but he denied to the Church the power of restoring to communion those who had lapsed in persecution.  Eusebius indeed says that he denied to them the hope of salvation; {H. E. VI. 43; ως μηκέτ ούσης αυτοις σωτηρίας ελπίδος.  So Epiphan.  Adv. Haer. Haer. XXXIX.  λέγων μη ειναι σωτηρίαν, αλλα μίαν μετάνοιαν.} but it seems more probable, from the language of Cyprian and others that he exhorted them to repent and to seek for pardon, but refused to offer them any consolation or to admit them again to any church-privilege in this life. {Epist. 55, juxta finem.  There he describes the Novatians as urging repentance, but excluding from peace: “hortari ad satisfactionis poenitentiam, et subtrahere de satisfactione medicinam; dicere fratribus nostris, plange et lacrymas funde, et diebus ac noctibus ingemisce, et pro abluendo et purgando delicto tuo largiter et frequenter operare, sed extra ecclesiam post omnia ista morieris quaecumque ad pacem pertinent, facies, sed nullam pacem, quam quaeris, accipies.”}

      Whether he extended this severity to heinous sins in general is not apparent; but it seems that the sect of the Novatians, who owed their origin to him, refused communion to the penitent after other heavy offences besides lapsing in persecution. {“Igitur, hoc nullum habet dubium, adultam ecclesiam Novatianam non modo perfidos Christianos, verum etiam omnium capitalium criminum reos ahenos a se voluisse.” – Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constant.  Magnum, saec. tertium, § XVI.}  The Novatians arrogated to themselves the title of Cathari, or pure, and refused to acknowledge the baptism of those Churches which admitted the lapsed to penance and communion.

      The Church Catholic, however, rejected at once the severity of Novatian’s sentiments.  Eusebius, on the authority of Cornelius, mentions a council of bishops who met at Rome and condemned the folly of Novatian. {H. E.  VI. 43, juxta finem.}  Still the sect of the Cathari continued and appears to have flourished throughout the fourth and part of the fifth century.  But the fathers of the Church uniformly esteemed them heretics and expressed their belief in the remissibility of sin on repentance after baptism. {See Cyprian, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, as above; Mosheim, De Rebus ante Constant. Magnum, saec. III. §§ XV. XVI; Lardner, III, pt. II. ch. 47; Cave, Histor. Liter. Tom. I. p. 91.}

      St. Cyprian says that to a lapsed Christian who repents, prays, and exerts himself, God gives pardon and restores his arms, so that he may fight again, strengthened for the conflict by the very sorrow for his sins.  And he, thus strengthened by the Lord, may make glad the Church, which he had saddened, and obtain not only pardon, but a crown.*  St. Gregory Nazianzen calls penitence another baptism, but rougher and more troublesome; and says that owning the infirmity and fickleness of man, he gratefully accepts for himself and willingly imparts to others this grace of repentance; aware that he himself is compassed with infirmities, and that with that measure he metes it shall be measured to him again.  The Novatian he calls the modern Pharisee, and asks if he would not have allowed the repentance of David, or the return of Peter after he had denied his Lord, or the contrition of the incestuous Corinthian to whom St. Paul confirmed his love.**

            {*“Poenitenti, operanti, roganti, potest (Deus) elementer ignoscere ... dat Ille et arma rursus quibus victus armetur, reparat et corroborat vires, quibus fides instaurata vegetetur.  Repetet certarnen suum miles, iterabit aciem, provocabit hostem, et quidem factus ad proelium fortior per dolorem.  Qui sic Deo satisfecerit, qui poenitentia facti sui, qui pudore delicti, plus et virtutis et fidei de ipso lapsus sui dolore conceperit, exauditus et adjutus a Domino, quam contristaverat nuper, laetam faciet Ecclesiam: nec jam solam Dei veniam merebitur, sed coronam.”  Cypr. De Lapsis, fin p. 138.}

            {**Οιδα και πέμπτον (βάπτισμα) έτι των δακρύων, αλλ επιπονώτερον.  ως ο λούων καθ εώάστην νύκτα την κλίνην αυτου, και την στρωμενην τοις δάκρυσιν ... εγω μεν ουν (άνθρωπος ειναι γαρ ομολογω ζωον τρεπτον και ρευστης φύσεως) και δέχομαι τουτο προθύμως, και προσκυνω τοι δεδωκότα, και τοις άλλοις μεταδίδωμι και προεισφέρω του ελέου τον έλϊον.  Οιδα γαρ και αυτος ασθένειαν περικείμενος, και ως αν μετρήσω, μετρηθησόμενος.  Συ δε τι λέγεις; τί νομοθετεις, ω νέε φαρισαιε, και καθαρε την προσηγορίαν, ου την προαίρεσιν, και φυσων ημιν Ναυατου τα μετα της αυτης ασθενείας; ου δέχη μετάνοιαν; ου δίδως οδυρμοις χώραν; ου δακρύεις δάκρυον; Μη σύ γε τοιούτου κριτου τύχοις ... ουδε τον Δαβιδ δέχη μετανοουντα, ω και το προφητικον χάρισμα η μετάνοια συνετήοησεν; ουδε Πέτρον τον μέγαν παθόντά τι ανθρώπινον περι το σωτήριον πάθος; ... ουδε τον εν Κορίνθω παρανομήσαντα; Παυλος δε και αγάπην εκύρωσεν, επειδη την διόρθωσιν ειδε, και το αίτιον, ίνα μη περισσοτέρα λυπη καταποθη ο τοιουτος. – Greg. Naz. Orat. 39, Tom. I. p. 634, Col. 1690.}

      St. Ambrose says, that, as our blessed Lord calls all that are weary and heavy laden to come unto Him, those cannot be reckoned as His disciples, who, whilst they have need of mercy themselves, yet deny it to others. {“Unde liquet eos inter Christi discipulos non esse habendos, qui dura pro mitibus, superba pro humilibus sequenda opinantur; et cum ipsi quaerant Domini misericordiam, allis eam denegant; ut sunt doctores Novatianorum, qui mundos se appellant.” – De Poenitentia, Lib. I. C. I.}  The Novatians granted pardon to smaller, not to greater crimes; but God, says St. Ambrose, makes no such distinction, who has promised His mercy to all, and gives to all His priests the power of loosing without any exception.  Only, if the crime be great, so must be the repentance. {“Sed Deus distinctionem non facit, qui misericordiam suam promisit omnibus, et relaxandi licentiam omnibus sacerdotibus suis sine ulla exceptione concessit.  Sed qui culpam exaggeravit, exaggeret etiam poenitentiam.” – Ibid. C. 2.}

      Other early heretics are mentioned, as agreeing with the Novatians in their severity against the lapsed.  The Apostolici are reckoned by Epiphanius as an offset from the Encratites or Cathari.  Their opinions concerning marriage and all worldly indulgences were highly ascetic, and they refused to receive those who once fell. {Epiphan. Haeres. 61.}  The Meletians were an Egyptian sect.  They arose about the time of Diocletian’s persecution.  Meletius, their founder, was Bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid.  He was deposed by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and set up a schismatical communion under Alexander, the successor of Peter.  They ultimately joined the Arians, as being the great enemies of Alexander.  Epiphanius and Augustine ascribe to them the same severity to the lapsed which characterized the Novatians. {Epiphan. Haeres. 63; August. Haeres 48.}  The Luciferians, who followed Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, avoided communion with those who had lapsed to Arianism, and with those bishops who restored the lapsed.  It should seem from Jerome that the Luciferiaris did not altogether exclude laymen who had lapsed from returning to communion, but would on no account receive repentant bishops and presbyters; arguing from our Lord’s words, “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted.” {Hieron. Adv. Lucifirianos, Tom. IV. pt. II. p. 290, seq.}

      At the period of the Reformation, it appears that some of the sects which then arose, most probably the Anabaptists in particular, revived in some degree the Novatian errors.  The XIth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, which is the source of the XVIth Article of the Church of England, condemns the Novatians by name for refusing repentance to the lapsed, and afterwards condemns the Anabaptists, though for another error, namely, the denial that persons once justified ever lose the grace of God. {Confess. Augs. Art. XI; Sylloge, p. 172.}  Dr. Hey thinks that both the German and English reformers had chiefly in view the Anabaptists, in their condemnation of this extreme rigour against the lapsed. {Lectures, III. p. 436.}

      In the fourteenth session of the Council of Trent, several decrees and canons were drawn up upon penance, whereby it was defined that for sins after baptism the sacrament of penance was essential and sufficient; the form of the sacrament being contrition, confession, and satisfaction.  It was determined that it was necessary to pardon that every mortal sin should be confessed, but not every venial sin. {Conc. Trid.  Sess. XIV.  Can. I. IV. &c.; Sarpi, p. 326.}

      The continental reformers were very express in asserting the efficacy of repentance for remission of sin after baptism.  Thus, the Confession of Augsburg says that “Remission of sins may be granted to those who lapse after baptism at any time when they turn to God.  And the Church ought to grant absolution to such.” {“De poenitentia docent, quod lapsis post baptismum contingere possit remissio peccatorum, quocunque tempore cum convertuntur.  Et quod ecclesia talibus redeuntibus ad poenitentiam impertire absolutionem debeat.” – Conf. August. Art. XI; Syll. p. 172.}  The Helvetic Confession declares that “there is access to God and pardon for all who believe, with the exception of those guilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost; therefore the old and new Novatians are to be condemned.” {“Docemus interim semper et omnibus peccatoribus aditum patere ad Deum, et hunc omnino omnibus fidelibus condonare peccata, excepto uno illo peccato in Spiritum Sanctum.  Ideoque damnamus et veteres et novos Novatianos atque Catharos.” – Confess. Helvet. Art. XIV; Syllog. p. 50.}

      The sentiments of the English Reformers appear plainly both in the wording of this Article and in several of the Homilies.  For example, in the First Book of Homilies we read, “They, which in act or deed do sin after baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation.” {Homily of Salvation, pt. I.}  “We must trust only in God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour, Christ Jesus the Son of God, once offered upon the Cross, to obtain thereby God’s grace and remission, as well of our original sin in baptism as of all actual sin committed by us after our baptism, if we truly repent and turn to Him unfeignedly again.” {Homily of Salvation, pt. II.}  And in the Second Book of Homilies we are told, “Repentance is never too late, so that it be true and just.” {Homily of Repentance, pt. I.}  “Although we do, after we be once come to God, and grafted in his Son Jesus Christ, fall into great sins ... yet if we rise again by repentance, and with a full purpose of amendment of life do flee unto the mercy of God, taking sure hold thereon, through faith in his Son Jesus Christ, there is an assured and infallible hope of pardon and remission of the same, and that we shall be received again into the favour of our heavenly Father.” {Ibid.}

      II.  Concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, the language of our Article is directed against an opinion which was first broached by Origen.

      Origen and Theognostus taught that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was, when those who in baptism had received the gift of the Spirit, returned again to sin; and that such had never forgiveness.  Origen, we are told, assigned as a reason for this that whereas God the Father pervades and embraces all things, animate and inanimate, and the power of God the Son extends more immediately to the rational creatures of God, among whom are heathen men who have never yet believed; the Spirit of God, on the contrary, is in those only who have received the grace of baptism.  Hence, when Gentiles and unbelievers sin by blasphemy, they sin against the Son, who is in them, yet they can be forgiven.  But when baptized Christians sin, their iniquity proceeds to the Spirit of God, who dwells in their hearts, and therefore they have never forgiveness.

      St. Athanasius wrote a treatise expressly on the subject in which he first states, and then examines and confutes, this notion of Origen’s.  He observes that the occasion of our Lord’s speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost was the blasphemy of the Pharisees, who disbelieved the miracles of Christ and ascribed them to Beelzebub.  They, he remarks, had never been baptized, and yet they had either committed, or were in imminent danger of committing, the sin against the Holy Ghost.

      Athanasius himself appears to maintain that the blasphemy against the Son of Man was the disbelieving and blaspheming against our blessed Lord when as yet only His human nature was manifested; but that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was continuing to deride and speak evil of Him when He had given plain and irrefragable proofs of His Godhead and Divine nature. {Athanas.  In lllud Evangelii, Quicunque dixerit.}  The author, under his name, of the Questions to Antiochus, says that they blasphemed the Holy Spirit, that is, the Divine nature of the Son who said that He cast out devils by Beelzebub.  To them, he says, there is no remission in this world nor in the next.  But, he adds, we must understand this, not that he who blasphemes and repents, but that he who blasphemes and does not repent, shall never be forgiven; for no sin is unpardonable in the presence of God to those who holily and worthily repent; and then he adds that there are three baptisms which purge away sin: the baptism of water, the baptism of blood, i. e. martyrdom, and the baptism of tears, i. e. repentance; and that many, who had defiled by backsliding their holy baptism, have yet been cleansed and accepted by the baptism of tears. {Athan.  Quaestiones ad Antiochum, Quaest. LXXI. LXXII.}

      Many, both ancient and modern, have followed in the steps of Athanasius, and given a like interpretation of the blasphemy against the Spirit.  St. Chrysostom appears to take the same view; namely, that blasphemy was irremissible which was uttered after the discovery and experimental proof of the Spirit’s working.  But then he appears to deny remission of such sin, not only to the impenitent, but even to those who repent. {ουκ αφεθήσεται ουδε μετανοουσι. –  Chrysost.  Homil. XLI. in Matt. ap. Suic. Tom. I. p. 700.}

      St. Augustine has some very excellent observations on the subject.  He shows that neither Jews nor Gentiles were kept from pardon because they had blasphemed Christ and the Holy Spirit in their unconverted state; nor yet that persons who had been baptized in infancy, and had grown up in ignorance, were refused forgiveness because in their state of ignorance they resisted the Spirit and spoke against Him.  He shows too that even baptized persons lapsing or becoming heretics were yet admitted to the peace of the Church on their conversion and repentance, and enumerates among such heretics Sabellians, Arians, Manichans, Cataphrygians, Donatists.  And then concludes, that the sin against the Spirit of God which hath never forgiveness is a final and obdurate continuance in wickedness despite of all the calls of God to repentance, joined with a desperation of the mercy of God.*

            {*Augustin.  Epist. ad Romanos Expositio inchoata, 14–23.  Tom. III. par. II. p. 933–940.  See especially, C. 22, p. 939: “Si ergo nec Paganis, nec Hebrieis, nec haereticis, nec schismaticis nondum baptizatis ad baptismum Christi aditus clauditur, ubi condemnata vita priore in melius commutentur; quamvis Christianitati et Ecclesiae Dei adversantes antequam Christianis sacramentis abluerentur, etiam Spiritui Sancto quanta potuerunt infestatione restiterint; si etiam hominibus, qui usque ad sacramentorum perceptionem veritatis scientiam perceperint, et post haec lapsi Spiritui Sancto restiterunt, ad sanitatem redeuntibus et pacem Dei poenitendo quaerentibus, auxilium misericordiae non negatur; si denique de illis ipsis, quibus blaspherniam in Spiritum Sanctum ab eis prolatam Dominus objecit, si qui resipiscentes ad Dei gratiam confugerunt, sine ulla dubitatione sanati sunt: quid aliud restat nisi, ut peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum, quod neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro dimitti Dominus dicit, nullum intelligatur nisi perseverantia in nequitia et in malignitate, cum desperatione indulgentiae Dei?”}

      That the Church at large rejected the theory of Origen, though the Novatians appear to have adopted it, is plain from their admitting offenders after baptism, even the most heinous, to penance and absolution.  They did not indeed restore them readily and lightly, as we do at present, but after a long term of penitence and exclusion from church privileges; yet still, after sufficient satisfaction had been given to the Church, all offenders were ecclesiastically pardoned, and the sinner restored to peace and communion.  For example, for fornication, the offender was expelled three years from the public service of the Church, three years more he was in the station of hearers, three years more in the station of the prostrate, and then was received to full communion.  The term was double for adultery, and three times as long for murder.  There was, however, some discretion allowed to the bishop, who might contract the term of discipline upon just ground of reason; and especially if there was imminent danger of death, the clemency of the fathers determined that the sinner should not be permitted to enter on his long last journey without provision for it, and without participation in the holy sacraments. {See Marshall’s Penitential Discipline, especially ch. II. pt. II. § 1, and Appendix, Num. I; Gregory Nyssen’s Canonical Epistle to Letoius.} These rules were not the same in all dioceses and all parts of the Church.  Thus the council of Ancyra enjoins seven years’ penance for adultery; {Concil. Ancyrani, Can. XX; Beveridge, Pandect. Tom. I. p. 397.} for such as had sacrificed, three years of prostration, and two years more as communicants without oblation; {Can. VI; Beveridge, I. p. 380.} and for those who had sacrificed two or three times, it enjoins a penance of six years. {Can. VIII; Beveridge, I. 382.}  But the diversity in the measure of penance only proves identity of principle.

      III.  The question of the possibility of falling from grace may be considered as intimately connected with the doctrine of God’s predestination, and therefore might properly come under the XVIIth Article.  Yet, as it is certainly in some degree treated of in this Article and may be separated from the question of predestination, we may not refuse to consider it here.

      The earliest fathers, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and others speak of God’s election and of predestination to grace and life.  But, as we shall see in the next Article, it is not immediately certain in what sense they use this language of holy Scripture.  The controversies which afterwards arose concerning the Pelagian heresy and the predestinarian doctrines of St. Augustine induced persons to use more accurate terms: and Augustine himself argues that the fathers did not teach his doctrines because no heresy had arisen which made it necessary to expound them. {De Praedestinatione, § 27, Tom. X. p. 808; De Dono Perseverantiae, § 58, Tom. X. p. 851.}  It seems, however, tolerably certain that the fathers of the second century spoke of the possibility of falling away from grace, and held that those who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit might afterwards reject it and be lost.  Justin Martyr says, that “God will accept the penitent as if he had never sinned, and will treat him who turns from godliness to impiety as a sinner and unjust.  Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ says, “In whatsoever I find you, I will judge you.” {Dialog. p. 267.}  Irenaeus says, that whereas God gives grace, those who profit by it will receive glory, but those who reject it will be punished.*  He compares children of God, who disobey Him, to sons of men who, are disinherited by their fathers; and says that if we disobey God, we shall be cast off by Him.**  Clement of Alexandria speaks of his Gnostic or perfect Christian, as praying for the permanence and continuance of that good which he already possesses. {Ο γνωστικος δε ων μεν κέκτηται παραμονην, επιτηδειότητα δε εις ά μέλλει αποβαίνειν, και αϊδιότητα ων λήψεται, αιτήσεται. – Strom. Lib. VII. 7, p. 857.}  Tertullian indeed in his later treatises, especially after he had become a Montanist, seems to say that a person who fell away from grace had never been a Christian.  In his tract De Praescriptione even, which was probably written before his Montanism, he speaks of no one as a Christian, but such as endured to the end. {“Nemo autem Christianus, nisi qui ad finem usque perseveraverit.” – De Praescript. Haeretic. C. 3.}  But in his tract De Pudicitia, which was written when he had become a Montanist, in commenting on those words of St. John, “He who is born of God sinneth not,” he argues that venial sins such as causeless anger, rash swearing, &c., all Christians are liable to; but that deadly sin such as murder, idolatry, blasphemy, impiety, no good Christian, no child of God, will commit. {De Pudicitia, C. 19.}  Bishop Kaye even thinks that the language of Tertullian in his later writings is directly opposed to the doctrine of our XVIth Article.  But he observes that as there was no controversy on the subject of perseverance in his days, we must not construe his expressions too strictly. {Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 340.}  The time when this question really came to be discussed was after the rise of Pelagianism and when St. Augustine had stated his predestinarian opinions.  Perseverance was a natural part of his doctrine of predestination; for, whereas he taught that some men were predestinated to eternal salvation, whilst others were permitted to fall by their own sins into condemnation, it followed of necessity that he should believe some to be predestinated to final perseverance, and others not.  In his work De Correptione et Gratia, he calls those elect who were predestinated to eternal life; {De Corrept. et Grat. § 14.} and observes that those who did not persevere were not properly to be called elect, for they were not separated from the mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God; and though, when they believed and were baptized and lived according to God, they might be called elect, yet it was by those who knew not the future, not by God, who saw that they would not persevere. {Ibid. § 16.}

            {*“Dedit ergo Deus bonum, quemadmodum et Apostolus testificatur in eadem epistola, et qui operantur quidem illud, gloriam et honorern percipient, quoniam operati sunt bonum, cum possint non operari illud; hi autem qui illud non operantur, judicium justum recipient Dei, quoniam non sunt operati bonum, cum possint operari illud.” – Adv. Haer. IV. 71.}

            {**“Quemadmodum enim in hominibus indicto audientes patribus filii abdicati, natura quidem filii eorum sunt, lege vero alienati sunt, non enim haeredes fiunt naturalium parentum eodem modo apud Denim, qui non obediunt Ei, abdicati ab Eo, desierunt filii Ejus esse ... Verum quando credunt et subjecti esse Deo perseverant et doctrinam Ejus custodiunt, filii sunt Dei; cum autem abscesserint, et transgressi fuerint, Diabolo adscribuntur principi, ei qui primo sibi, tunc et reliquis causa abscessionis factus est.” – Ibid. IV. 80.  See also Beaven’s Irenaeus, p. 166.}

      The clergy of Marseilles and other parts of Gaul, being offended at the predestinarianism expressed in this and other treatises of Augustine, Prosper and Hilary wrote to him a statement of their objections.  These letters of Hilary and Prosper called forth a reply from St. Augustine, in two books; the former on the Predestination of the Saints, the other on the Gift of Perseverance.  In the latter, he asserts perseverance to be the gift of God, not given equally to all, but only to the predestinated.  Whether a person has received this gift must in this life ever be uncertain; for, however long he may have persevered in holiness, yet if he does not persevere to the end, he cannot have received the grace of perseverance. {De Dono Perseverantiae, Opp. Tom. X. p. 822.  See especially §§ 1, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19.}  He says that of two infants equally born in sin, by God’s will one is taken, one left; that of two grown persons, one follows God’s call, another refuses to follow it; and all this is from the inscrutable judgments of God.  And so, of two pious persons, why to one is granted final perseverance, to another it is not granted, is to be resolved into the still more inscrutable judgments of God. {“Ex duobus autem piie, cur huic donetur perseverantia usque ad finem, illi non donetur, inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei ... Nonne postremo utrique vocati tuerant, et vocantem secuti, utrique ex impiis justificati, et per lavacrum regenerationis utrique renovati?  Sed si haec audiret ille, qui sciebat, procul dubio quod dicebat, respondere posset et dicere: Vera sunt haec, secundum omnia ex nobis erant; verumtamen secundum aliam quandam discretionem non erant ex nobis, nam si fuissent ex nobis, mansissent utique nobiscum.” – Ibid. § 21.}

      It appears plainly that St. Augustine held two distinct predestinations: one predestination to regeneration and a state of grace, the other predestination to perseverance and to final reward.  We find him continually speaking of persons predestinated to be brought into the Church, and so by God’s grace brought to baptism, and therein regenerate, but not necessarily on that account persevering to the end.  Nay, he speaks of persons continuing in a state of grace for many years, but yet finally falling away. {See especially De Corrept. et Grat. 20, 22; De Dono Perseverantiae, 1, 21, 32, 33, &c.}  Such were predestinated to regeneration, and to receive grace and sanctification, but for some unknown though doubtless just cause, they were not predestinated to final perseverance.  God is pleased to mix those who will not persevere with those who will, for good and wise reasons, on purpose that he who thinketh he standeth should take heed lest he fall. {De Don. Persev. 19.}  In this life it was utterly impossible for any one to know whether he would persevere or not. {“Utrum quisque hoc munus acceperit, quam diu hanc vitam ducit, incertum est.  Si enim prius; quam moriatur cadat, non perseverasse utique dicitur, et verissime dicitur.” – Ibid. § 1.}  He might live ten years and persevere for five, and yet for the last five fall away. {Ibid.}  We may see examples of God’s hidden counsels in the case of some infants who die unregenerate, others who die regenerate; the former lost, the latter saved.  And of those who are regenerate and grow up, some persevering to the end, others permitted to live on till they lapsed and fell away and so are lost, who if they had died just before they lapsed would have been saved; and again others, who had lapsed, preserved in life till they repented again, who, if they had been taken away before repentance, would have been damned. {Ibid. § 32.}

      It is of considerable importance to observe the nature of St. Augustine’s doctrine of perseverance, as it materially differs from the doctrine most generally held by later predestinarians.  St. Augustine did not hold that persons who had once received the gift of God’s Spirit could never lose it, or at least, could never be finally lost.  On the contrary, he plainly taught that persons might receive the gift of regeneration, and might persevere in holiness for a time, and yet, if they had not the gift of perseverance, might fall away at the last.  In short, he held that predestination to grace did not necessarily imply predestination to glory.  A person might receive the grace of God and act upon it, and yet not persevere to the end; and hence it was that he held that, even if a person had all the signs and tokens of a child of God, it was quite impossible in this life to say whether he was predestinated to persevere to the end. {See ante, note 5, p. 375, and De Dono Perseverantiae, passim.}

      The question of final perseverance and of the falling from grace thenceforth became a natural part of discussions concerning predestination.

      At the time of the Reformation all these subjects were hotly discussed.  The Council of Trent found nothing to condemn in the writings of Luther, or of the Lutheran divines, on the subject of predestination, or of final perseverance; {Sarpi, p.197.} but from the writings of the Zuinglians several articles were drawn out which were considered deserving of condemnation.  Among these there were, (5) That the justified cannot fall from grace.  (6) That those who are called, and are not in the number of the predestinated, do never receive grace.  (8) That the justified is bound to believe for certain that in case he fall from grace he shall receive it again. {Ibid.}

      The divines of Trent, though not entirely at one concerning some questions of predestination, agreed to censure these concerning final perseverance, with admirable concord.  They said that it had always been an opinion in the Church, that many receive grace and keep it for a time, who afterwards lose it and are damned at the last.  They alleged the examples of Saul, Solomon, and Judas, of whom our Lord said, “Of those whom thou hast given me have I lost none save the son of perdition.”  To these they added Nicholas, one of the deacons, and for a conclusion of all, the fall of Luther. {Ibid. p. 200.}

      The language of Luther, on all the subjects connected with predestination, varies a good deal.  Earlier in his life he was a high predestinarian; but later he seems to have materially changed his views.  In his commentary on the 17th chapter of St. John, he speaks of all disputes on predestination as having sprung from their author the devil. {Opp. Tom, V. p. 197.}  In his commentary on the Galatians (ch. 5:4) he speaks plainly of falling from grace, and says that “he who falls away from grace, loses expiation, remission of sins, righteousness, liberty, life, &c., which Christ by His death and resurrection deserved for us; and in their room acquires wrath and God’s judgment, sin, death, slavery to the devil, and eternal damnation.” {Opp. Tom. V. p. 406.}

      The XIth Article of the Confession of Augsburg, which is clearly the source of our own XVIth Article, condemns the Anabaptists, who say that persons once justified cannot again lose the Holy Spirit. {“Damnant et Anabaptistas, qui negant semel justificatos iterum posse amittere Spiritum Sanctum.” – Sylloge, p. 173.}  From which we may conclude, first, that such was the teaching of the Anabaptists; and secondly, that the Lutherans viewed it altogether as an Anabaptist error.

      The Calvinist divines, on the contrary, have generally believed that grace once given was indefectible; and this is in fact their doctrine of perseverance.  Calvin himself held, that our Lord and St. Paul taught us to confide that we should always be safe if we were once made Christ’s; and that those who fall away may have had the outward signs but had not the inward truth of election. {“Quid hinc nos discere voluit Christus, nisi ut confidamus perpetuo nos fore salvos, quia illius semel facti sumus?” &c. – Instit. Lib. III. C. xxiv. 6, 7.}

      The English reformers, as we have already seen, adopted in this Article the language, not of the Zuinglians and Calvinists, but of the Confession of Augsburg and the Lutherans.  This is apparent from the wording of the Article itself, which evidently follows the wording of the Confession of Augsburg; and also from the Homilies, and other documents, both before and after the drawing up of the Articles.  “The Necessary Doctrine” has been appropriately cited which says, “It is no doubt but although we be once justified, yet we may fall therefrom ... And although we be illuminated and have tasted the heavenly gift, and be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, yet we may fall and displease God.” {Formularies of Faith in the Reign of Henry the Eighth, p. 367.}  The whole of the Homily “Of Falling from God” holds language of the same character.  It should be read throughout, being a practical discourse from which extracts would fail to give a right impression.  It is impossible to doubt that the doctrine contained in it is that we may once receive the grace of God, and yet finally fall away from Him.  These were documents drawn up at the period of the Reformation, shortly before the putting forth of the Articles.  The second book of Homilies, written early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and of nearly the same date with the final revision of the Articles, breathes the same spirit throughout.  The language of the Homily called “The First Part of the Information of certain parts of Scripture” may be referred to as a specimen.  After reciting examples from Scripture of the sins of good men, it continues, “We ought then to learn by them this profitable lesson, that if so godly men as they were, which otherwise felt inwardly of God’s Holy Spirit influencing their hearts with the fear and love of God, could not by their own strength keep themselves from cominiting horrible sin, but did so grievously fall that without God’s mercy they had perished everlastingly; how much more ought we then, miserable wretches, which have no feeling of God within us at all, continually to fear, not only that we may fall as they did, but also be overcome and drowned in sin, as they were not.”

      The Homily on the Resurrection has the following: “Ye must consider that ye be therefore cleansed and renewed that ye should henceforth serve God in holiness and righteousness all the days of your life, that ye may reign with Him in everlasting life (Luke 1).  If ye refuse so great grace whereto ye be called, what other thing do ye than heap to you damnation more and more, and so provoke God to cast His displeasure upon you, and to revenge this mockage of His holy sacraments in so great abusing of them?  Apply yourselves, good friends, to live in Christ, that Christ may still live in you,” &c.

      Similar is the tone breathed by the Liturgy itself.  In the Baptismal Service we are taught to pray, that the baptized child “may ever remain in the number of God’s faithful and elect children.”  In the Catechism the child, after speaking of himself as in a state of salvation, adds, “I pray unto God to give me His grace that I may continue in the same unto my life’s end.”  And in the Burial Service we pray that God will “suffer us not at our last hour for any pains of death to fall from” Him.

      In the reign of Queen Elizabeth the sympathy which had sprung up with the Calvinistic reformers of the continent made the teaching of our English divines approximate more nearly to the teaching of the Calvinists.  Near the end of that reign a dispute arose at Cambridge, originating in the teaching of Barret, a fellow of Caius College, who preached ad clerum against Calvin’s doctrines about predestination and falling from glace.  Barret was complained of to Archbishop Whitgift, who at first took his part; but at last, at the earnest request of the heads of Colleges, sent for him to Lambeth where he was directed not to teach like doctrines again.  The dispute so originating was continued between Dr. Whitaker, the Regius Professor, and Dr. Baro, the Margaret Professor, of Divinity.  Whitaker, who took the high Calvinistic side, was sent by his party to Lambeth where he proposed to the Archbishop to send down to Cambridge a series of Articles, nine in number, stamped with the authority of the archbishops and bishops, in order to check the progress of what he called Pelagianism.  Archbishop Whitgift was thus induced to call a meeting of bishops and other clergy.  The theses of Whitaker were submitted to them, and with some few alterations, which however were of considerable importance, they were passed by the meeting and sent down to Cambridge.  The Queen censured Whitgift for the whole proceeding; and he promised to write to Cambridge that the Articles might be suppressed.  These were the famous Lambeth Articles.  The fifth and sixth concerned falling from grace and certainty of salvation.  The fifth as proposed by Whitaker ran thus, “True, living, and justifying faith, and the influence of the Spirit of God, is not extinguished, nor fails, nor goes off, in those who have once been partakers of it, either totally or finally.”  The divines at Lambeth erased the words “in those who have once been partakers of it,” and substituted for them “in the elect”; thus making the doctrine more nearly correspond with Augustine’s, rather than, as it did in Whitaker’s draught of it, with Calvin’s.  The sixth Article, in Whitaker’s draught, said that “A man who truly believes, that is, who has justifying faith, is sure, from the certainty of faith, concerning the remission of his sins and his eternal salvation through Christ.”  For “certainty of faith” the Lambeth divines substituted “full assurance of faith,” using that word as signifying, not a full and absolute certainty, such as is the certainty of matters of science or of the principles of the faith, but rather a lesser degree of certainty, such as is obtained in matters of judicial evidence and legal trials.*

            {*The Vth and VIth Articles as drawn by Whitaker were, –

            “V.  Vera, viva, et justificans fides et Spiritus Dei Sanctificans non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit in iis qui semel ejus participes fuerunt, aut totaliter aut finaliter.

            “VI.  Homo vere fidelis, id est fide justiflcante praeditus, certus est certitudine fidei, de remissione peccatoram suorum et salute sempiterna sua per Christum.”

            In the Vth the Lambeth Divines for in iis qui semel ejus participes fuerunt, substituted in electis.  In the VIth for certitudine they substituted plerophoria. – See Strype’s Whitgift, I. IV. C. 17.}

      Soon after the accession of James I, A. D. 1604, the conference was held at Hampton Court.  Dr. Reynolds, the speaker for the Puritans, moved, among other things, that the Articles be explained and enlarged.  For example, whereas in Art. XVI the words are these: “After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace,” he wished that there should be added, “yet neither totally nor finally”; and also that “the nine assertions orthodoxal concluded at Lambeth might be inserted into that book of Articles.”  On this point he was answered by the Bishop of London; no alteration of the kind was conceded, the Articles remaining as they were before, and the Lambeth Articles never having received any sanction of the Church or the Crown. {Cardwell, Hist, of Conferences, p.178.}

Section  II – Scriptural Proof

      The first thing we have to show from holy Scripture is, that “every deadly sin committed after baptism is not unpardonable,” and that “the place of forgiveness is not to be denied to such as truly repent.”

      To prove this proposition, it will be desirable (1) to show that sins after baptism are not generally unpardonable.  (2) To consider those texts of Scripture, which are thought to prove the great heinousness and unpardonable nature of some sins, especially if committed after baptism.

      I.  First, then, sins after baptism are not generally incapable of being pardoned.

      Baptism is the first step in the Christian life, by which we are admitted into the covenant, and to a share of the pardoning love of God in Christ.  Under the Jewish dispensation there was no such thing as baptism ordained by God; but circumcision admitted into God’s covenant with Abraham, and to a participation in the blessings of the congregation or Church of the Jews.  Now it is a truth universally admitted that the blessings we receive under the Gospel are greater than those which the Jews received under the Law.  Especially under the Gospel and in the Church of Christ there is a fuller fountain of mercy and grace opened to all.  “There is a fountain open for sin and for uncleanness,” such as the Jews had only in figure.  “The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Job. 1:17).  Yet under the Law it is quite certain that there was a continual sacrifice offered for the sins both of priests and people, and a continual promise of pardon to the returning and penitent sinner.  The prophet Ezekiel (ch. 33:12–20) by God’s commandment clearly expounds to the Israelites that, of those within the covenant, if the righteous man turn from his righteousness, he shall surely die; but if the wicked “turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right,” “none of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him; he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.”  So the prophet David, after deliberate murder and adultery, was yet at once restored on his repentance.  If then under the Law those who sinned were admitted to pardon, but under the Gospel, that is to say after baptism, those who sin are not admitted to pardon, then is the Gospel a state of less instead of greater grace than the Law; then those who have been made partakers of Christ have been admitted to a sterner law and a less merciful covenant than those who were baptized into Moses and admitted to that carnal commandment which made nothing perfect.

      It is true, indeed, that the greater God’s mercies are, the heavier will be the punishment of those who slight them.  “If they who despised Moses’ law died without mercy, of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God?” (Heb. 10:28, 29).  Yet, that the slighting of God’s mercies should be of so great guilt results from the fact that those mercies are so great: and if the grant of repentance be withheld from the Christian, which was conceded to the Jew, then we may say that God’s mercies under the Law were greater than are His mercies under the Gospel.

      Thus then we may naturally infer that pardon of sin would be given to Christians, and that sin committed after baptism would not in general exclude the sinner from all hope of repentance.  Such reasoning is fully confirmed by the language of the new Testament.  The Lord’s Prayer was ordained for the use of those who might call Almighty God their Father.  We therefore may clearly see that it was to be used only by children of God.  Now in baptism we are made children of God.  In the Lord’s Prayer, then, God’s baptized children are taught to pray that their sins should be forgiven them.  And our blessed Lord comforts us with the assurance that “if we forgive men their trespasses, our heavenly Father will also forgive our trespasses” (Matt. 6:14).  So in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15) it is a son that leaves his father, and who on his repentance is welcomed home and pardoned.  The parable plainly sets before us that if we, as sons of God, leave our Father’s home and revel in all iniquity, still on true and earnest repentance we shall be received, pardoned, comforted.

      To the chief ministers of His Church our Lord gave the power of binding and loosing; binding by censure upon sin, but loosing again by absolution and reconciliation (Matt. 18:18); and to confirm this power to them the more strongly He declared: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained” (John 20:23).  If the reconciliation of offenders to the Church be so sanctioned in Heaven, can there be a doubt that there is also pardon in Heaven for such as, having so offended, have repented and been reconciled?

      We have instances in the new Testament of the Apostles giving hope of pardon, and restoring communion to those who had sinned most heavily after baptism.  Thus Simon Magus, just after he was baptized, showed himself to be “in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity”; yet St. Peter urged him to repent of his wickedness, and to pray God, if perhaps the thought of his heart might be forgiven him {και δεήθητι Θεου, ει άρα αφεθήσεταί σοι η επίνοια της καρδίας σου} (Acts 8:22, 23).  Even of the man who after baptism had committed incest, and whom St. Paul (1 Cor. 5:1–5) bids the Corinthians to excommunicate, he yet gives hope that “his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (ver. 5).  And when the incestuous man had given signs of true sorrow for his sin, but a very short time after his excommunication the Apostle ordered him to be restored to communion, declares that he ministerially pardoned his offences in the name and as the minister of Christ (2 Cor. 2:10); recommends the Corinthians to comfort him, that he should not be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow (ver. 7); and assures them with reference to the same subject that “godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of” (2 Cor. 7:10).  Nay! he expressly says that the object of excommunicating the guilty man was that his “spirit might be saved” (1 Cor. 5:5).

      Again. St. Paul exhorts the Galatian Church.  “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault (εν τινι παραπτώματι) you, which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”  The words made use of are perfectly general, and we may infer from them as a general rule that a man entrapped or overtaken by any kind of transgression or backsliding is, on his repentance, to be restored to communion.  In the latter part of the second Epistle to the Corinthians (12:20, 21), the Apostle speaks of his apprehension that he shall be grieved at the state of the Corinthian Church, for he feared that many of the Corinthian Christians had committed all those sins which most grievously defile the temple of God (ακαθάρσια, πόρνεια, ασέλγεια), even every kind of uncleanness; but then the way in which he adds και μη μετανοησάντων, “and have not repented,” seems clearly to indicate that the poignancy of his grief was derived from their impenitence; and that for those who repented there was still room for pardon and hope.

      St. Peter tells us, that God “is long-suffering to usward” (meaning, as we may suppose, to Christians), “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).  St. John says that as all men are sinners, so “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”  And when he writes to Christians, calling them his “little children” and exhorting them that they sin not, he yet adds, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins.”  Here we have an evident address to those who were members of Christ’s Church by baptism, an earnest exhortation to them not to sin, yet an encouragement to those who fall into sin, not to despair, as there is yet an Advocate, yet propitiation, through Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9, 2:1, 2).  St. James (James 5:13–15) enjoins, that if any member of the Church be sick, he should send for the clergy, the elders of the Church, to pray over him, and among other blessings promises that “if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.”  Lastly, in the Apocalypse, referring to men who had been seduced from their faith to all the abominations of the worst kind of heresy, our blessed Lord speaks of “giving time to repent”, and threatens heavy punishment “unless they repent of their deeds“ (Rev. 2:20–22).

      The general promises to repenting sinners do not, of course, belong to our present inquiry.  Such promises may have been made to such as had not been baptized, and may be performed only in baptism.  But those now adduced all evidently concern Christians, who had been brought to Christ by baptism, and who had afterwards fallen into sin.  And they seem clearly to prove that not even the deadliest sin committed by a baptized person makes it utterly impossible that, on hearty repentance and true faith, he should be forgiven.

      There are indeed some passages of Scripture and some very serious considerations which have led to the belief that deadly sin after baptism has never forgiveness; and these we must take into account.

      The fact that St. Paul speaks of the whole Church and every individual Christian as temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:22) joined with many similar considerations shows that at our baptism we are set apart and consecrated to be temples of God.  And then St. Paul declares that “if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are “ (1 Cor. 3:17).  In like manner we know that in baptism we are made members of Christ (see Gal. 3:27, Ephes. 4:15, 16, &c.).  And St. Paul, reminding the Corinthians of this, says: “What, know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?  Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?  God forbid” (1 Cor. 6:15).  Such sayings prove with exceeding force the great wickedness of sin and especially of sins of uncleanness when committed by a baptized Christian, who thereby “sinneth against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18) and against the Holy Ghost, whose temple his body has been made.  So our blessed Saviour, speaking of Christians as branches of the Vine, whose root and stem is Christ, says that, “If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered” (John 15:6).

      These passages, however, though they show the great guilt of sinning against grace, do not prove such sins to be unpardonable, though probably they suggested the opinion that sin after baptism was the sin against the Holy Ghost, which hath never forgiveness.

      There are strong and very fearful passages in the first Epistle of St. John, which have still more led to some of the opinions disclaimed by the Article we are now considering.  In 1 John 3:6, 8, 9, we read that, “Whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not. ... He that committeth sin is of the devil. ... Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”  This passage led Jovinian to teach that a baptized Christian could never sin; and has been one argument from which it has been inferred that, if by any means this high estate of purity should be lost, it would be lost irrevocably.  Jerome, in his answer to Jovinian, {Adv. Jovinian.  Lib. II. circ. init.  Tom. IV. pt. II. p. 193.} well explains the general tenour of St. John’s reasoning.  He remarks that St. John exhorts those whom he addresses as little children to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21), showing that they were liable to be tempted like others and to fall; that he writes to them not to sin; and assures them still that if they sin, they have an Advocate in the Lord Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1, 2); that their best way of knowing that they know Christ is to keep His commandments (ver. 4); that he, who says be abides in Him, ought to walk as He walked (ver. 6).  “Therefore,” he continues, “St. John says, ‘I write unto you, little children,’ since ‘every one who is born of God sinneth not,’ that ye sin not, and that ye may know that ye abide in the generation of God, so long as ye do not sin; yea, those who continue in God’s generation cannot sin.  For what communion hath Christ with Belial?  If we have received Christ as a guest into our hearts, we put to flight the devil.  But if we sin again, the devil enters through the door of sin, and then Christ departs.”  This seems a correct account of St. John’s reasoning, and shows that what he means is, that the regenerate man, so long as he continues in the regenerate state, overcomes sin and casts it out; but if he falls from the regenerate state and sins, then he becomes again the servant of the devil.  But it neither proves that the regenerate man cannot sin, nor that, if he does, his fall is irrecoverable.

      But St. John (1 John 5:16, 17) speaks of the distinction between “sin unto death,” and “sin not unto death”; and encourages us to pray for the latter, but not for the former.  Bp. Jeremy Taylor has some good remarks on this verse.  “Every Christian,” he says, “is in some degree in the state of grace, so long as he is invited to repentance, and so long as he is capable of the prayers of the Church.  This we learn from those words of St. John, ‘All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not unto death’; that is, some sorts of sin are so incident to the condition of men and their state of imperfection, that the man who hath committed them is still within the methods of pardon, and hath not forfeited his title to the promises and covenant of repentance; but ‘there is a sin unto death’; that is, some men proceed beyond the measures and economy of the Gospel, and the usual methods and probabilities of repentance, by obstinacy, and preserving a sin, by a willful, spiteful resisting, or despising the offers of grace and the means of pardon; for such a man St. John does not encourage us to pray; if he be such a person as St. John described, our prayers will do him no good; but because no man can tell the last minute or period of pardon, nor just when a man is gone beyond the limit; and because the limit itself can be enlarged, and God’s mercies stay for some longer than for others, therefore St. John left us under the indefinite restraint and caution; which was decretory enough to represent that sad state of things in which the refractory and impenitent have immerged themselves, and yet so indefinite and cautious, that we may not be too forward in applying it to particulars, nor in prescribing measures to the Divine mercy, nor in passing final sentences upon our brother, before we have heard our Judge Himself speak.  ‘Sinning a sin not unto death’ is an expression fully signifying that there are some sins which though they be committed and displeased God, and must be repented of, and need many and mighty prayers for their pardon, yet the man is in the state of grace and pardon, that is, he is within the covenant of mercy; he may be admitted, if he will return to his duty: so that being in a state of grace is having a title to God’s loving-kindness, a not being rejected of God, but a being beloved of Him to certain purposes of mercy, and that hath these measures and degrees.”

      Again, “Every act of sin takes away something from the contrary grace, but if the root abides in the ground, the plant is still alive, and may bring forth fruit again.  ‘But he only is dead who hath thrown off God for ever, or entirely with his very heart.’  So St. Ambrose.  To be ‘dead in trespasses and sins,’ which is the phrase of St. Paul (Eph. 2:1), is the same with that expression of St. John, of ‘sinning a sin unto death,’ that is, habitual, refractory, pertinacious, and incorrigible sinners, in whom there is scarcely any hope or sign of life.  These are they upon whom, as St. Paul’s expression is, (1 Thess. 2:16) ‘the wrath of God is come upon them to the uttermost, εις το τέλος, unto death.’  So was their sin, it was a sin unto death; so is their punishment.” {Of Repentance, ch. IV. § 2.}

      But by far the most terrible passages in Scripture on the danger of backsliding and the difficulty or impossibility of renewal are to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews.  We learn indeed from Tertullian (De Pudicitia) that the difficulty of the 6th chapter of that Epistle was the main reason why the Roman Church was so long in admitting it into the Canon.

      In the 10th chapter we read that “if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries.  He that despised Moses’ law perished without mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace?” (Heb. 10:26–29).  The peculiar strength of this passage is in the words, “If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”  The word “sin” in the first clause is here supposed by many to mean “apostatize.”  So in Hos. 13:2 we read, לַחֲטאֺ יוֹסִפוּ וְעַתָּה “Now they add moreover to sin”; where the sin spoken of is a revolting from God, and apostatizing to Baal.  And, as regards the “remaining no more sacrifice for sin,” the Apostle had been showing throughout the early verses of the chapter that the priests under the Law kept constantly offering sacrifices year by year and day by day (vv. 1–11).  But Christ offered but one sacrifice for sin, and by that one sacrifice hath perfected all that are sanctified (vv. 12–14).  So then, if we reject the sacrifice of Christ, and after a knowledge of its saving efficacy, apostatize willingly {εκουσίως רמה ביד with a high hand, presumptuously.  See Numb. 15:29, 30; and Rosenmüller thereon; Kuinoel on Heb. 10:26.} from the faith, there are not now fresh sacrifices, “offered year by year continually”; and by rejecting the one sacrifice of Christ, we cut ourselves off from the benefit of His death; and since we have chosen sin instead of God, there is no new sacrifice to bring us to God.

      Another of the hard sentences which has led to a belief in the irremissibility of post-baptismal sin, is Heb. 12:17.  The Apostle, warning against the danger of falling from grace, bids us take heed lest there be “any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.  For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited a blessing, he was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.”  There can be no doubt that Esau is here propounded to us as a type of those who, having been made sons of God by baptism, and so having a birthright and promised inheritance, by thoughtlessness and sensuality “for one morsel of meat” throw themselves out of God’s favour and, leaving God’s family, return to the condition of mere sons of Adam.  St. Paul, reminding us that when Esau had sold his birthright, he found no place for repentance, even when he sought it with tears, puts us on our guard against the like folly by fear of the like fate.  Yet it does not follow of course that every person who lives unworthily of his baptismal privileges shall be denied access to repentance.  We can never, when we yield to sin, know that God will give us repentance; and we may die in our sin.  And even if we repent, our repentance, like Esau’s, may be too late, after the door is shut, and when it will not do to knock.  We are told elsewhere of those who came and cried, “Lord, Lord, open unto us,” and who received no answer but, “I know you not” (Matt. 25:11, 12).  Such a late repentance is that of those who would repent in the grave, perhaps of some who seek only on the bed of death.  But if we follow out the history of Esau, we may gain at least this comfort from it, that even late as he had put off his seeking repentance, so late that he could never be fully restored, yet, though not to the same position as before, he was still restored to favour and to blessing (Gen. 27:38, 39).  So that we may hope from this history, as set forth to us for a type, that though such as cast away their privileges as Christians find it hard to be reinstated in the position from which they fell, and may perhaps never in this world attain to like blessedness and assurance as if they had never fallen, still the door of repentance is not shut against them.  Their place in their Father’s house may be lower; but still it is not hopeless that there may, and shall, be a place for them.

      The strongest passage, and that on which the Novatians most rested their doctrines, remains yet to be considered.  It is Heb. 6:4, 5, 6: “It is impossible for those, who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.”

      The Syriac Version, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others of the ancients, who are followed by Ernesti, Michaelis, and many learned men of our own times; understand by the word “enlightened” (άπαξ φωτισθέντας) here, and in Heb. 10:32, “baptized.”  Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and others of the very earliest Christians, used the word in this sense. {See Suicer, s.v. φωτίζω, φωτισμος.  Also Bingham, E. A. I. iv. 1, XI. i. 4.}  But whether we admit this to be the right interpretation or not, we must allow the passage to teach that a person after baptism and Christian blessing and enlightenment may so fall away that it may be impossible to renew him to repentance.  The words made use of seem to say that persons once baptized, endued with God’s Holy Spirit, made partakers of the Christian Church, {δυνάμεις μέλλοντος αιανος, the very phrase used in the LXX. (cf. Isai. 9:6) of the Christian Church.  See Hammond, in loc.  Rosenmüller and Kuinoel both understand these words of the Kingdom of Christ, the Reign of Messiah.  Hence “the powers of the world to come” would be the blessed effects of Christ’s kingdom and gospel.} if they despise all these blessings, rejecting and, as it were, afresh crucifying the Son of God, cannot be again restored to repentance.  The difficulty of the passage lies almost wholly in two words, παραπεσόντας, “having fallen away”, and ανακαινίζειν, “to renew”.  Most commentators consider the word “fall away,” which occurs here only in the New Testament, to signify total apostasy from the faith. {παραπίπτειν is the translation of the LXX for אָשַם Ezek. 22:4, and מָעַל Ezek. 14:3.  Schleusner compares 2 Chron. 29:19, where the LXX translates בִּמַעַלוׁ, εν αποστασία αυτου}  If indeed the other two participles (ανασταυρουντας and παραδειγματίζοντας) be to be coupled with it, as in apposition to, and explanation of it, then we may well conclude that it can mean no less.  It is the case of those “who sin willfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth,” of him from whom one devil had been cast out, but to whom it had returned with seven worse devils.  Rejecting their faith and their baptism, they fall away from Christ, reproach and crucify Him afresh, as much reject Him for their Saviour as they who actually nailed Him to the Cross.  Bishop Taylor describes them as persons, who, “without cause or excuse, without error or infirmity, choosingly, willingly, knowingly, called Christ an impostor, and would have crucified Him again if He were alive; that is, they consented to His death by believing that He suffered justly.  This is the case here described, and cannot be drawn to anything else but its parallel; that is, a malicious renouncing charity, or holy life, as these men did the faith, to both which they have made their solemn vows in baptism; but this can no way be drawn to the condemnaion and final excision of such persons who fall into any great sin, of which they are willing to repent.” {On Repentance, ch. IX. sect. 4.}

      And for the other word of difficulty, ανακαινίζειν, “to renew,” some think we must understand to rebaptize.  The Church has no power to rebaptize those who fall away; and so, as first they were washed in the waters of baptism from original sin, to wash them again from their guilt of apostasy. {Dr. Hammond, in loc. observes that, as εγκαινίζειν is to dedicate, consecrate, so, ανακαινίζειν, is to reconsecrate.  Persons utterly apostate could not be reconsecrate.  There was no power to repeat their baptism, nor, if utterly apostate, could the Church readmit them by penance to Church communion.}  Others understand to admit by absolution to the fellowship of the Church, and so restore them to repentance and penance, when they have once thoroughly apostatized. { Many understand ανακαινίζειν as applied to the ministers of the Church.  It is “impossible for the ministers of Christ to renew them again”; that is, there is no other sacrament by which we can restore offenders to the same position in which they were before their fall, and in which they were once placed by the sacrament of baptism.}  Others understand that, whereas they have rejected the Gospel and all its means of grace, their case has become hopeless, because no other covenant can be provided for them: “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”  No new method of salvation will be devised for them; and as they have utterly given up the one already provided, rejected Christ, and despised His Spirit, so it is impossible that any other should renew them.  “Other foundation can no man lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ”; “for there is no means of salvation but this one; and this one they hate, and will not have; they will not return to the old, and there is none left by which they can be renewed, and therefore their condition is desperate.” {Bishop Jeremy Taylor, as above.}

      On the whole, there can be no doubt of the awful severity of the language of this passage, and of the warning it gives us against falling from grace; but when we compare it with other passages somewhat like it, and contrast with it those which assure us of God’s readiness to receive the penitent sinner, and to give repentance even to those who sin after grace given; we can hardly fail to conclude that it concerns particularly extreme cases, and not those of ordinary occurrence; and that though it proves the heinousness of sinning against light and grace, and shows that we may so fall after grace as never to recover ourselves, yet it does not prove that there is no pardon for such baptized Christians as sin grievously, and then seek earnestly for repentance.

      The fact that our Lord left to His Church the power of the keys, allowing its chief pastors to excommunicate for sin and restore on repentance, and that the Apostles and first bishops ever exercised that power, shows that even great sins (for none other led to excommunication) do not exclude from pardon.  Nay, “Baptism is εις μετάνοια, the admission of us to the covenant of faith and repentance; or as Mark the anchorite called it, πρόφασίς εστι της μετανοίας, the introduction of repentance, or that state of life that is full of labour and care, and amendment of our faults; for that is the best life that any man can live; and therefore repentance hath its progress after baptism, as it hath its beginning before; for first, ‘repentance is unto baptism,’ and then ‘baptism unto repentance’. ...  Besides, our admission to the holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes, because then and there is really exhibited to us the Body that was broken and the Blood that was ‘shed for the remission of sins.’  Still it is applied, and that application could not be necessary to be done anew if there were not new necessities; and still we are invited to do actions of repentance, to examine ourselves, and so to eat.’  All which, as things are ordered, would be infinitely useless to mankind if it did not mean pardon to Christians falling into foul sins even after baptism.” {Jeremy Taylor, On Repentance, ch. IX. sect. 2.}

      We may therefore conclude that, severe as some passages of Scripture are against those who sin wilfully against light and grace, and strict as the discipline of the early Church was against all such offenders, there is yet nothing to prove that heinous sin committed after baptism cannot be pardoned on repentance.  The strongest and severest texts of Scripture seem to apply, not to persons who have sinned and seek repentance, but to apostates from the faith who are stout in their apostasy and hardened in sin.

      II.  Our next consideration is the “Sin against the Holy Ghost”.

      The statements of Scripture already considered have, as we have seen, been supposed by some to show that the sin against the Holy Ghost must be falling grievously after baptism.  For, as it has been supposed that these statements make deadly sin after baptism the unpardonable sin, and our Lord makes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be unpardonable, and both our Lord and St. John (1 John 5 16) seem to speak as if there were but one unpardonable sin, therefore deadly sin after baptism and the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost must be identical.  The foregoing arguments seem sufficiently to have shown that this hypothesis is untrue.

      If we examine the circumstances under which our Lord uttered His solemn warnings concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, we may probably the better understand the nature of that sin.  He had been casting out a devil, thereby giving signal proof of His Godhead.  But the Pharisees, instead of believing and acknowledging His heavenly mission, ascribed His power to Satan and Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24).  Those who thus resisted such evidence were plainly obstinate and hardened unbelievers, such as, we may well believe, were given over to a reprobate mind, and such as no evidence of the truth could move to faith and penitence.  Accordingly, many believe that by thus rejecting the faith, and ascribing the works of our Lord’s Divinity to the power of evil spirits, they had committed the sin against the Holy Ghost.

      That they were very near committing that sin there can be little doubt.  They had stepped upon the confines, they had uttered daring and desperate blasphemy.  They had reviled the holy Son of God.  They had called His works of love and goodness the works of the devil, thereby confounding light with darkness.  But still our Lord consents to reason with them.  He still puts forth parables by which to convince them that they were in error (Matt. 12:23–30).  And He would scarce do this if there were no hope that they might repent, no possibility that they might be forgiven.  And then He warns them.  Warning and reasoning are for those who may yet take warning and conviction, not for those to whom they would be useless.

      And of what nature is His warning?  They had just blasphemed Him, disbelieved His mission, disregarded His miracles.  Yet He tells them in gracious goodness that all manner of sin and blasphemy which men commit shall be forgiven them, that even blasphemy against Himself, the Son of Man, shall be forgiven; but then He adds that if they went farther still and committed the same sin moreover against the Spirit of God, it should never be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (vv. 31, 32).

      Now Christ was then present with them as the Son of Man.  The glory of His Godhead was veiled under the likeness of sinful flesh.  Those were “the days of the Son of Man”; and “the Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.”  There is no doubt that it must have been deadly wickedness which led men to doubt the truth of His doctrine when taught with such power from His sacred lips, and proved so mightily by the works which He wrought.  But the full power of the Gospel had not been put forth; especially the Spirit had not been poured on the Church, – a blessing so great that it made it expedient for His disciples that even Jesus should go away from them in order that He might give it to them (John 16:7).  But when the Spirit was poured forth, then all the means of grace were used; Jesus working without, and the Spirit pleading within.  And in those who received the word and were baptized, the Spirit took up His dwelling, and moved and ruled in their hearts.  This then was a state of greater grace and a more convincing state of evidence to the world and to the Church than even the bodily presence of the Saviour as the Son of Man.  Accordingly, resistance to the means of grace after the gift of the Spirit was worse than resistance during the bodily presence of Christ.  Resisting the former, refusing to be converted by it, rejecting its evidence, and obstinate impenitence under its influence, was blasphemy against the Son of Man.  Still even this could be forgiven; for farther and yet greater means of grace were to be tried, even on those who had rejected Christ.  “The Gospel was to be preached unto them, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven” (1 Pet. 1:12).  But this mission of the Comforter was the last and highest means ever to be tried, the last and greatest dispensation of the grace of God.  Those, therefore, who after this still remained obstinate, still rejected Christ in His kingdom, as they had rejected Him in His humility, still refused to be converted, ascribed the gifts of His Apostles and the graces of His Church, not to the Spirit of God, but to the spirit of evil, such men blasphemed not only the Son of Man – the Word of God when veiled in human flesh – but they rejected and blasphemed the Spirit of God, and so had never forgiveness.

      This seems the true explanation of the sin against the Holy Ghost, namely, obstinate, resolute, and willful impenitence, after all the means of grace and with all the strivings of the Spirit, under the Christian dispensation as distinguished from the Jewish, and amid all the blessings and privileges of the Church of Christ.

      And this view of the subject does not materially differ from the statement of St. Athanasius, namely, that blasphemy against Christ, when His manhood only was visible, was blasphemy against the Son of Man; but that when His Godhead was manifested, it became blasphemy against the Holy Ghost: nor from that of St. Augustine, that the sin against the Spirit of God is a final and obdurate continuance in wickedness, despite of the calls of God to repentance, joined with a desperation of the mercy of God. {See the statement of their opinions in Sect. I.}

      III.  The last subject to which we come is the question of Final Perseverance, or the Indefectibility of Grace.

      The Article says, “After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again and amend our lives.”  The arguments which have been already gone into concerning the grant of repentance and pardon to those who sin after baptism and the grace of God sufficiently prove the latter clause of the above statement.  Indeed the former clause may be considered as proved also; for if there is a large provision in the Gospel and the Church for forgiveness of sins and reconciliation of those who, having received the Spirit, have fallen away, then must it be possible that “after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may yet depart from grace and fall into sin.”  Jovinian indeed held that every truly baptized person could sin no more.  But such an error has been very uncommon in the Church, so uncommon that it is scarcely needful to prove that a person may have received grace and yet be tempted and fall into sin; as David so grievously fell in the matter of Uriah, or as St. Peter, when he denied his Lord.  But the question, whether a person who has once received grace can ever fall finally and irrecoverably, has been much agitated since the days of Zuingle and Calvin; and though possibly not expressly determined by the wording of this Article, it yet properly comes to be considered here.

      The doctrine of the Zuinglians and high Calvinists has been that if a man has once been regenerate and endued with the Holy Ghost, he may fall into sin for a time but will surely be restored again and can never finally be lost.  We have seen, on the contrary, that St. Augustine and the more ancient predestinarians held that grace might have been given, but yet, if a person was not predestinated to perseverance, he might fall away.  We have seen that the Lutherans held that grace given might yet be lost utterly.  We have seen that the reformers of the Church of England, whether following St. Augustine in his views of predestination or not, appear clearly to have agreed with him, and with Luther and the Lutherans, in holding that grace might be lost, not only for the time, but finally.

      1.  The passages of Scripture most in favour of the doctrine that those who have once been regenerate can never finally fall from grace are such as follow.

      Matt. 24:24, which must be set aside, if rightly translated. {The English version translates ει δυνατον “if it were possible”.  The whole strength of the passage as favouring the Calvinistic theory is in the words it were, which are not in the Greek  Render it “if possible” and the argument is gone.}  Luke 22:32, which shows that our Lord prays for His servants.  John 6:39, John 10:27, 28; but these last must be compared with John 17:12, which shows that though the true sheep of Christ never perish, yet some may, like Judas, be given Him for a time and yet finally be sons of perdition.  Rom. 8:38, 39; 11:29, show that God is faithful and will never repent of His mercy to us, and that, if we do not willfully leave Him, no created power shall be able to pluck us out of His hand.  They prove no more than this.

      Stronger by far are such passages as 1 Cor. 1:8, 9, Phil. 1:6, 2 Thess. 3:3.  Yet they are addressed to whole Churches, all the members of which are not certainly preserved blameless to the end.  The confidence expressed concerning the Philippians (Phil. 1:6) cannot have meant that it was impossible for any of them to be lost; for St. Paul afterwards exhorts them to “work out their salvation with fear and trembling” (2:12), and to “stand fast in the Lord” (4:1).  So that we must necessarily understand the Apostle’s confident hope to result from a consideration of the known goodness and grace of God, and also of the Philippians’ own past progress in holiness.  “He conjectured,” as Theophylact says, “from what was past, what they would be for the future.” {απο των παρελθοντων και περι των μελλόντων στοχαζόμενος. – Theophyl. in loc. quoted by Whitby, whom see.}

      The passages which speak of Christians as sealed, and having the “earnest of the Spirit,” (see 2 Cor. 1:21, 22, Ephes. 1:13, 4:30,) are thought to teach the indefectibility of grace because what is sealed is kept and preserved.  But sealing probably only signifies the ratifying of a covenant which is done in baptism.  And though the giving of the Spirit is indeed the earnest of a future inheritance, it does not follow that no unfaithfulness in the Christian may deprive him of the blessing, of which God has given him the earnest and pledge, because a covenant always implies two parties, and if either breaks it, the other is free.

      So again Jas. 1:17 tells us of the unchangeableness of God, and 2 Tim. 2:19 shows that He “knoweth them that are His.”  But neither proves that we may not change, nor that all who are now God’s people will continue so to the end, though he knoweth who will and who will not.

      The expression “full assurance of hope” (Heb. 6:11) has been thought to prove that we may be always certain of continuance if we have once known the grace of God.  But the Apostle does not ground the “assurance of hope” on such a doctrine.  His words are: “We desire that every one of you do show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope to the end; that ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.”  This shows that our assured hope will spring from a close walk with God, and that slothfulness or a lack of diligence is likely to impair our hope and disturb our assurance.  The more diligent we are, the more hope we shall have; our hope not being grounded on the indefectibility of grace but on the evidences of our faith given by a consistent growth in grace.

      Again, 1 Pet. 1:4, 5, speaks of an inheritance “reserved in heaven for those who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”  The word “kept” is in the Greek φρουρουμένους, i.e. “guarded as in a garrison”.  The figure represents believers as attacked by evil spirits and wicked men, but defended by the power of God through the influence of their faith.  It does not show that all believers are kept from falling away; but that they are guarded by God through the instrumentality of their faith.  “If” then “they continue in the faith” (Col. 1:23), “if they hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end” (Heb. 3:14), then will “their faith be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one” (Eph. 6:16), and will “overcome the world” (1 John 5:4).  But, as it is expressly said that it is “through faith” that they are “kept” or “guarded”, we cannot infer that their faith itself is so guarded that it can by no possibility fail. {See Whitby and Macknight on 1 Pet. 1:4, 5.}

      But the strongest passage on this side of the question is 1 John 3:9: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”  From this Jovinian inferred that a regenerate man could never sin again; but the Zuinglian and Calvinist infer that the regenerate man having the seed of life in him, may indeed fall into sin, but is sure to recover himself again, and to be saved at the last.  If the text proves anything about indefectibility of grace, it plainly proves Jovinian’s rather than Calvin’s position; namely, that the regenerate man never falls into sin at all, not merely that he does not fall finally.

      The truth is the Apostle is simply contrasting the state of the regenerate with that of the unregenerate, and tells us that sin is the mark of the latter, holiness of the former.  “He that doeth righteousness is righteous ... he that committeth sin is of the devil” (vv. 7, 8).  Here is the antithesis.  It is like the statement, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:18).  This does not mean, that a good tree can never cease to be good, and so cease to bear good fruit. {“Bona arbor non fert malos fructus, quamdiu in bonitatis studio perseverat.” – Hieron.  In Matt. 7:18, Tom. IV. pt. II. p. 25, cited by Dr. Hammond on 1 John 3:9.}  So it is with that of St. Paul, “The carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God” (Rom. 8:7).  But it is not meant, that a man of carnal mind may not be converted and then love holiness and God’s law.  So Ignatius writes, “Spiritual men cannot do the things of the flesh”; {Ignat. Ad Eph. C. vii.} that is, obviously, so long as they continue spiritual.

      Just so St. John.  He points out the difference between the righteous and the wicked; namely, that the former do righteousness, the latter commit sin.  Then he says, “Every one that is born of God* cannot sin, because of the seed of God which is in him.”  He is righteous, and therefore doeth righteousness; he is a good tree, and therefore cannot bring forth bad fruit; he is spiritual, and therefore cannot do carnal things.  But this does not prove that he may not fall from grace, and so lose his title to be a son of God, and also that seed of God in his heart which keeps him from sin.  “The regenerate man,” says Jerome, “cannot sin so long as he continues in the generation of God ... but, if we admit sin, and the devil enters into the door of our hearts, Christ goes away.”**

            {*πας ο γεγεννημένος.  Rosenmüller says that it is the same as γεννητός יְלוּד, Job 14:1, or τεκνον, as in ver. 10.  And Dr. Hammond observes that the perfect participle indicates that we must not refer the words “born of God” to the moment or instant of regeneration, but to the continuing state of regeneration.  It indicates not a transient, but a permanent condition.}

            {**He thus explains the passage in St. John: “Propterea, inquit, scribo vobis, filioli mei; omnis, qui natus est ex Deo, non peccat, ut non peccetis; et tamdiu sciatis vos in generatione Domini permanere quamdiu non peccaveritis.  Immo, qui in generatione Domini perseverant peccare non possunt.  Quae enim communicatio luci et tenebris?  Christo et Belial? ... Si susceperimus Christum in hospitio nostri pectoris, illico fugamus Diabolum.  Si peccaverimus, et per peccati januam ingresses fuerit Diabolus, protinus Christus recedit.” – Hieron.  Adv. Jovin.  Lib. II. init. Tom. IV. Par. II. p.193.}

      2.  So much of the arguments from Scripture by which the doctrine that grace in the regenerate can never fail has been maintained.  Against this doctrine many passages of Scripture are alleged.

      (1)  There are frequent statements of the condemnation and rejection of such as, having been in a state of grace, fall away from it, and which it is hard to believe are only meant to frighten us away from an impossible danger.  Such are Ezek. 18:24, 33:18.  Matt. 5:13.  Matt. 24:46–51, comp. Luke 21:34–36.  Heb. 10:26–29,38.  2 Pet. 2:20–22.

      (2)  There are declarations, that those only “who endure to the end” shall be saved, those “who keep their garments” shall be blessed; that “if we continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away,” we shall be presented holy in the sight of God.  Matt. 10:22.  Col. 1:22, 23.  Heb. 3:6.  Rev. 16:15.

      Thus final salvation is promised not merely to present, but to continuing and persevering faith.

      (3)  Accordingly, there are numerous warnings against falling away, exhortations to stand fast, and prayers for perseverance and against falling.  Rom. 11:20, 21.  1 Cor. 10:1–10, 12.  1 Cor. 16:13.  Col. 2:6, 7, 8.  1 Thess. 5:19.  Heb. 3:12, 12:15, 16.  2 Pet. 3:17.  Jude 20, 21, 24.  Rev. 16:15.

      All these passages speak of the danger of falling away, and of the final condemnation of such as fall, and warn and pray against falling.  The advocates for the doctrine of final perseverance say that although all grace comes only from God, yet He ordains means to be used for obtaining grace; so although perseverance is the gift of God, and never withholden from such as receive grace at all, yet warnings against backsliding and declarations concerning the punishment of backsliders are useful and necessary means to keep believers in a state of watchfulness, and therefore are instruments in God’s hands to work in them the grace of perseverance, which however could as easily be given without them, and will assuredly be given to all who have once been regenerate.  Their opponents reply that such reasoning is an evident attempt to explain away the obvious sense of Scripture; God’s threatenings could never be denounced against a sin which was impossible.  If utter falling away in the regenerate is in God’s counsels a thing which cannot occur, then can we believe that God would give the most solemn warnings to be found in the whole of Scripture against it?  Would the Apostle put up the most earnest prayers against it?  Would the condemnation pronounced upon it be so severe and so terrible?  But it is argued farther that:

      (4)  There are express and positive statements that men may, nay, do, fall away from grace given and accepted, and so do finally perish.

      The parable of the sower (Matt. 13, Mark 4, Luke 8) contains a statement of this kind.  Four different kinds of hearers are there described.  Of these, one, the way-side hearer, disregards it altogether; one, compared to good ground, receives and profits by it, and brings forth fruit to life eternal.  But two kinds, those like the stony ground, and those like the thorny ground, embrace it and profit by it for a time, and then fall away.  The seed in the stony ground springs up (Matt. 13:5).  Such hearers received the seed with joy (ver. 20), but they last only for a while (ver. 21); they “for a while believe, but in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13).  So the seed which falls among thorns springs up; but the thorns spring up with it, and choke it.  “The cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word” (Matt. 13:22).

      Again, the parable of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:1–10) teaches the same thing.  Christ’s disciples are compared to branches of a Vine, the Lord Himself being that Vine.  “Every branch,” He says, “in Me that beareth not fruit, He” (i. e. God the Father) “taketh away” (ver. 2).  “I am the Vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in Me, and I it, him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without Me ye can do nothing.  If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (vv. 5, 6).

      Heb. 6:4–8 seems to contain a positive statement that men do sometimes so fall away from grace already received as to fall not only finally but hopelessly: “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame,” &c.

      So 2 Pet. 2:21, 22.  The Apostle is evidently speaking of persons who had fallen away from grace, apostates from the faith of Christ.  For though in ver. 20 he speaks only hypothetically, “If after they have escaped the pollutions of the world,” &c., yet in vv. 21, 22, he speaks of their apostasy as having actually occurred: “It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.  But it is happened (συμβέβηκε) unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

      (5)  Finally, it is contended that, with all these proofs from Scripture that grace given may be lost, the doctrine of the indefectibility of grace would never have been thought of, but that it fell naturally into a system.  Accordingly, the more ancient predestinarians, like Augustine, though they believed in the irrespective and immutable decrees of God, yet did not teach the doctrine of absolutely indefectible grace.  But Calvin’s great characteristic was his logical acuteness, which led him to form all his doctrines into harmonious systems.  He could never leave mysterious doctrines in their mystery on the principle that our finite intellects are permitted to grasp only part of the great plans of infinite Wisdom.  The doctrine of final perseverance seemed necessary to the harmony and completeness of the predestinarian scheme; and on that account, not because Scripture taught it, it was adopted and received.

Article  XVII

Of Predestination and Election

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

      As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

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

De Pradestinatione et Electione

      Predestinatio ad vitam, est aeternum Dei propositum, quo ante jacta mundi fundamenta, suo consilio, nobis quidem occulto, constanter decrevit, eos quos in Christo elegit ex hominum genere, a maledicto et exitio liberare, atque (ut vasa in honorem efficta) per Christum, ad aeternam salutem adducere.  Unde qui tam praeclaro Dei beneficio sunt donati, illi Spiritu ejus, opportuno ternpore operante, secundum propositum ejus, vocantur, vocationi per gratiam parent, justificantur gratis, adoptantur in filios Dei, Unigeniti ejus Jesu Christi imagini efficiuntur conformes, in bonis operibus sancte ambulant, et demum ex Dei misericordia pertingunt ad sempiternam felicitatem.

      Quemadmodum praedestinationis, et electionis nostrae in Christo pia, consideratio, dulcis, suavis, et ineffabilis consolationis plena est, vere piis, et iis qui sentiunt in se vim Spiritus Christi, facta carnis, et membra, quae adhuc sunt super terram, mortificantem, animumque ad coelestia et superna rapientem: tum quia fidem nostram de aeterna salute consequenda per Christum plurimum stabilit, atque confirmat, tum quia amorem nostrum in Deum vehementer accendit: hominibus curiosis, carnalibus, et Spiritu Christi destitutis, ob oculos perpetuo versari praedestinationis Dei sententiam, pernitiosissimum est praecipitium, unde illos diabolus protrudit, vel in desperationem, vel in aeque pernitiosam impurissimae vitae securitatem.  Deinde promissiones divinas sic amplecti oportet, ut nobis in sacris literis generaliter propositae sunt, et Dei voluntas in nostris actionibus ea sequenda est, quam in verbo Dei habemus, diserte revelatam.

Section

Section  I – History

      The XVIIth Article is almost, word for word, the same as the original Article of 1552.

      The questions concerning God’s eternal predestination are by no means peculiar to the Christian religion.  The Essenes among the Jews, Zeno and the Stoics, and the followers of Mohammed, were all rigid predestinarians; believing that all the affairs of the world and the actions of the human race were ordered by an eternal and inexorable decree.

      In the Christian Church there has never been any doubt or question, but that the Scriptures teach us concerning the election and predestination of God.  All Christians believe in the doctrine of election.  The question is, therefore, not whether the doctrine of election is true, but what the meaning of election is.  Now on this point there is a vast variety of sentiment.

      1.  Calvinism.  The doctrine of Calvin and the Calvinists is that from all eternity God predestinated a certain fixed number of individuals, irrespective of anything in them, to final salvation and glory; and that all others are either predestined to damnation, or, at least, so left out of God’s decree to glory that they must inevitably perish.

      2.  Arminianism.  The doctrine of Arminius and the Arminians is that from all eternity God predestinated a certain fixed number of individuals to glory; but that this decree was not arbitrary but in consequence of God’s foreknowledge that those so predestinated would make a good use of the grace given; and that, as God necessarily foresees all things, so foreseeing the faith of individuals, He hath in strict justice ordered His decrees accordingly.

      According to both these schemes, election is to life eternal: and the elect are identical with the finally saved.

      3.  Nationalism.  The opinion of Locke and some others is, that the election, spoken of by God in Scripture, does not concern individuals at all, but applies only to nations; that as God chose the Jews at one time to be His people, so He has since ordained certain nations to be brought into the pale of the Christian Church.  Here the elect are all Christian nations.

      4.  Ecclesiastical Election.  Others have held that as the Jews of old were God’s chosen people, so now is the Christian Church; that every baptized member of the Church is one of God’s elect, and that this election is from God’s irrespective and unsearchable decree.  Here therefore election is to baptismal privileges, not to final glory; and the elect are identical with the baptized; and the election constitutes the Church.

      5.  Some have held, that there is an election to baptism of some individuals, and again an election out of the elect: so that some are elected by God’s inscrutable decree to grace, and from among these some by a like inscrutable decree to perseverance and to glory.  Here the elect are, in one sense of the word, identical with the baptized; in another sense of the word, with the finally saved.

      6.  Lastly, some have taught that whereas to all Christians grace enough is given to insure salvation if they will use it, yet to some amongst them is given by God’s eternal decree a yet greater degree of grace, such that by it they must certainly be saved.  This is the theory which has sometimes been called Baxterian, from Richard Baxter, the distinguished nonconformist divine.

      The subject of predestination naturally embraces other cognate subjects, such as original sin, free-will, final perseverance, particular redemption, and reprobation.  The three former have been considered under the IXth, Xth, and XVIth Articles respectively, and much of the history of the predestinarian controversy will be found under the history of those Articles.*

            {*The five points of Calvinism, as they are called, are, –

            1.  Predestination, including Predestination, or election to life eternal, and Reprobation, or Predestination to damnation.

            2.  Particular Redemption, i.e. That Christ died only tar a chosen few.

            3.  Original Sin.

            4.  Irresistible Grace, or effectual calling, the opposite to which is Free will.

            5.  Final Perseverance.}

      From the classification above given it will be evident, that the mere use of the terms election or predestination by a writer will not at all determine in what sense that writer uses them, nor to which of the six classes above enumerated his doctrines may be assigned.

      Among the earlier fathers, especially those of the apostolic age, the language used is mostly general, and therefore difficult to fix to a particular meaning.

      Clement of Rome speaks of a sedition in the Church, “ as alien and foreign from the elect of God.” {της αλλοτρίας και ξένης τοις εκλεκτοις του Θεου μιαρας και ανοσίου στάσευς. – 1 Ep. ad Corinth. 1}  “Ye contended,” he writes, “day and night for the whole brotherhood, that, with compassion and a good conscience, the number of His elect might be saved.” {εις το σώζεσθαι μετ ελέους και συνει δήσεως του αριθμον τον εκλεκτων αυτου. – 1 Ep. ad Corinth. 2.}  To the same Church of Corinth he speaks of God as having “made us unto Himself a part of the election.  For thus it is written, When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels; His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance.  And in another place he saith, Behold the Lord taketh to Himself a nation from the midst of the nations, as a man taketh the first-fruits of his threshing floor, and from that nation shall come the Holy of Holies.”*  “In love have been perfected all the elect of God.” {εν αγάπη ετελειώθησαν πάντες οι εκλεκτοι του Θεου. – Ibid. 49.}  “Now God, who seeth all things, the Father of spirits and the Lord of all flesh, who hath elected our Lord Jesus Christ, and us by Him to be His peculiar people, grant to every soul,” &c. {Ο παντεπόπτης Θεος και Δεσπότης των πνευμάτων και Κύριος πάσης σαρκος, ο εκλεξάμενος τον Κύριον Ιησουν Χριστόν, και ημας δι αυτου εις λαον περιούσιον, κ. τ. λ. – Ibid 58.}

            {*Πατέρα ημων, ος εκλογης μέρος εποίησεν εαυτω.  Ούτω γαρ γέγραπται·  Ότε διεμέρισεν ο Ύψιστος έθνη, ως δε έσπειρεν υιους Αδαμ, έστησεν όρια εθνων κατα αριθμον αγγέλων·  εγενήθη μερις Κυρίου λαος αυτου Ιακωβ, σχοίνισμα κληρονομίας αυτου Ισραηλ·  και εν ετέρω τόπω λέγει·  Ιδου Κύριος λαμβάνει εαυτω έθνος εκ μέσου εθνων, ώσπερ λαμβάνει άνθρωπος την απαρχην αυτου της άλω·  και εξελεύσεται εκ του έθνους εκείνου άγια αγίων. – 1 Ep. ad Corinth, 29.}

      Ignatius addresses the Church of Ephesus as “blessed through the greatness and fullness of God the Father, predestinated before the worlds continually to glory, – glory enduring, unchangeable, united, and elected in true suffering according to the will of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God.” {Ιγνάτος, ο και Θεοφόρος, τη ευλογημένη εν μεγέθει Θεου Πατρός πληρώματι, τη πρωορισμένη προ αιώνων δια παντος εις δόξαν, παράμονον, άτρεπτον, ηνωμένην και εκλελεγμένην, εν πάθει αληθινω, εν θελήματι του Πατρος και Ιησου Χριστου του Θεου ημων, τη εκκλησία τη αξιομακαρίστω τη ούση εν Εφέσω της Ασίας, κ. τ. λ. – Ignat.  Ad Ephes. 1.}  In the same manner he addresses “the holy Church which is in Tralles as “beloved by God the Father of Jesus Christ, elect and worthy of God.” {Ιγνάτος, ο και Θεοφόρος, ηγαπημένη Θεω Πατρι Ιησου Χριστου εκκλησία αγία, τη ούση εν Τράλλεσιν της Ασίας, εκλεκτη και αξιοθέω. – Ignat. Ad Trall. 1.}

      Hermas, in the book of his Visions, constantly speaks of God’s elect: “God, who hath founded His holy Church, will remove the heavens and the mountains, the hills and the seas, ... all things shall be made plain to His elect,” ... or, “shall be filled with His elect.”*  “Canst thou report these things to the elect?” {“Potes haec electis Dei renunciare?” – Lib. I.}  “Go ye and declare to the elect of God His mighty acts.”**  The Apostles, bishops, and ministers are said to have ministered to the elect of God. {“Apostoli et episeopi et doctores et ministri, qui ingressi sunt in clementia Dei, et episcopatum gesserunt, et docuerunt, et ministraverunt sancte et modeste electis Dei qui dormiverunt quique adhuc sunt.” — Lib. i. Vis. tit. b.}

            {*“Ecce Deus virtutum qui ... virtute sua potenti condidit ecclesiam suam quam benedixit: ecce transferet coelos ac montes, colles ac maria, et omnia plana (al. plena), fient electis ejus; ut reddat illis repromissionem quam repromisit,” &c. – Lib. 1. Vis. I. 3.}

            {**“Vade ergo et enarra electis Dei magnalia ipsius.  Et dices illis quod bestia haec figura est pressurae superventurae.  Si ergo praeparaveritis vos, poteritis effugere illam, si cor venturum fuerit purum et sine macula ... Vae dubiis iis, qui audierint verba haec et contempserint; melius erat illis non nasci.” — Lib. i. Vis. iv. 2. }

      Here we have the elect spoken of as identical with the Church.  We even find language which seems to prove that Hermas considered the elect as in a state of probation in this world which might end either in their salvation or in their condemnation.  “Then shall their sins be forgiven which they have committed, and the sins of all the saints, who have sinned even to this day, if they shall repent with all their hearts, and put away all doubts out of their hearts.  For the Lord hath sworn by His glory concerning His elect, having determined this very time, even now, if any one shall sin, he shall not have salvation.” {“Tunc remittentur illis peccata, quae jampridem peccaverunt, et omnibus sanctis qui peccaverunt usque in hodiernum diem, et si toto corde suo egerint poenitentiam, et abstulerint a cordibus suis dubitationes.  Juravit enim Dominator ille, per gloriarn suam, super electos suos, praefinita ista die, etiam nunc si peccaverit aliquis, non habiturum illum salutem.” – Lib. I. Vis. II. 2.  Compare with this the passage cited two notes above.}  On the other hand, in one passage he seems to speak of a mansion of glory for the elect in the world to come: “The white colour represents the age to come, in which shall dwell God’s elect; since the elect shall be pure and spotless unto eternal life.” {“Alba autem pars superventuri est saeculi in quo habitabunt electi Dei, quoniam immaculati et puri erunt electi Dei in vitam aeternam.” – Lib. I. Vis. IV. 3.}

      These are the principal passages in the Apostolical Fathers concerning election and predestination.  It would be a great point gained, if we could clearly ascertain their sentiments on this subject.  They lived before philosophy had produced an effect on the language of theology.  Now there is no question on which philosophy is likely to have produced greater effect than on the question concerning God’s eternal decrees.  When, therefore, we come to the writings of such men as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, we naturally doubt, whether they speak the language of the Church in their days, or the language of their own thoughts and speculations.

      In the passages above cited, there is no marked trace of any of the three schemes which have been designated respectively as Calvinism, Arminianism, or Nationalism.  One passage from Clement may seem to speak the language of Nationalism; but it is only in appearance.  That ancient father applies the term “nation” to the Christian Church; but it is plain that he merely means that, as the Israelites of old were chosen to be God’s peculiar people, so now His Church is, as it were, a nation chosen out of the nations.  He speaks indeed of “the number of God’s elect being saved,” as though there were a definite number of God’s elect, who should be saved in the end; language which, we shall see, is used also by Justin and Irenaeus.  Whether this was intended in the sense which would be affixed to it by Augustine or Calvin must be a question.  We may almost certainly say it was not so used by Justin Martyr.  There is also one passage, the last quoted from Hermas, in which the term elect seems used of those who are chosen to life eternal.  All the other passages from the apostolical fathers identify the whole Church of God with the election, and therefore the elect with the baptized.  It is most undesirable to put any force on language of such importance as the language of writers in the apostolic age.  But on a fair review of the whole, it can hardly appear that these fathers speak of election in any sense but one of the two following: either (1) as an election of individuals to the Church and to baptism, or (2) possibly as an election first to baptism, and then a further election out of the baptized to glory.  On the first sense, the passages seem clear and decided; on the second, it seems but reasonable to admit that there is great doubt.

      In the history of the doctrine of free will {Art. X. Sect. I. p. 261.} we saw that Justin Martyr ascribed free agency to all human beings, and argued that God does not cause actions, because He foresees them. {Dial. p. 290.}  On the contrary, he defends Christians against the charge that they believed in a fatal necessity.  Our belief in the predictions of the prophet does not oblige us to believe that things take place according to fate.  “This only,” he says, “we hold to be fated, that they who choose what is good shall obtain a reward; that they who choose what is evil shall be punished.” {αλλ ειμαρμένην φαμεν απαράβατον ταύτην ειναι, τοις τα καλα εκλεγομένοις, τα άξια επιτίμια·  και τοις ομοίως τα εναντία, τα άξια επίχειρα. – Apol. I. p. 81.}  So again soon after, he says that “we assert future events to have been foretold by the prophets, not because we say that they should so happen by fatal necessity, but because God foreknew the future actions of all men.” {Apol. I. p. 82 a.}  And, presently again he speaks of God deferring the punishment of the wicked, till the “foreknown number of the good and virtuous should be fulfilled.” {και συντελεσθη ο αριθμος των προεγνωσμένων αυτω αγαθων γιγνομένων και εναρετων, κ. τ. λ. – Apol. I. p. 82 d.}  Accordingly Bishop Kaye has concluded that if Justin Martyr speaks anywhere of predestination to life eternal, it is in the Arminian sense or, as it has been called, ex praevisis meritis. {Bp. Kaye’s Justin Martyr, p. 82.}  But when Justin Martyr especially speaks of God’s election, he appears clearly to intend by it an election of individuals out of the world, and the bringing them by His calling to be of His peculiar people the Church.  Thus, he is speaking of the Christian Church in antithesis to the Jewish, and he says, “We are by no means a despicable people, nor a barbarous nation, like the Phrygians and the Carians; but God hath elected us, and has manifested Himself to those who asked not for Him.  Behold I am God, saith He, to a nation that called not on my Name.”  Then, speaking of the calling of Abraham by the grace of Christ, he continues, “By the same voice He hath called us all, and we have come out of the polity in which we lived, living evilly, after the manner of the other inhabitants of the world,” &c. {Ουκουν ουκ ευκαταφρόνητος δημος εσμεν, ουδε βάρβαρον φυλον, ουδε οποια Καρων η Φρυγων έθην, αλλα και ημας εξελέξατο ο Θεος, και εμφανης εγενήθη τοις μη αυτον.  Ιδου Θεος ειμι, φησι τω έθνει οί ουκ επεκαλέσαντο το όνομά μου ... και ημας δε άπαντας δι εκείνης της φωνης εκάλεσε, και εξήλθομεν ήδη απο της πολιτείας εν η εζωμεν, κ. τ. λ. – Dial. p. 347.}

      It is probable therefore that to whatever cause Justin Martyr may have assigned the final salvation of Christians, their election he considered to be a calling in from the people of the world to be members of the Church of Christ; as Abraham was called from among the Gentiles to be the founder of the chosen race.

      Irenaeus, like Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr, speaks of a definite number of persons who shall be saved, and holds the opinion that the world shall last till this number is perfected.  Yet he does not hint that any particular individuals were predestinated, of which that number should consist. {και δια τουτο πληρωθέντος του αριθμοι ου αυτος παρ αυτω προώρισε, παντες οι εγγραφέντες εις ζωην αναστήσονται ... ίνα το σύμμετρον φυλον της προορίσεως απο Θεου ανθρωπότητος αποτελεσθεν την αρμονίαν τηρήση του Πατρος. – Adv. Haer. II. 72.}  As regards predestination to eternal death, he clearly speaks of that as the result of God’s foreknowledge of the wickedness of those whom He condemns, and says that the reason why God gave Pharaoh up to his unbelief was that He knew he never would believe. {“Deus his quidem qui non credunt, sed nullificant eum, infert caecitatem. ... Si igitur et nunc, quotquot scit non credituros Deus, cum sit omnium praecognitor tradidit eos infidelitati eorum, et avertit faciem ab hujusmodi, relinquens eos in tenebris, quas ipsi sibi elegerunt; quid mirum, si et tunc nunquam crediturum Pharaonem, cum his qui cum eo erant, tradidit eos suae infidelitati,” &c – Lib. IV. 48.}  He asserts too, that God puts no constraint on any one to believe; but that, foreknowing all things, He has prepared for all fitting habitations. {“Nec enim lumen deficit propter eos qui semetipsos excaecaverunt, sed illo perseverante quale et est excaecati per suam culpam in caligine constituuntur.  Neque lumen cum magna necessitate subjiciet sibi quemquam: neque Deus coget eum, qui nolit continere ejus artem.  Qui igitur abstiterunt a paterno lumine et transgressi sent legem libertatis, per suam abstiterunt culpam, liberi arbitrii et suae potestatis facti.  Deus autem omnia praesciens, utrisque aptas praeeparavit habitationes,” &c. – Lib. IV. 76; Conf. Lib. V. 27, 28.}  Thus he was evidently no believer in the doctrine since called reprobation, nor in irresistible grace, or effectual calling.

      But it is probable that the meaning which he attached to the Scriptural term election was that God chose and elected certain persons to baptism and to be members of His Church.  In speaking of Esau and Jacob as types of the Jewish and the Christian Church, he explains St. Paul’s language in the ninth of Romans as meaning that God, who knoweth all things, was foretelling the rejection of the Jews and the election of the Gentile Church.*  Explaining the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen, he says that God first planted the vineyard of the human race by the creation of Adam and the election of the fathers; then let it out to husbandmen, the Jews, surrounding it with a hedge, built a tower, and elected Jerusalem.  But when they did not believe, He sent His Son, whom they slew.  Then the tower of election being exalted and beautified, the vineyard, no longer walled round, but laid open to the world, is let to other husbandmen, who will bring forth the fruits.  For the Church is everywhere illustrious; everywhere the wine-press is dug round, because those who receive the Spirit are everywhere.  And soon after, he says that the same Word of God who formerly elected the patriarchs has now elected us.**  Thus it appears that Irenaeus looked on the Jews as formerly, and on the Christian Church as now, the elect people of God; and so he calls “the Church the synagogue or congregation of God, which He hath collected by Himself.” {“Deus stetit in synagoga, &c.  De Patre et Filio et de his qui adoptionem perceperunt, dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia.  Haec enim est synagoga Dei, quam Deus, hoc est, Filius ipse, per semetipsum collegit.” – Lib. III. 6.}

            {*“In ea enim epistola quae est ad Romanos, ait Apostolus: Sed et Rebecca ex uno concubitu habens Isaac patris nostri; a Verbo responsum accepit, ut secundam electionem propositum Dei permaneat, non ex operibus, sed ex vocante, dictium est ei: Duo populi in utero tuo, et duce gentes in ventre tuo, et populus populum superabit, et major serviet minori.  Ex quibus manifestum est non solum prophetationes patriarcharum, sed et partum Rebeccae prophetiam fuisse duorum populorum: et unum quidem esse majorem, alterum vero minorem; et alterum quidem sub servitio, alterum autem liberum; unius autem et ejusdem patris.  Unus et idem Deus noster et illorum; qui est absconsorum cognitor, qui scit omnia antequam fiant; et propter hoc dixit; Jacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui.” – Lib. IV. 38.}

            {**“Plantavit enim Deus vineam humani generis, primo quidem per plasmationem Adae, et electionem patrum: tradidit autem eam colonis per eam legis dationem quae est per Moysem; sepem autem circumdedit, id est, circumterminavit eorum culturam; et turrim aedificavit, Hierusalem elegit ... Non credentibus autem illis, &c. ... tradidit eam Dominus Deus non jam circumvallatam, sed expansam in universum mundam aliis colonis, reddentibus fructus temporibus suis, turre electionis exaltata ubique et speciosa.  Ubique enim praeclara est ecclesia, et ubique circumfossum torcular: ubique enim sunt qui suscipiunt Spiritum ... Sed quoniam et patriarchas qui elegit et nos idem est Verburn Dei,” &c. – Lib. IV. 70.}

      Tertullian says little or nothing to guide us to his view of the doctrine of election, except that, in arguing against certain heretics, he maintains that it is unlawful so to ascribe all things to the will of God as to take away our own responsibility and freedom of action. {“Non est bonae et solidae fidei, sic omnia ad voluntatem Dei referre: et ita adulari unumquemque, dicendo nihil fieri sine jussione Ejus: ut non intelligamus aliquid esse in nobis ipsis.  Caeterum excusabitur omne delictum, si continuerimus nihil fieri a nobis sine Dei voluntate.” – De Exhortatione Castitatis, C. 2.  See Bishop Kaye’s view of Tertullian’s opinion on this subject in his account of Tertullian, p. 341.}

      Clement of Alexandria appears to have used the same language as his predecessors, concerning the Church as the election, and all Christians as the elect of God.  He especially defines the Church as the general assembly of the elect. {το άθροισμα των εκλεκτων εκκλησίαν καλω. – Stromat. VIII. p. 846, Potter.}  So he quotes Hermas as saying, that the Church is held together by that faith by which God’s elect are saved. {Η τοίνυν συνέχουσα την εκκλησίαν, ως φησιν ο ποιμην, αρετη η πίστις εστι, δε_ης σώζονται οι εκλεκτοι του Θεου. – Stromat. Lib. II. p. 458, Potter.}  The Church, according to Clement, is the body of Christ, a holy and spiritual company; but they who belong to it, but live not uprightly, are, as it were, but the flesh of the body. {See Stromat. Lib. VII. p. 885.}  He holds the Church to be one, into which are collected all those who are righteous according to the purpose (κατα πρόθεσιν); and continues, that the Church is one, which collects together by the will of God those already ordained, whom God hath predestinated. {μίαν ειναι την αληθη εκκλησίαν, εις ην οι κατα πρόθεσιν δίκαιοι εγκαταλέγονται ... μόνην ειναι φάμεν την αρχαίαν και καθολικην εκκλησίαν ... δι ενός του Κυρίου συνάγουσαν τους ήδη κατατεταγμένους, ους προώρισεν ο Θεος. – Strom. VII. p. 899.}

      But then when we come to the ground or cause of God’s election, we find that Clement seems to speak of it as being God’s foreknowledge.  Thus, in the last passage referred to, he says the Church embraces “all whom God hath predestinated, having foreknown that they would be righteous before the foundation of the world.” {ους προώρισεν ο Θεος, δικαίους εσομένους προ καταβολης κόσμου εγνωκώς. – Ibid.}  So he speaks of each person as partaker of the benefit, according to his own will; for the choice and exercise of the soul constitutes the difference of the election. {μεταλαμβάνει δε της ευποιΐας έκαστος ημυν προς ο βούλεται·  επει την διαφοραν της εκλογης αξία γενομένη ψυχης αίρεσίς τε και συνάσκησις πεποίηκεν. – Strom. V. sub fine, p. 734.}  Accordingly, Bishop Kaye thinks, “it is evident that Clement must have held the doctrine of predestination in the Arminian sense”; {Bp. Kaye, Clement. Alex. p. 434.} and Mr. Faber says, that “this prescientific solution is for the first time enounced by the speculative Clement of Alexandria.” {Faber, Primitive Doctrine of Election, p. 269.}

      Whether Justin and Irenaeus had in any degree enounced the same before may be a fair question.  The causation of sin they clearly refused to attribute to God, declaring that where He is said to have hardened, it was because He foresaw the sinner was irreclaimable.  And though Clement of Alexandria speaks more clearly than either of them, concerning God’s foreknowledge as the ground of His predestination, yet he does not differ from them in the view that the Church of God is composed of the elect people of God.

      Some divines of the Roman Communion {Bossuet, Defense de la Tradition et des Saints Pères, Tom. II. Liv. XII. chap. 26; Lumper, Historia Theologico-Critica, Tom. IV. p. 285.} have endeavoured to discover the doctrines of St. Augustine in the writings of Clement; but it is only because he ascribes the beginning, the continuance, and the perfection of religion in the soul to the grace of God, that they have thence inferred that as it is all of grace, so it must all be of absolute predestination.  Yet every one but slightly acquainted with the predestinarian controversy must know that the chief disputants on every side of this troublesome argument have all alike agreed in ascribing the whole work of religion in the soul to God’s grace and the operations of His Spirit; the question having only been, Is that grace irresistible or not?  Is the freedom of the will utterly extinguished by it, or not?  The passage especially referred to by Bossuet, in proof of the Austinism (so to speak) of Clement, is the prayer with which he concludes his Paedagogue, and which is simply – that God would grant us that following His commandments we may become fully like Him, and that He would grant that all passing their lives in peace, and being translated into His kingdom or polity, having sailed over the waves of sin, may be borne through still waters by His Holy Spirit, and may praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; day and night unto the perfect day.  And to this prayer he adds, that “Since the Paedagogue (i. e. the Word of God) has brought us into His Church, and joined us to Himself, it will be well for us being there to offer up thanksgiving to the Lord, in return for His gracious guidance and instruction. {Paedagog. Lib. III. sub fine, p. 311.  The concluding words are: επει δε εις την εκκλησίαν ημας καταστήσας ο Παιδαγωγος αυτος εαυτω παρακατέθετο τω διδασκαλικω και πανεπισκόπω Λόγω, καλως αν έχοι ημας ενταυθα γενομένους, μισθον ευχαριστίας δικαίας, κατάλληλον αστείου παιδαγωγίας αιν_ι αναπέμψαι Κυρίω.}  This passage, however, rather corresponds with what we have seen to be the general doctrine of Clement, as probably of his predecessors, namely, that God’s election brought men to baptism and to His Church, and that His grace, given to them there, enabled them, if not determined to quench the Spirit, to go on shining more and more unto the perfect day.

      From this time forth, although the belief in God’s election of individuals into His Church, and a frequent identification of the Church with the elect, is observable in all the patristic writers of eminence; yet when the question concerning the final salvation of individuals was brought into contact with the question of the Divine decrees, that solution of the difficulty, since called Arminian, was generally adopted.

      Origen, the pupil of Clement of Alexandria, himself the greatest speculator of early times and the great maintainer of the freedom of the will, adopted it in its fullest and most definite form.  He expressly says that God, who foresees all things, no more causes man’s sins nor forces his obedience than one who looks at a person walking in a slippery place is the cause that he should stumble.*  Such was the progress of opinion among the early Christians, and so general was the spread of the foreknowledge theory in the third and fourth centuries, that our great Bishop Andrewes considered almost all the fathers to have believed in a foreseen faith, “which,” he adds, “even Beza confesses”; {Andrewes, Judgment of the Lambeth Articles.} and Hooker, himself an illustrious disciple of St. Augustine, says that “all the ancient fathers of the Church of Christ have evermore with uniform consent agreed that reprobation presupposeth foreseen sin as a most just cause, whereupon it groundeth itself.” {Answer to a letter of certain English Protestants.}

            {*Ωσπερ εί τις ορων τινα δια μεν αμαθίαν προπετη δια δε την προπέτειαν αναλογίστως επιβαίνοντα οδου ολισθήρας, και καταλάβοι πεπεισθαι ολισθήσαντα, ουχι αίτιος του ολίσθου εκείνω γίνεται·  ούτω νοντέον τον Θεον τροεωρακότα οποιος έσται έκαστος, και τας αιτίας του τοιουτον αυτον έσεσθαι καθοραν και ότι αμαρτήσεται τάδε γινώσκει, και κατορθώσει τάδε·  και ει χρη λέγειν ου την πρόγνωσιν αιτίαν των γινομένων·  ου γαρ εφάπτεται του προεγνωσμένου αμαρτησομένου ο Θεος, όταν αμαρτάνη·  αλλα παραδοξότερον μεν, αληθες δε ερουμεν, το εσόμενον αίτιον του τοιάνδε ειναι την περι αυτου πρόγνωσιν·  ου γαρ επει έγνωσται, γίνεται, αλλ επει γίνεσθαι έμελλεν, έγνωσται. – Origen. Philocal. C. XXIII.}

      So much was this the case, that even St. Augustine himself, when first entering upon the question of predestination, taught that it was contingent on God’s foreknowledge of the faith or unbelief of individuals.*  But his farther progress in the Pelagian controversy, where he had to contend against those who grievously abused the doctrine of man’s free will, led him to reconsider the questions concerning the grace of God and His predestination and purpose.  Indeed he asserts, and that truly, that, before the Pelagian controversy, he had written concerning free will almost as if he had been disputing against Pelagians. {Retractationum, Lib. I. cap. IX.  Tom. I. p. 15.}  But his statements concerning God’s foreknowledge, as antecedent to his predestination, he absolutely retracts.**  Thenceforth his belief appears to have been that Adam fell freely,{De Corrept. et Grat. 28, Tom. X. p. 763.} that, all mankind being born in sin, God’s inscrutable wisdom and mercy, for good reasons but reasons unknown to us, determined to rescue some from sin and damnation: {De Dono Perseverantiae, 31, p. 837; De Corrept. et Gratia, § 16, Tom. X. p. 758.}  Accordingly He prepared His Church, and predestinated some to be brought into the Church by baptism, who thereby became partakers of regenerating grace.  These, and these only, could be saved. {De Dono Perseverantiae, 23, Tom. X. p. 832.}  Yet there was a further decree, even concerning the regenerate, namely, that some of them should die before committing actual sin, and therefore be saved; but that of those who grew up to maturity, some should be led on by the grace of God to final perseverance, and therefore to glory: whereas others, not being gifted according to God’s eternal purpose with the grace of perseverance, would not persevere at all; or if they persevered for a time, would in the end fall away and be lost. {Ibid. § 1, Tom. X. pp. 821, 822; § 2, p. 823; § 21, p. 831; §§ 32, 33, p. 838.}  It would have been just that all should be damned; it is therefore of free mercy that some should be saved. {De Natura et Gratia, cap. V. Tom. X. p. 129.}  God therefore graciously frees some, but leaves others by just judgment to perdition. {De Dono Perseverantiae, § 35; Tom. X. p. 839.}  “Of two infants, both born in sin, why one is taken and the other left; of two grown persons, why one is called so as to follow the calling, the other, either not called, or not called so as to follow the calling; these are in the inscrutable decrees of God.  And of two godly men, why to one is given the grace of perseverance, but to another it is not given, this is still more in the inscrutable will of God.  Of this, however, all the faithful ought to be certain, that one was predestinated, and the other not,” &c.***  The baptized and regenerate may be called of the elect, when they believe and are baptized, and live according to God; but they are not properly and fully elect, unless it is also ordained that they shall persevere and live holily to the end. {De Correptione et Gratia, § 16, Tom. X. p. 758.}

            {*“Respondemus. praescientia Dei factum esse, qua novit etiam de nondum natis, quails quisque futurus sit ... Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusquam in praescientia, quae ipse daturus, sed fidem elegit in praescientia: ut quem sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegerit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando etiam vitam aeternam consequeretur.” – Proposit. Ex. Epist. ad Romanos Expositio.  Tom. III. pars 2, 916.}

            {**“Item disputans quid elegerit Deus in nondum nato ... ad hoc perduxi ratiocinationem, ut dicerem, Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusquam in praescientia, quae ipse daturus est; sed fidem elegit in praescientia, ut quem sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegerit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bonae operando etiam vitam aeternam conesequeretur: nondum diligentius quaesiveram, nec adhuc inveneram qualis sit electio gratis.” – Retract. Lib. I. cap. XXIII. Tom. I. p. 35.}

            {***De Dono Perseverantiae, § 21, Tom. X. p. 831: “De duobus autem parvulis originali peccato pariter obstrictis, cur iste assumatur, ille relinquatur; et ex duobus aetate jam grandibus, cur iste ita vocetur, ut vocantem sequatur; ille autem aut non vocetur, aut non ita vocetur inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei.  Ex duobus autem piis, cur huic donetur perseverantia usque in finem, illi non donetur inscrutabiliora sunt judicia Dei.  Illud tamen fidelibus debet esse certissimum, hunc esse ex praedestinatis, illum non esse.”}

      These statements of St. Augustine gave considerable uneasiness to many who agreed with him in his general views of doctrine.  The members of the monastery of Adrumetum were especially troubled by these discussions. {See the correspondence of Augustine with Valentinus. – August. Opp. Tom. II. pp. 791–799.}  In consequence, St. Augustine wrote his treatises De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, and De Correptione et Gratia.  In a short time, the clergy of Marseilles doubting the soundness of St. Augustine’s view, Prosper and Hilary {Generally supposed to be the Bishop of Arles, though the Benedictine editor gives good reasons for thinking it may have been another person of the same name.} wrote letters to him, stating the scruples of the Gallican clergy, thank ing him in general for his defence of the truth, but saying that hitherto the Catholic faith had been defended, without recourse to such a theory of predestination.*  The Gallican clergy state, that their own belief had hitherto been that God’s predestination was founded on prevision of faith. {Ibid.  § 4.}

            {*“Quid opus fuit hujuscemodi disputationis incerto tot minus intelligentium corda turbari?  Neque enim minus utiliter sine hac definitione, aiunt, tot annis, a tot tractatoribus, tot praecedentibus libris et tuis et aliorum, cum contra alios, tum maxime contra Pelagianos, Catholicam fidem fuisse defensam.” – Epist. Hilar. § 8; Aug. Opp. Tom. X. p. 787.  See also De Dono Persev. § 52, Tom. X. p. 850.}

      Of these Massilians there appear to have been two parties, one infected with Semi-Pelagian errors, the other sound and catholic. {Epist. Prosper. § 3; Aug. Op. Tom. X. p. 779; De Praedestinat. § 2, p. 791.}  Both, however, agreed in being startled and displeased with the doctrines of St. Augustine, and in esteeming them new and unheard of.  Among those who were thus dissatisfied, Prosper mentions Hilary of Arles, {Epist. Prosper. § 9, p. 873.} a bishop of the first learning and piety of that age.

      In answer to these letters Augustine wrote his two treatises, De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae.  He acknowledges, as in his book of Retractations, that he now saw more clearly than formerly; {De Praedestin. § 7, Tom. X. p. 793.} yet he says that he had implicitly taught the same doctrines before, but heresies bring out more clearly the truth. {De Dono Persever. § 53, Tom. X. p. 851.}  He also says the earlier fathers did not write much on these doctrines, because they had no Pelagius to write against. {De Praedestin. § 27, p. 808.}  Still he thinks that he can find support from passages in St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Ambrose.  From St: Cyprian he quotes, “We must glory in nothing, as we have nothing of our own.” {“In nullo gloriandum, quando nostrum nihil sit.” – Cypr. Ad Quirinum, Lib. III. Cap. 4; August.  De Praedest. § 7, Tom. X. p. 753; De Dono Persever. § 36, p. 841; § 48, p. 848.}  And again he refers to St. Cyprian’s interpretation of the petition in the Lord’s prayer, “Hallowed be thy Name,” as meaning, that we pray that His name may be sanctified in us.  And this he further explains to signify that we pray that we, who have been sanctified in baptism, may persevere in that which we have begun. {Cyprian, In Dominic.  Orat.; August. De Dono Persever. § 4, p. 824.}  Hence St. Augustine concludes that Cyprian held the doctrine of perseverance in the Augustinian sense of that doctrine.

      From Gregory Nazianzen he cites an exhortation to confess the doctrine of the Trinity, which concludes with an expression of confident hope, that God, who first gave them to believe, would also give them to confess the faith. {δώσει γάρ ευ οιδα ο το πρωτον δους, και το δεύτερον, και μάλιστ. – Greg. Nazianz.  Oratio 44 in Pentecostem.  “Gregorium addarnus et tertium qui et credere in Deum, et quod credimus, confiteri, Dei donum esse testatur ... Dabit enim, certus sum; qui dedit guod primum est, dabit et quod secundum est: qui dedit credere, dabit et confiteri.” – Aug. De Dono Perserer. 49, p. 849.}

      From Ambrose he alleges two passages.  In one, St. Ambrose simply argues that if a man says he followed Christ because it seemed good to himself to do so, he does not deny the will of God, for man’s will is prepared by God. {“Quod cum dicit, non negat Deo visum: a Deo enim praeparatur voluntas hominum.  Ut enim Deus honorificetur a sancto, Dei gratia est.” – Ambros.  Comment. in Lucam apud August.  Ibid.}  The other passage is as follows: “Learn also, that He would not be received by those not converted in simplicity of mind.   For if He would, He could from indevout have made them devout.  Why they received Him not, the evangelist has himself related, saying, Because His face was as of one going to Jerusalem.  For the disciples were desiring to be received into Samaria, but those whom God thinks good He calls, and whom He wills He makes religious.” {“Simul disce, inquit, quid recipi noluit a non simplici mente conversis.  Nam si voluisset, ex indevotis devotos fecisset.  Cur autem non receperint eum, evangelista ipse commemoravit, dicens.  Quia facies ejus erat euntis in Jerusalem.  Discipuli autem recipi intra Samariam gestiebant.  Sed Deus quos dignatur vocat, et quem vult religiosum faciet.” – Ambros.  Comment. in Lucam, Lib. VII apud Augustin.  Ibid.}

      These are the passages alleged by St. Augustine in proof that more ancient fathers than himself held his view of predestination.  With the exception of the last from St. Ambrose, it will appear to most people that, if St. Augustine had not brought weightier arguments from Scripture than he did from the fathers, he would hardly have succeeded in settling his system so firmly in the minds of his followers.  The language of the last passage indeed appears, at first sight, strongly to resemble the language of St. Austin.  But it is by no means clear that even this passage does not accord with the views of those fathers who held the election of individuals to the Church and to baptismal grace, but believed that any farther predestination was from foreseen faith; and it is capable of proof, that such were in fact the views generally held by St. Ambrose.*  This passage, if fairly interpreted, contains probably no contradiction of his other statements.

            {*See this very successfully shown by Faber, Primitive Doctrine of Election, Bk. I. ch. VIII. p. 168, &c.  The following passage shows clearly that he held the views of Clement and Origen concerning God’s prevision of faith as the ground of His predestination to glory.  In discussing Matt. 20:23, he writes: “Denique ad Patrem referens addidit: Quibus paratum est, ut ostenderet Patrem quoque non petitionibus deferre solere, sed meritis, quia Deus personarum acceptor non est.  Unde et Apostolus ait, Quos praescivit, et praedestinavit.  Non enim ante praedestinavit quam praesciret, sed quorum merita praescivit, eorum praemia praedestinavit.” – De Fide ad Gratianum, Lib. V. cap. 2, sub fine.  Mr. Faber has clearly shown that elsewhere St. Ambrose maintains the doctrine of ecclesiastical election.}

      It is, of course, a question of no small interest, whether St. Augustine’s elders in the faith held the same doctrine with himself on the predestination of God, or whether he was the first to discover it in Scripture.  That so learned a divine could find no stronger passages in any of their writings than those just mentioned is much like a confession of the difficulty of the proof.  His own opinions must have great and deserved weight; but if they were novel, we can hardly accept them as true.  The passages already quoted from the earliest fathers are all we have to guide us in this question; for it seems now an admitted fact that from Origen to St. Augustine irrespective individual election to glory was unheard of.

      Soon after the correspondence with the Massilian Christians, A. D. 430, St. Augustine died, “without any equal” says Hooker, “in the Church of Christ from that day to this.”  Prosper followed in the steps of his great master with constancy and success; but he exceeded him in the strength of his predestinarian sentiments: for, whereas Augustine held that the wicked perish from their natural sins, being passed over in God’s decree, but not actually predestinated to damnation, Prosper seems plainly to have taught the reprobation of the non-elect. {Epist. ad Ruffinum, Cap. XIV; Append. ad Op. Augustin. Tom. X. p. 168.}  He drew up a book of sentences from the writings of St. Augustine; {See Appendix to Vol. X. of St. Augustine’s Works, p. 223, seq.} and with the aid of Celestine and Leo, Bishops of Rome, was successful in opposing the Pelagian heresy.

      Not long after, we read of a priest named Lucidus, who, taking up Augustine’s predestinarianism, carried it into lengths to which Augustine had never gone.  Faustus, Bishop of Riez, who himself was inclined to Semi-Pelagianism, succeeded in inducing him to recant.  A synod was assembled at Arles, A. D. 475, where the errors of Lucidus were condemned, and his recantation was received.  Some of these errors were, that “God’s foreknowledge depresses men to hell, – that those who perished could not have been saved, – that a vessel of dishonour could never become a vessel of honour, – that Christ did not die for all men, nor wills all men to be saved.” {Conc. Tom. IV. p. 1041.  See also Hooker’s Works, edit. Keble, Oxford, 1836; Vol. II. Appendix, p. 736, notes.}

      In the year 529 was held the second Council of Orange at which Caesarius of Arles presided.  Its canons and decrees bear the signatures of fourteen bishops, and were approved by Boniface II, Bishop of Rome.  They are chiefly directed against the errors of the Semi-Pelagians.  But to the twenty-five canons on this subject there are appended three declarations of doctrine.  1. That by the grace of baptism all baptized persons can, if they will, be saved.  2. That if any hold that God has predestinated any to damnation, they are to be anathematized.  3. That God begins in us all good by His grace, thereby leading men to faith and baptism, and that, after baptism, by the aid of His grace, we can do His will. {Concil. IV. 1666; Appendix to Vol. X. of St. Augustine’s Works, p. 157.}  These propositions of the Council of Orange, coming immediately after canons against Semi-Pelagianism and exaggerated notions of free will, express as nearly as possible a belief in Ecclesiastical Election (i. e. election to the church and to baptismal privileges) but reject the peculiar doctrines of St. Austin.

      Some mention was made of Goteschalc in the history of the Xth Article. {See above under Article X.}  He was a Benedictine monk of the convent of Orbais in the diocese of Soissons, about A. D. 840.  He was a great admirer of St. Augustine, and revived his views of predestination; though, like Lucidus, he appears to have gone much beyond his master.  If we may believe the account of his doctrines given by Hincmar, he taught that there was a double predestination, of the elect to glory, and of the reprobate to death.  God of His free grace has unchangeably predestinated the elect to life eternal; but the reprobate, who will be condemned by their own demerits, He has equally predestinated to eternal death. {Hincmar, De Praedestin. Cap. 5; Cave, Hist. Lit. Tom. I. p. 528.}  He taught also that Christ did not die for those who were predestinated to damnation, but only for those who were predestinated to life. {Hincmar, Ibid. c. 27; Cave, Ibid.  Archbishop Usher wrote a history of the controversy concerning Goteschalc.}  Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, opposed him with great zeal, and summoned a council at Mentz, A. D. 848, which condemned Goteschalc’s opinions, and then sent him to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who assembled a synod at Quiercy, which degraded him from the priesthood, obliged him to burn the tract which he had delivered to Rabanus Maurus in justification of his doctrines, and committed him to prison, where he lay for twenty-one years, and then died. {See Cave, as above; and Mosheim, Cent. IX. pt. II. ch. III.}

      The discussions between Thomists and Scotists, among the schoolmen, have also been referred to under Art. X. {See above under ArticleX.  See also Neander, C. H. VIII. p. 171.}  The former were followers of Thomas Aquinas, who himself followed St. Augustine.  They appear to have held irrespective predestination to life; but to have admitted neither reprobation, partial redemption, nor final perseverance, in the sense in which the two former were held by Lucidus and Goteschalc. {Archbishop Laurence, in the learned notes to his Bampton Lectures, seems to contend that none of the schoolmen believed in predestination in the absolute and irrespective sense in which St. Augustine held it.  But it seems to me that the very passages which he quotes from Aquinas prove that he did hold Augustine’s view of predestination to life, though he clearly denied reprobation, and the certainty of individual perseverance: e. g. “Deus habet praecientiam etiam de peccatis; sed praedestinatio est de bonis salutaribus.” – Aquin.  Exposit. in Rom. cap. 8; Laurence, p. 353.  See also the passages immediately following, and the quotations from Aquinas ap. Laurence, p. 152; where his view of perseverance seems exactly the same as that which we have seen above to have been St. Augustine’s.}

      We saw under Article X how strongly Luther, in his earlier writings, spoke of the slavery of the human will, and the necessity under which it was constrained. {Above under Article X.}  In the first edition of the Loci Theologici, Melancthon held language of the same kind.  But in the second edition these expressions were all withdrawn; and, as we saw in the last Article, Luther later in life condemned what are called Calvinistic views of election.  Archbishop Laurence has shown by abundant and incontrovertible evidence that after the diet of Augsburg, A. D. 1530, when the famous Lutheran Confession was presented to the Emperor, Luther and Melancthon entirely abandoned the high views of absolute predestination which they had at first adopted.  Luther continually exhorted his followers to abstain from all such speculations, and to believe that because they were baptized Christians, they were God’s elect, and to rest in the general promises of God. {See Laurence, Bampton Lectures, note 6, to Serm. VII. pp. 355, seq.  See especially Lutheri Opera, VI. p. 355; Laurence, pp. 356, 357.}  Luther expressly approved {Preface to Vol. I of his Works.  Wittenb. 1545; Laurence, p. 250.} of the later edition of Melancthon’s Loci Theologici, put forth A. D. 1535, in which his former views of predestination were retracted. {See Laurence, p. 249; Serm. II. note 16.  Serm. VII. note 7.}  He himself speaks of the predestinarian controversies set on foot in his own time, as the work of the devil. {Opp. Tom. V. p. 197.  See under History of Article XVI.}  Melancthon too in the strongest terms condemned what he called the Stoical and Manichean rage, and urged all people to fly from such monstrous opinions. {See his language largely quoted, Laurence, pp. 159, 162, 163, 241, 359, 366, 367, 370.  Some of the same passages may be seen in Faber, Primitive Doctrine of Election, pp. 350, 351, 352.}

      The doctrine both of Luther and Melancthon, after their first change of opinion, appears to have been very nearly that which, we have reason to conclude, was the doctrine of the earliest fathers.  They clearly taught that Christ died for all men, and that God willed all to be saved.  They held that all persons brought to baptism and to the Church were to be esteemed the elect people of God, having been led to baptism by the gracious purpose of God.  They taught too, that God’s purposes were to be generally considered, and His promises generally interpreted, i. e. as implying His general designs concerning Christians and the human race, and as concerning classes of persons, according to their respective characters.*

            {*Luther’s sentiments on universal grace are shown by Archbishop Laurence, pp. 160, 359.  On his and Melancthon’s belief in baptismal election see p. 157; e. g. “Quicquid hic factum est, id omne propter nos factum, qui in illum credimus, et in nomen ejus baptizati, et ad salutem destinati, atque electi sumus.” – Luth. Opp. Tom. VII. p. 355; Laurence, p. 357.  “De effectu electionis teneamus hanc consolationem; Deum, volentem non perire totum genus humanum, semper propter Filium per misericordiam vocare, trahere et colligere Ecclesiam, et recipere assentientes, atque ita velle semper aliquam esse ecclesiam, quam adjuvat et salvat.” – Melancth.  Loc. Theolog. De Praedest.; Laurence, p. 357.  See other passages there to the same effect.  See also Faber, Prim. Doct. of Election, p. 374, note; who brings numerous passages from Melancthon to prove that he held election to baptismal grace.}

      Zuinglius was an absolute predestinarian, ascribing all things to the purpose and decrees of God; but he materially differed from the Calvinist divines who followed him, in holding that God’s mercies in Christ, though given irrespectively, and from absolute predestination, were bestowed not only on Christians, but on infants who die without actual sin, and on heathens, who “had grace to live a virtuous life, though ignorant of the Redeemer.” {“Nihil restat, quo minus inter gentes quoque Deus sibi deligat, qui observent et post fata illi jungantur; libera est enim electio ejus.” – Zuing. Oper. Tom. II. p. 371; Faber, Prim. Doct. of Election, p. 373; Laurence, Serm. V. notes 1, 2, pp. 295–302.}

      In the Council of Trent, when the question of predestination was discussed, no fault was found with the Lutheran statements on this head; but several points were found for discussion in the writings of the Zuinglians.  Many of the Tridentine divines took views of predestination similar to those of St. Augustine, though these were strongly opposed by the Franciscans.  Catarinus propounded an opinion much like that afterwards held by Baxter that of Christians, some were immutably elected to glory, others were so left that they might or might not be saved.  All agreed to condemn the doctrine commonly called Final Perseverance. {Sarpi, p. 197.}

      Calvin, with the love of system and logical precision which was so characteristic of him, rejected every appearance of compromise and every attempt to soften down the severity of the high predestinarian scheme.  Advancing, therefore, far beyond the principles of his great master, St. Augustine, he not only taught that all the elect are saved by immutable decree, but that the reprobate are damned by a like irreversible sentence, a sentence determined concerning them before the foundation of the world, and utterly irrespective of the.foreknowledge of God.*  Nay! God’s foreknowledge of their reprobation and damnation is the result of His having predestinated it; not His predestination the result of His foreknowledge. {Institut. III. xxi. 6.}  The very fall of Adam was ordained, because God saw good that it should be so; though, why he saw good, it is not for us to say.  But no doubt He so determined, partly because thereby the glory of His Name would be justly set forth. {“Lapsus enim primus homo, quia Dominus ita expedire censuerat: cur censuerit, nos latet.  Certum tamen est non aliter censuisse, nisi quia videbat nominis sui gloriam rode merito illustrari.” – Lib. III. xxiii. 8.}  Those who are thus elect to glory, and those only, are called effectually, i.e. irresistibly; whereas the non-elect, or reprobate, have only the external calls of the word and the Church. {Lib. III. xxiv. 1. seq.}  Those thus effectually called, are endued with the grace of final perseverance, so that they can never wholly fall away from grace. {Lib. III. xxiv. 6, 7.}

            {*“Aliis vita aeterna, aliis damnatio aeterna praeordinata.” – Institut. III. xxi. 5.  “Quod ergo Scriptura clare ostendit dicimus, aeterno et inmmtabili consilio Deum semel constituisse quos olim semel assumere vellet in salutem, quos rursum exitio devovere.  Hoc consilium quoad electos in gratuita, ejus misericordia fundatum esse asserimus, nullo humans; dignitatis respectu: quos vero damnationi addicit, his justo quidem et irreprehensibili, sed incomprehensibili ipsius judicio, vitae aditum praecludi.” – Ibid. III. xxi. 7.}

      These views, with little variation, were adopted by the different bodies of Christians which were reformed on the Calvinistic model.  Sufficient account has been given under Article X of the principal proceedings of the Synod of Dort.  The Remonstrants, who agreed with Arminius, and against whom that synod directed its decrees, had adopted that theory concerning God’s predestination which had been current among the fathers from Origen to Augustine. {Calvin himself owns that Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome held the Arminian view of election. – Institut. III. xxii. 8.}  They taught that God’s predestination resulted from His foreknowledge.  They ascribed all good in man to the grace of the Spirit of God; but they held that God determined to save eternally those who He foresaw would persevere in His grace to the end, and that He destined to damnation those who He knew would persevere in their unbelief.  These views were rejected and condemned by the synod, which distinctly enunciated the five points of Calvinism. {See Mosheim, Cent. XVII. Sect. II. ch II. § 11; Heylyn, Histor. Quinquartic. Part II. ch. iv.  And for the decrees of Dordrecht on Predestination, see Sylloge. Confess. p. 406.}

      The disputes on the same subject, which have prevailed in the Church of Rome since the Council of Trent, were all sufficently alluded to under Article X. {Above, under Article X.}

      The doctrine of our own Reformers on this deep question, and the meaning of the XVIIth Article, have been much debated.  The Calvinistic divines of our own communion have unhesitatingly claimed the Article as their own; although the earnest desire which they showed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to introduce the far more express language of the Lambeth Articles, shows that they were not fully satisfied with the wording of it.  On the other hand, the Arminians assert that the seventeenth Article exactly expresses their own views.  The Arminians agree with the Calvinists in holding that God by his secret counsel hath predestinated some to life eternal, others to eternal death.  They differ from them in that, whereas the Calvinists attribute this predestination to God’s sovereign, irrespective, and though doubtless just, yet apparently arbitrary will, the Arminians attribute it to His eternal foreknowledge.  Now the Article says nothing concerning the moving cause of predestination; and therefore speaks as much the language of Arminius as of Calvin.  The latter clauses of the Article appear specially designed to guard against the dangers of the Calvinistic theory, and therefore the former cannot have been intended to propound it.  Moreover the sentiments concerning election most prevalent in the Church before the Reformation were that God predestinated to life and death, not according to His absolute will, but according as He foresaw future faith or unbelief; and there being no ground for supposing that the English reformers had been mixed up with any of the predestinarian controversies of Calvin and the Swiss reformers, there is every ground, it is said, for supposing that the Article ought to be taken in the Arminian, not in the Calvinistic sense.

      In what sense the English reformers really did accept the doctrine of God’s election, and in what sense the XVIIth Article is to be interpreted, is truly a question of considerable difficulty.  The language of Cranmer and Ridley, and of our own Liturgy, Articles and Homilies, is remarkably unlike Calvin’s Concerning effectual calling and final perseverance. {Concerning effectual calling see particularly the original Xth Article, quoted above; and the whole History of Article X.  On Final Perseverance, see History of Art. XVI.}  It is also clear, that the English Reformers held, and expressed in our formularies, with great clearness and certainty, the universality of redemption through Christ. {“The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world.” – Art. XXXI.  “God the Son, who hath redeemed me and all mankind.” – Catechism.  “A full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.” – Prayer of Consecration at the Holy Communion.}  So that, in three out of five points of Calvinism, Particular Redemption, Effectual Calling, and Final Perseverance, the English reformers were at variance with Calvin.

      Still, no doubt, it is possible that they may have been un-Calvinistic in all these points, and yet have agreed with St. Augustine on the general notion and causation of God’s predestination; for we have seen that Augustine’s views were materially different from Calvin’s.

      It is pretty certain that Calvin’s system had not produced much influence, at the time the XVIIth Article was drawn up.  It is true, the first edition of his Institutes was written early in his career; and that contains strong predestinarian statements.  But the great discussion on this head at Geneva and the publication of his book De Praedestinatione did not take place till A. D. 1552, the very year in which the Articles were put forth.

      It has moreover been clearly shown, that the earlier Articles of the Church of England were drawn up from Lutheran models, agreeing remarkably with the language of Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg. {See Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, passim, and the historical sections to several of the foregoing Articles.}  Archbishop Laurence has plainly proved that the greatest intimacy and confidence existed between Cranmer and Melancthon; that for a series of years during the reign of Henry VIII and Edward VI both the king and the leading reformers were most desirous of bringing Melancthon to England, and that nothing but the death of Edward VI prevented the establishment of Melancthon in the chair of divinity at Cambridge, formerly filled by Erasmus and Bucer. {See Laurence, Sermon I. note 3, p. 198.}  All this must have been pending at the very time the XVIIth Article was composed.  Nay! there is even some reason to think that Cranmer was induced to draw up this Article by suggestion of Melancthon, who, when consulted by Cranmer (A. D. 1548) on the compilation of a public confession on this particular question, wrote recommending great caution and moderation, adding that at first the stoical disputations about fate were too horrible among the reformers, and injurious to good discipline; and urging that Cranmer “should think well concerning any such formula of doctrine.” {“Nimis horridae fuerunt initio Stoicae disputationes apud rostros de fato, et disciplinae nocuerunt.  Quare to rogo, ut de tali aliqua formula doctrinae cogites.” – Melancth. Epist.  Lib. III. Epist. 44; Laurence, p. 226.}

      From such facts it is inferred that the Lutheran, not the Calvinist reformers, had weight, and were consulted on the drawing up of this Article; and that, as Lutheran models were adopted for the former Articles, so, although there is no Article in the Confession of Augsburg on predestination, yet the views of that doctrine current among the Lutheran divines were more likely to prevail than those among the Calvinists, who had as yet had no influence in Great Britain.

      The published writings of Cranmer and Ridley have remarkably little which can lead to an understanding of their own views of God’s predestination.  We hear that Ridley wrote a “godly and comfortable treatise” on “the matter of God’s election”; but it has never yet come to light.  In the letter wherein he speaks of having prepared some notes on the subject, he says, “In these matters I am so fearful that I dare not speak further, yea, almost none otherwise than the very text doth, as it were, lead me by the hand. “ {Letter to Bradford in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, Ridley’s Remains, Parker Society’s edition, p. 367.}

      Cranmer’s writings are, even more than Ridley’s, free from statements on God’s predestination.  But Archbishop Laurence has brought several passages from Latimer, Hooper, and other contemporaneous divines of the Church of England, which show that they held decidedly anti-Calvinistic sentiments, and which prove that even the Calvinism of Bradford was of the most moderate kind. {See Laurence, Sermon VIII. note 8, p. 389–394.}

      If from the writings of the reformers we pass to the formularies of the Church, the Liturgy, the Catechism, and the Homilies, we shall find that they appear to view the election of God as the choosing of persons to baptism, the elect as identical with the baptized, or, what is the same thing, with the Church of Christ throughout the world.  Thus, in the Catechism, every baptized child is taught to say, “God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God.”  In the Baptismal Service we pray that the child “now to be baptized, may receive the fulness of God’s grace, and ever remain in the number of His faithful and elect children.”  In the daily service we pray, “Endue thy ministers with righteousness, and make thy chosen people joyful.  O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine inheritance.”  Where God’s inheritance, the Church, is evidently the same as His “chosen” or elect “people”, whom we pray that He will bless, save, and make joyful.  In the Burial Service, we pray God to “accomplish the number of His elect, and hasten His kingdom, that we, with all those departed,” &c.  Where the we appears to be connected with God’s elect.  In the Homily of falling from God all Christians are plainly spoken of as the “chosen” (i.e. elect) “vineyard of God,” which yet by falling away may be lost.  “If we, which are the chosen vineyard of God, bring not forth good fruits, that is to say, good works ... He will pluck away all defence, and suffer grievous plagues ... to light upon us.  Finally, if these serve not, He will let us lie waste, He will give us over ...” &c.

      From all these considerations, it is more probable that an Article drawn up by Cranmer should have expounded the doctrine of ecclesiastical or baptismal election, than that it should have contained the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius.  For both the other documents drawn up by himself, and the writings of his great counsellor, Melancthon, exhibit the clearest evidence of their belief in such ecclesiastical election.  Add to which, the early fathers, whose writings Cranmer most diligently searched, are very full of the same mode of explaining the truth.

      The question still remains, after all this historical probability, Will the wording of the Article bear this meaning? or are we absolutely constrained to give another interpretation to it?  Persons but little acquainted with scholastic disputations and with the language of controversy are apt at first sight to think the XVIIth Article obviously Calvinistic, though others, somewhat better read, are aware that it will equally suit the doctrine of Arminius: but both might be inclined to suppose that it could not express the opinions of Melancthon and of the majority of the primitive fathers, and what we have seen reason to conclude were Cranmer’s own opinions.  Let us see whether this is the case.

      In the first place then, the words of the concluding paragraph in the Article have been shown to bear so remarkable a resemblance to the language of Melancthon (language particularly objected to by Calvin {See Laurence, p. 180.}), that it could hardly have been accidental.  “Furthermore,” it runs, “we must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the word of God.”  The word generally is in the Latin generaliter, which means not for the most part, but universally or generically, i.e. as concerning classes of persons.  Now Melancthon writes, “And if other things may be nicely disputed concerning election, yet it is well for godly men to hold that the promise is general or universal.  Nor ought we to judge otherwise concerning the will of God than according to the revealed word, and we ought to know what God hath commanded that we may believe,” {“Et si alia subtiliter de electione disputari fortasse possunt tamen prodest piis tenere quod promissio sit universalis.  Ned debemus de voluntate Dei aliter judicare quam juxta Verbum revelatum, et scire debemus, quod Deus praeceperat, ut credamus.” – Opera, IV. p. 498; Laurence, pp. 172, 362, 363.} &c.

      But in the beginning of the Article we read of “predestination to life,” and of God’s purpose to deliver from curse and damnation”: expressions which may seem tied to the notion of election embraced by Augustine, Calvin, and Arminius, namely, predestination to life eternal.  It is, however, to be noted, that it would quite suit the way of thinking common to those who held ecclesiastical election, to speak of election to baptism as election to life, and as deliverance from curse and damnation.  For the Church of Christ is that body, which, having been purchased by the Blood of Christ, is destined to life eternal, and placed in a position of deliverance from the curse of original sin.  Baptism is for the remission of sin.  All baptized infants have been elected therefore to life, and delivered from curse and damnation.  The election to life eternal indeed is mediate, through election to the Church, not immediate and direct.  Every baptized Christian has been chosen out of the world to be placed in the Church in order that he may be brought by Christ to everlasting salvation as a vessel made to honour.  He may forfeit the blessing afterwards, but it has been freely bestowed on him.  All persons endued with such an excellent benefit of God are called according to His purpose by His Spirit.  They are freely justified and made Sons of God by adoption (language specially used in the Catechism of baptized children); they be made like the image of the only-begotten, Jesus Christ, for the baptized Christian is said to be regenerate after the likeness of Christ.  The next step in his course is to walk in good works; the last to attain by God’s mercy to everlasting felicity.

      Such language then, which is the language of the Article, suits the baptismal theory as well as the Calvinistic theory; and it has been contended with great force by Archbishop Laurence and Mr. Faber that no other sense can be properly attached to it.

      On the whole, however, it seems worthy of consideration whether the Article was not designedly drawn up in guarded and general terms on purpose to comprehend all persons of tolerably sober views.  It is hardly likely that Cranmer and his associates would have been willing to exclude from subscription those who symbolized with the truly admirable St. Angustine, or those who held the theory of prevision so common among those fathers whose writings Cranmer had so diligently studied.  Nor, again, can we imagine that anything would have been put forth markedly offensive to Melancthon, whose very thoughts and words seem embodied in one portion of this Article as well as in so many of the preceding.  Therefore, though Cranmer was strong in condemning those who made God the author of sin by saying that He enforced the will; though he firmly maintained that Christ died to save all men and would have all men to be saved; though he and his fellows rejected the Calvinistic tenet of final perseverance; they were yet willing to leave the field fairly open to different views of the Divine predestination and accordingly worded the Article in strictly Scriptural language, only guarding carefully and piously against the dangers which might befall “carnal and curious persons”.  After long and serious consideration, I am inclined to think this the true state of the case.  I am strongly disposed to believe that Cranmer’s own opinions were certainly neither Arminian nor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian; yet I can hardly think that he would have so worded this Article had he intended to declare very decidedly against either explanation of the doctrine of election.

      It seems unnecessary to do more than briefly allude to the painful controversies to which this fruitful subject gave rise in the Church of England, since the Reformation.  A sufficient account was given, under Article XVI of the disputes which led to the drawing up of the Lambeth Articles which, though accepted by Archbishop Whitgift and a majority of the divines at Lambeth, never had any ecclesiastical authority.  The first four of these were designed to express distinctly the Calvinistic doctrines of election and reprobation; though the bishops softened down a few of the expressions in Whitaker’s original draught so as to make them a little less exclusive.*  The Puritan party at Hampton Court wished that these “nine assertions orthodoxal” should be added to the XXXIX Articles, and also that some of the expressions in the XXXIX Articles which sounded most against Calvinism should be altered or modified; but their wish was not obtained. {Cardwell’s Conferences, pp. 178, seq.}  There have ever since Continued different views of the doctrine of predestination amongst us, and different interpretations of this XVIIth Article.  It were indeed much to be wished that such differences might cease; but from the days of St. Augustine to this day they have existed in the universal Church, and we can scarcely hope to see them utterly subside in our own portion of it.

            {*The Lambeth Articles, after revision by the bishops, were as follows: –

            1.  Deus, ab aeterno, praedestinavit quosdam ad vitam, quosdam reprobavit ad mortem.

            2.  Causa movens praedestinationis ad vitam, non est praevisio fidei aut perseverantiae, aut bonorum operum ant ullius rei quae insit in personis praedestinatis, sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei.

            3.  Praedestinatorum definitus et certus est numerus, qui nec augeri nec minui potest.

            4.  Qui non sunt praedestinati ad salutem necessario propter peccata sue damnabuntur.

            5.  Vera, viva et justificans Fides, et Spiritus Dei justificantis non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit, in electis, aut fintaliter aut totaliter.

            6.  Homo vere fidelis, i.e. fide justificante praeditus, certus est, Plerophoria Fidei, de remissione peccatorum suoruin, et salute sempiterna sua per Christum.

            7.  Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non communicatur, non conceditur universis hominibus, qua servari possint, si voluerint.

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

            9.  Non est positum in arbitrio aut potentate uniuscujusque hominis salvari.

            We saw under Article XVI the alterations introduced by the Lambeth Divines into Propositions 5 and 6, thereby materially modifying the sense.  The first proposition expresses a general truth, to which all assent.  In the second Whitaker had “Cause efficiens,” which the bishops altered to “movens”; for the moving cause of man’s salvation is not in himself, but in God’s mercy through Christ.  So, instead of the last words in Whitaker’s second Proposition, “sed sola, et absolota, et simplex voluntas Dei,” they put “sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei,” because our salvation springs from God’s good pleasure and goodness.  Yet even so modified (and with such modifications all their original force was lost) the Articles did not approve themselves to the Queen or the best of our then living divines.}

Section  II – Scriptural Proof

      In investigating the Scriptural doctrine of Election, it is of the  utmost consequence to keep close to Scripture itself, and to keep clear of philosophy. The subject of God’s foreknowledge and predestination must be full of difficulty, and our question can only be, what is revealed to us, not what may be abstract truth.

      The disputes between the Calvinists and Arminians took, unhappily, a metaphysical, almost more than a Scriptural turn.  The Calvinists were unable to believe in the contingency of events certainly foreknown, and in the absolute sovereignty of God, if limited by His knowledge of the actions of subordinate beings.  The Arminians, truly contending that an action was not made compulsory because it was foreseen, held it inconsistent with the justice of God to destine some to be saved and others to be lost.  Both argued from natural religion, and both gave weighty reasons for their inferences.  But both should have seen that there was a limit to all such investigations, which no human intelligence could pass; and that those very arguments which reduced their adversaries to the greatest difficulties might often, if pursued further, have told against themselves.

      It is quite certain that if we carry out our investigations on such subjects to their fullest extent, we must at length reach a point which is impassable but where we are at least as much in difficulty and darkness as at any previous step in our course.  Thus, why God, who is all holy and merciful, ever permitted sin to exist, seeing He could have prevented it; why, when sin came, not only into the creation, but into this world, He did not wholly instead of partially remove its curse and power; why the child derived it from its parent; why the unsinning brute creation is involved in pain and death, the wages of sin; why, whereas one half of the infants who are born die before the age of reason and responsibility, yet God does not cause all to die in infancy who He foresees will, if they live, live wickedly: – these and like questions, which puzzle us as to the omnipotence, the justice, or the goodness of God, and which neither Scripture nor philosophy will answer, ought to teach us that it is not designed that we should be satisfied on these deep subjects of speculation, concerning which Milton has described even angelic beings as lost in inextricable difficulty.

      There is another line of reasoning which has been taken in this controversy, somewhat more bearing on practical questions, and yet leading us beyond the reach of human intelligence.  The Calvinist feels deeply that all must be ascribed to the grace of God, and nothing to the goodness of man.  Therefore, he reasons, all holiness must come from an absolute decree; for, if not, why does one accept grace, another refuse it?  If the grace be not irresistible, there must be something meritorious in him who receives, compared with him who resists.  Both indeed may resist God’s grace; but he indeed who resists the least, so as not to quench the Spirit, must be considered as relatively, if not positively, meritorious.  The Arminian, on the contrary, admitting that merit is not possible for man, yet contends that the belief in an irreversible decree takes away all human responsibility, makes the mind of man a mere machine, and deprives us of all motives for exertion and watchfulness.  Even these arguments lead us to difficulties which perhaps we cannot solve.  We are clearly taught to believe that sinful man can deserve no good from God and derives all he has from Him.  We are also taught to feel our own responsibility in the use of the grace given us, and the necessity of exerting ourselves in the strength of that grace.  There may be some difficulty in harmonizing the two truths; but we have no right to construct a system based upon one of them, and to the exclusion of the other.  If we cannot see, as many think they can, that they form parts of one harmonious whole, we must be content to accept them both, without trying to reconcile them.

      Now the doctrine of Calvin rests on two premises: 1. That election infallibly implies salvation.  2. That election is arbitrary.  The Arminians admit the first premiss, which is probably false, and reject the second, which is probably true.  If we would fairly investigate the question, we must begin by a determination not to be biassed by the use of words, nor to suffer ourselves to be led by a train of inductive reasoning.  The former is a mistake which prevails extensively on almost all religious questions, and is utterly subversive of candour and truth; the latter is altogether inadmissible on a subject so deep as that under consideration.

      To begin with the old Testament, a portion of Scripture too much neglected in this controversy, we read much there of God’s election: and it is perhaps to be regretted, that our authorized translation has used the words choose, chosen, choice, in the old Testament, and the words elect and election in the new Testament, whereas the original must be the same in both, and the ideas contained under both phrases identical.

      Now who are the persons spoken of in the old Testament as God’s elect or chosen people? Plainly the seed of Abraham, the children of Israel. Let us then observe, first, the ground of their election ; secondly, to what they were elect?

      It is quite apparent from innumerable statements of Moses and the prophets that the cause or ground of God’s election of the people of Israel was not, as on the Arminian hypothesis, foreseen faith, but God’s good pleasure, springing from motives unknown to us.  It was not for “their righteousness, for the uprightness of their heart, that they went in to possess the land.”  The Lord did “not give them the good land to possess for their righteousness: for they were a stiff-necked people” (Dent. 9:5, 6).  “Only the Lord had a delight in their fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them above all people” (Deut. 10:15).  “The Lord will not forsake His people for His great name’s sake; because it hath pleased the Lord to make you His people” (1 Sam. 12:22).  “I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people ... I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee” (Jer. 31:1, 3).  “I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?  Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?  saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau” (Mal. 1:2, 3): a passage, which, as explained by St. Paul (Rom. 9:13), clearly expresses God’s purpose to choose the seed of Jacob in preference to that of Esau, irrespectively of the goodness of the one or the other.

      The Arminian hypothesis, therefore, of foreseen faith is clearly inapplicable to the election spoken of in the books of the old Testament.  The cause and ground of it was plainly God’s absolute irrespective decree.  But then to what was the election so often mentioned there?  We have discovered its ground; can we discover the correct idea to be attached to the action itself?

      It is evident that the whole Jewish nation, and none but they, were the objects of God’s election.  “O children of Israel ... you only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:1, 2).  “Thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God; the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deut. 7:6).  “The LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them, even you among all people, as it is this day” (Deut. 10:15).  “The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandments: and to make thee high above all nations which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God” (Deut. 26:18, 19).  And, “What one nation in the earth is like thy people, like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to Himself? ... For Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people Israel, to be a people unto Thee for ever: and Thou, LORD, art become their God” (2 Sam. 7:23, 24).  “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, and the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance” (Psal. 33:12).  “The LORD hath chosen Jacob unto Himself, and Israel for His peculiar treasure” (Psal. 135:4).  “Thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend ... I have chosen thee and not cast thee away” (Isai. 41:8, 9).  “Yet now hear, O Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen” (Isai. 44:1).  “For Jacob, My servant’s sake and Israel Mine elect” (Isai. 45:4).  “Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath even cast them off?” (Jer. 33:24.)

      All these passages tell exactly the same tale and explain to us the nature and object of God’s election as propounded under the old Testament.  Were the Jewish people, who are thus constantly called God’s elect, elected to an unfailing and infallible salvation of their soul’s?  Most assuredly not.  Nay, they were not elected to infallible possession even of all the temporal blessings of God’s people.  Victory over their enemies, entrance into, in the first place, and then quiet possession of, the promised land were made contingent on their obedience to God’s will (see Deut. 7, 8, passim).  But that to which they were chosen, was to be God’s “peculiar people,” – to be “a holy people,” consecrated to the service of God, – to have the covenant and the promises, and to be the Church of God.  Yet still, there was “set before them life and death, cursing and blessing”: and they were exhorted to “choose life”: “that they might dwell in the land which the LORD sware to their fathers” (Deut. 30:19, 20).

      We see therefore, first, that the cause of God’s election was arbitary; secondly, that the election itself was to blessing indeed, but it was the blessing of privilege, not of absolute possession.  And even of those chosen to be brought out of Egypt, and to become God’s people in the wilderness, by abusing their privileges, all but two perished before they reached the promised land; and those chosen to live in Canaan, as God’s Church and people then on earth, were continually provoking God’s indignation, and bringing down a curse instead of a blessing upon them.

      The seed of Abraham then, the children of Israel, were the only elect people of God at that time upon earth; but their election was to the privilege of being God’s Church, the subjects of His Theocratic kingdom, the recipients of His grace, and the depositaries of His truth.  This is the whole nature of election, as propounded to us in the Law and the Prophets.  If there were any further election, and of what nature it may have been, as far as the old Testament went, was one of the “secret things, which belong to the LORD our God.”

      Some people indeed argue, that, if one person or body of persons is predestined to light and privilege and another is debarred from them, it is one and the same thing as if one was predestined to salvation and another to damnation; for, if the one is not certainly saved, the other is certainly lost: and so, if election to glory be not taught, reprobation to damnation is.  But this is, first of all, an example of that mode of induction which is so objectionable in questions of this sort.  And next, it remains to be proved either that privilege leads of necessity to salvation, or that absence of privilege leads inevitably to damnation.  However, it will, no doubt, be generally conceded that the Jew was placed in a more favourable state for attaining salvation than the Gentile, and that, as we have seen, from an arbitrary decree of God.  This, it will be said, is as inconsistent with our ideas of justice as anything in the system of Calvin or Augustine.  Admit this and you may as well admit all.  The question, however, still remains the same; not what men are willing to admit, but what the Bible reveals.  This election to light and privilege is evidently analogous to those cases which we see in God’s ordinary Providence: some born rich, others poor; some nursed in ignorance, others in full light; some with pious, others with ungodly parents; and now too, some in a Christian, others in a heathen land; some with five talents, others with but one.  Why all this is, we cannot tell; why God is pleased to put some in a position where vice seems all but inevitable, others where goodness seems almost natural, we know not; nor again, as has been said before, why He does not ordain that all who He foresees will be wicked should die in infancy.  We know and see that such is His pleasure.  The secret motives of His will we are not told, and we cannot fathom.  We are left to believe that, though hidden from us, they must be right.  What we are taught is how to avail ourselves of the privileges, whatever they may be, which we have; to escape the dangers, and profit by the advantages of our position.  This is practical, and this is revealed truth.

      To return to the old Testament.  As we have seen, we there read much of election; and it is always election of a certain body of persons by an arbitrary decree to the blessings and privileges of being of the Church of God.  And we observe another thing, namely, that, whereas none but the Israelites were elected to such privileges then, there were yet many prophecies of a time when other persons, individuals of other nations, should be chosen by God, and made partakers of the same privileges with the Jews, – the same privileges enhanced and exalted.  Nay, the Jews are threatened as a body with rejection from privilege for their sins; a remnant only of them being to be retained in the possession of blessing; and with that remnant a host from other nations to be brought in and associated.

      When we come to the new Testament, we must bear in mind that the Apostles were all Jews, but their mission was to proclaim that the Jewish Church had passed away, and to bring in converts to the Christian Church.  Especially St. Paul had to found a Church among the Gentiles, and to bring the Gentiles into the fold of Christ.  Nothing therefore could be more natural, or more in accordance with the plan of the Apostles than, as it were, to apologize to the Jews and to explain to the Gentiles the new condition which the Almighty had designed for His Church in the world.  It would be most natural that they should enlarge upon the truth that in God’s eternal counsels there were general purposes of mercy for mankind, to be effected by means of bringing persons into Christ’s Church, and therein by the graces of His Spirit conforming them to the likeness of His Son; that though hitherto His mercy in this respect had been confined to the Jews His further plans having been hid for ages and generations, yet now it was revealed that the Gentiles should with the Jews be fellow heirs (see Col. 1:25, 26; Eph. 3:5, 6); that, therefore, whereas heretofore the seed of Abraham had been the only chosen people of God, yet now the whole Catholic Church, composed of both converted Jews and Gentiles, were His chosen people; and God, who, of His good pleasure, for a time elected only the Jews, had, by the same good pleasure, now chosen individuals both of Jews and Gentiles, to be members of His Church and heirs of the grace of life.  In thus reasoning, it is most natural that the Apostles should constantly compare the state of Christians with the state of the Jews, and so continually use old Testament language, adopting the very expressions of Moses and the prophets, and simply applying them to the altered condition of the world, and to the enlarged condition of the Church.  Thus, were the Jews constantly spoken of as a holy people, as called and chosen of God?  In like manner, St. Paul begins scarce any Epistle without calling the Church addressed in it either holy, called, or elect (see Rom. 1:6, 7 {κλητοις, αγίοις, not as in our version, “called to be saints,” but, “called, holy,” as the Syriac.}; 1 Cor. 1:9, 24; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:8–10; Heb. 3:1, &c.).  Were the Jews spoken of as “a peculiar people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exod. 19:5, 6)?  St. Peter addresses the Christian Church as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of Him who hath called them cut of darkness into His marvellous light; which in times past were not a people, but now are the people of God.” {1 Pet. 2:9, 10.  St. Peter has here adopted the very words addressed to the Jewish people in Exod. 19:5, 6; 23:22, as rendered by the LXX.  Έσεσθέ μοι λαος περιούσιος απο πάντων των εθνων ... υμεις δε έσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ιεοάτευμα και έθνος άγιον.}  So too, in his very first salutation of the Church, composed as it was of Jewish and Gentile converts, he calls them “strangers or sojourners, scattered abroad, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (1 Pet. 1:2); where, like St. Paul, he no doubt uses this expression with special reference to the objection which the Jews made to the calling of the Gentiles.  They thought that God’s plan was only to call the children of Israel.  But no! the Apostle speaks of the Church (a Gentile as well as a Jewish Church) as chosen and preordained, by a foreknown and predestinated counsel of God, kept secret hitherto, but now made manifest. {Comp. 1 Pet. 5:13; where he speaks of the whole Church at Babylon as “elect together with” those churches to whom he writes.}

      This mode of treating the question is nowhere more apparent than in the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians.  There St. Paul is addressing a Gentile Church.  Having first saluted its members, as “the holy persons in Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus,” he at once proceeds to give God thanks for having blessed the Christian Church with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus, according as He had chosen that Church in Him before the foundation of the world; the object of such election being that it might be made holy and without blame before him in love; God having predestinated its members to the adoption of children (as the Jews had of old been children of God), through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph. 1:3–6).  He then proceeds to speak of the Church’s blessing in having redemption through the Blood of Christ, and says, that now God has made known His hitherto hidden will, that in the dispensation of the fullness of time all things were to be collected together under one Head in Christ, both things in heaven and things on earth (vv. 9. 10).  And he continues, that in Him “we (that is, those who have believed from among the Jews) have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to His purpose,” &c.  “In whom ye also (ye Gentile Christians) trusted, after that ye heard of the word of truth “ (vv. 11–13).*

            {*The force of the 14th verse is almost lost in our translation; its peculiarity consisting in its use and adaptation of the old Testament language to the Christian Church.  The words rendered in our version, “until the redemption of the purchased possession,” mean more likely “with reference to the ransom of God’s peculiar people, or, of the people whom God hath made His own”; εις απολύτρωσιν της περιποιήσεως.  See Exod. 19:5, 6; 23:22.  So the LXX read Malachi 3:17, where it appears prophetic of the Gentile Church.  Compare the language of St. Peter, quoted in the last note but one, who calls the Church λαος εις περιποίησιν.  St. Paul, (Acts 20:28) speaking to the Ephesians, calls them the Church of God, ην περιεποιήσατο δια του ιδίον αίματος.  The expression appears to mean “the people whom God made His own,” so first applied to the Jewish, afterwards to the Christian Church.  See Schleusner on this word, Hammond, Rosenmüller and Macknight on Ephes. 1:14, and on 1 Pet. 2:9.}

      The Apostle next proceeds to give thanks for their conversion and faith, and to pray for their further grace and enlightenment (Eph. 1:15, 16; 2:10).  He reminds them of their former Gentile state, when they were without Christ, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel (2:11, 12); and tells them, that now they are brought nigh by Christ, who hath broken down the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, and reconciled both Jews and Gentiles to God in one body, preaching peace to the Gentiles, who were far off, and to the Jews, who were nigh (vv. 13–17).  He says, that they are therefore now no longer far off from God, but are made fellow citizens of the same city, the Church, with the saints, and of the same household of God, and are built on the same foundation, and all grow together to one holy temple in the Lord (vv. 18–22).  All this was a mystery, in other ages not made known, but now revealed to apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that it had been part of God’s eternal purpose of mercy that Gentiles should be fellow heirs with Jews, both members of the same body, the Church, and partakers of the same promise in Christ by the Gospel (3–6).

      The Churches, which the Apostles thus addressed as elect, and on which they impress the blessings and privileges of their election, are still treated by them as in a state of probation, and their election is represented, not merely as a source of comfort, but also as full of responsibility.  Thus, to the Ephesians, of whose election we find St. Paul spoke so strongly in the first chapter, he says, “I ... beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called” (Ephes. 4:1).  And he thenceforth continues through the whole of the remainder of the Epistle, teaching them how to live, so as not to forfeit their blessings – not to be “like children tossed to and fro” (4:14) – not to “walk henceforth as other Gentiles” (17) – not to grieve the Spirit (30) – not to be partakers with fornicators and unclean livers, who have no inheritance in God’s kingdom (5:1–7) – to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (11) – to “walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise” (15) – not to be “drunk with wine, but to be filled with the Spirit” (18) – to “put on the whole armour of God, that they might be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,” knowing that they had a contest against wicked spirits; that so they might “be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (6:11, 12, 13).

      Just similar is his language to other Churches.  Thus, the Philippians, whom he calls “saints,” he bids to “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12; compare 3:12–16).  The Colossians, whom he speaks of as having been “translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son,” he bids “to put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” all Christian graces (3:12–17); and to avoid all heathen vices (3:5–9); and that on the very principle that they were to consider themselves as brought into a new state in Christ (3:9, 10).  The Thessalonians, whom he tells that he “knows their election of God” (1 Thess. 1:4), he warns against sloth and sleep (1 Thess. 5:6), urges them to put on Christian armour (5:8, 9), exhorts them not to “quench the Spirit” (5:19).  And to Timothy he says of himself, that he “endures all things for the elect’s sake”; and that, not because the elect are sure of salvation, but in order that “they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10).

      In exactly the same manner, St. Peter, as we have seen, addresses those to whom he writes as “elect,” and whom he calls “an elect generation,” (1 Pet. 1:2, 2:9): but he still urges them to “abstain from fleshly lusts,” (2:11); to “pass the time of their sojourning here in fear,” (1:17); to be “sober and watch unto prayer” (4:7); to “give diligence to make their calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10); to “beware lest, being led away with the error of the wicked, they fall from their own steadfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17).

      All this is in the same spirit and tone.  It is, allowing for the change of circumstances, just as the prophets addressed the Jews.  The prophets addressed the Jews, and the apostles addressed Christians, as God’s chosen people, as elect, predestinated to the Church, to grace, to blessing.  But then they urge their blessings and election as motives, not for confidence, but for watchfulness.  They speak to them as having a conflict to maintain, a race to run; and they exhort them not to quench the Spirit, who is aiding them, to beware lest they fall from the steadfastness of their faith, to be sober and watch to the end.

      Let us turn next to the Epistle to the Romans. In the ninth chapter more especially, St. Paul considers the question of God’s rejecting the unbelieving Jews, and calling into His Church a body of persons elected from among Jews and Gentiles.  The rejection of his fellow countrymen he himself deeply deplores; but there was a difficulty and objection arising which he sets himself directly to solve.  God has chosen Israel for His people.  He had given them “an everlasting covenant, even the sure mercies of David.”  Could then the rejection of the Jews be explained consistently with God’s justice, His promises, and His past dealing with His people?  Objections of this kind the Apostle replies to.  And he does so by showing that God’s dealings now were just as they had always been of old.  Of old He gave the promise to Abraham, but afterwards limited it to his seed in Isaac.  Then again, though Esau and Jacob were both Isaac’s children, He gave the privileges of His Church to the descendants of Jacob, not to those of Esau; and that with no reference to Jacob’s goodness; for the restriction of the promise was made before either Jacob or Esau were born; exactly according to those words by Malachi, where God, speaking of His calling of the Israelites, says, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom. 9:6–13).  This restriction therefore of God’s promises, first to Isaac, and then to Jacob, corresponded exactly with His purposes now revealed in the Gospel, namely, to bring to Christian and Church privileges that portion of the Jews who embraced the Gospel, and to cast off the rest who were hardened in unbelief.  From verse 14 to verse 19, St. Paul states an objection to this doctrine of God’s election, which he replies to in verse 20.  The objection he states thus, “Shall we say then that there is injustice with God?”  For the language of Scripture seems to imply that there is, God being represented as saying, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” which shows that it is of God’s mercy, and not of man’s will.  Again, it is said to Pharaoh, “For this cause have I raised thee up, that I might shew My power in thee.”  So that it seems to be taught us that God shows mercy on whom He will and hardens whom He will.  It may therefore be reasonably said, why does He yet find fault with the sinner; “for who hath resisted His will?” (vv. 14–19).  This objection to God’s justice the Apostle states thus strongly, that he may answer it the more fully.  His reply is, that such complaints against God for electing the Jewish people, and placing Pharaoh in an exalted station, and bearing long with his wickedness, are presumptuous and arrogant.  “Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God?  Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?  Hath not the potter power over the clay to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?” (vv. 20, 21).*  Shall man complain because God ordained the Jews for a place of eminence in His Church, or raised Pharaoh as king of Egypt to a position of honour, and yet a position in which he would only the more surely exhibit his wickedness?  We know not the secret motives of God’s will.  What if the real reason of all this were that “God, willing to manifest His wrath, and to make His power known,” as He did with Pharaoh, so now also has endured with much long-suffering the unbelieving Israelites, who are “vessels of wrath” already “fitted to destruction,” in order “that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared for a position of honour, even on us, who are that Church of Christ, which He hath now called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” (vv. 20–24).

            {*See Jer. 18:2–10.  “The scriptural similitude of the potter and the clay is often triumphantly appealed to as a proof that God has from eternity decreed, and what is more, has revealed to us that He has so decreed the salvation or perdition of each individual without any other reason assigned than that such is His will and pleasure: ‘we are in His hands,’ say these predestinarians, ‘as clay is in the potter’s, who hath power of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour,’ not observing, in their hasty eagerness to seize on every apparent confirmation of their system, that this similitude, as far as it goes, rather makes against them; since the potter never makes any vessel for the express purpose of being broken and destroyed.  This comparison accordingly agrees much better with the view here taken; the potter, according to his own arbitrary choice makes ‘of the same lump one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour,’ i.e. some to nobler and some to meaner uses; but all for some use; none with the design that it should be cast away and dashed to pieces: even so the Almighty of His own arbitrary choice causes some to be born to wealth or rank, others to poverty and obscurity; some in a heathen and others in a Christian country; the advantages and privileges bestowed on each are various, and, as far as we can see, arbitrarily dispensed; the final rewards or punishments depend, as we are plainly taught, on the use or abuse of these advantages.” – Archbp. Whately, Essays on the Writings of St. Paul.  Essay III on Election, an essay full of clear and thoughtful statements and elucidations.}

      If we will cast aside preconceived doctrines and conventional phraseology, it will surely appear that such is the plain meaning of this memorable chapter.  The Apostle is explaining the justice of God’s dealings, in having long borne with the Jewish race, and now casting them off and establishing a Church composed partly of the remnant of the Jews, partly of Gentile converts.  Herein He only acted as He had ever done, calling first the seed of Abraham His chosen, then the seed of Isaac, elected from the elect, and again (elected once more out of them) the seed of Jacob; and as He had borne long with Pharaoh’s wickedness, that He might make him the more signal monument of His vengeance, so perhaps it was with the Jews.  He had borne long with them, partly in mercy, and partly that He might magnify His power, and show the severity of His justice.

      The same subject is kept in view, more or less, throughout the two following chapters.  In the 11th he again distinctly recurs to the bringing of a portion of the Jewish race into the Church of Christ, not indeed the whole nation – but restricted again, as it once was in Isaac and afterwards in Jacob.  He instances the case in which all Israel seemed involved in one common apostasy, and yet God told Elias that there were seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal.  Even so it was at the time of the Gospel.  All Israel seemed cast off, but it was not so; a remnant remained, a remnant was called into the Church, chosen or elected into it by the grace of God.  “Even so at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” Rom. 11:5.

      We may now proceed to the passage which, even more than any of the preceding, may be considered as the stronghold either of the Calvinist or the Arminian.  Each claims it as unquestionably his own.  The passage is Rom. 8:29, 30: “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.  Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.”

      The Calvinist contends that the passage plainly speaks of predestination to eternal glory; the various clauses showing the progress, from the first purpose of God, through calling and justifying, to the final salvation of the elect soul.  The Arminian replies, that, though it is true that the passage speaks of predestination to eternal glory, yet it is evidently on the ground of foreseen faith; for it begins with the words “whom He did foreknow”; showing that His foreknowledge of their acceptance of His grace was the motive of His predestination of their glory.  That the Arminian has scarcely ground for this argument seems clear from the use of this word “foreknew” in Rom. 11:2; where “God hath not cast away His people whom He foreknew,” can scarcely mean otherwise than “whom He had predestinated to be His Church of old.”  But then, though it seems that the passage speaks of an arbitrary purpose, yet it cannot be proved to have any direct reference to future glory.  The verbs are all in the past tense, and none in the future, and therefore cannot certainly be translated as future.  Either “whom He hath justified, them He hath glorified,” {ους δε εδικαίωσε, τούτους και εδόξασε.} or “whom He justifies, them He also glorifies,” would correctly render it; since the aorist expresses either a past or a present.  Hence the passage was uniformly understood by the ancients as referring not to future glory of Christians in the world to come, but to that present glorification of the elect, which consists in their participation in the high honour and privilege bestowed by God upon His Church. {See Faber, Prim. Doct. of Election, who quotes, from Whitby, Origen, Chrysostom, OEcumenius, Theodoret, Theophylact, pseudo-Ambrosius, and Jerome, as concurring in this interpretation of “glorified”.}  And as they viewed it, so grammatical accuracy will oblige us to understand it.  And if so, then we must interpret the passage in correspondence with the language in the Epistle to the Ephesians, and in the chapter already considered in the Epistle to the Romans.  “Those whom God in His eternal counsels chose before the foundation of the world, His elect people, the Church, He designed to bring to great blessings and privileges; namely, conformity to the likeness of His Son, calling into His Church, justification, and the high honor and glory of being sons of God and heirs of the kingdom of heaven.” {I have myself little doubt that this is the meaning of the passage, divested of conventional phraseology, which cramps our whole mind in these inquiries.  But I should wish to guard against dogmatizing too decidedly on such passages.  I think this passage and one other (John 6:37–39) to be the strongest passages in favour of the theory of St. Augustine; and their full weight ought to be given them.  Some sound and learned divines have thought, that the new Testament evidently speaks of election to grace, and that most of the passages on the subject relate to this, but that there are also passages which relate to a further election out of the elect, to glory.}

      It would exceed our limits if we were to. consider all the passages bearing on this doctrine in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.  The parable of the vineyard (Matt. 20:1–16), and of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1–14), evidently speak the language of ecclesiastical election, the calling of the Jews, and then the election of the halt and maimed heathen from the highways and hedges into the Christian Church.{The words with which these two parables end seem at first sight an exception to the use of the word elect in the Scriptures; namely, “Many are called, but few chosen”: πολλοι μεν κλητοι, ολίγοι δε εκλεκτοί.  It is, however, merely a different application of the same term.  Many are called to Christian privileges, but only those who make a good use of them are chosen to salvation.  Notwithstanding, then, a different application of the word chosen, the principle laid down appears to be precisely the same.}

      In the Acts, we read of God’s “adding to the Church such as should be saved,” (τους σωζομένους, those who were being saved,) where the words plainly mean that God brought into His Church those whom He chose to the privileges of a state of salvation (Acts 2:47). {τους σωζομένους.  Dr. Hammond (on Luke 13:23, and 1 Pet. 2:6, in which he is followed by Lowth on Isaiah 1:9, Ezek. 7:6) considers this expression as synonymous with the “remnant” or “escaped,” שָׂרִיד so often spoken of in the old Testament.  The Syriac renders the words by [letters uncertain] qui salvi fiebant in coetu vel ecclesia.}

      In Acts 13:48, we hear of persons “believing, as many as were ordained to eternal life,” which sounds at first much like the doctrine of Calvin.  But in the first place, the word here rendered ordained, is nowhere else employed in the sense of predestinated; and if it is to be so interpreted here, we must perforce understand it as meaning that they were predestinated to the reception of that Gospel which is itself the way to eternal life, and which, if not abused, will surely lead to it.  Otherwise the passage would prove that all those who heard the Apostles and embraced the Gospel and the Church must have been finally saved; a thing in the highest degree improbable, and wholly inconsistent with experience. {See Hammond on this verse, and also his notes on Luke 13:23; 1 Pet. 2:6.}

      In the Gospel of St. John we have two or three passages, supposed to speak markedly the language of Calvinism.

      1.  “All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37).

      2.  “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:39).

      3.  “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70).

      4.  “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of My hand.  My Father, which gave them Me, is greater than all; and no (man) is able to pluck them out of My Father’s hand” (John 10:27–29).

      5.  “Because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:19).

      6.  “Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom thou hast given Me, that they may be one, as We are.  While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy Name: those that Thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:11, 12).

      Some of these passages, taken by themselves, undoubtedly bear a very Calvinistic aspect, especially the second and the fourth.  But if we take them altogether, they explain each other.  The whole then seems a connected scheme.  The Father gives a Church of disciples to His Son; who also Himself chooses them from the world.  Those that the Father thus gives to the Son, assuredly come to Him, and are joined unto his fellowship. {Compare John 10:16: “Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold” (Gentiles, not Jews): them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice: and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”}  It is not the will of God that any of these should perish.  “He willeth not the death of a sinner.”  “It is not the will of the Father that one of these little ones should perish.”  Whilst our blessed Lord was on earth with His Church, He preserved and guarded it by His presence; and when He left it, He prayed the Father that He would guard and support His disciples, “not taking them from the world, but keeping them from the evil” (John 17:15).  The faithfulness of God is pledged to support His tempted servants, and His greatness secures them against all dangers, and assures them, that none shall be able to take them out of Christ’s hands.  Yet that their final perseverance and salvation are not so certainly secured, as that, because they have been given to Christ they can never at last be condemned, is evidenced by the case of Judas Iscariot who, in the third and sixth of the above passages, is numbered with Christ’s elect, {Compare, “I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen,” (meaning Judas).  John 13:18.} and with those whom the Father had given Him; yet still is mentioned, as one who, notwithstanding Christ’s own presence and guidance, had fallen away and perished.  He, like the rest, had been of Christ’s sheep, elect to discipleship and grace; but, having quenched the Spirit, and been unfaithful, he was not chosen to salvation. {I cannot see that any force is put upon the passages from St. John by the explanation and paraphrase in the text.  It seems to me that, when all are compared together, no other sense can be attached to them.  Yet, as above noted, the passages marked 2 and 4, and Romans 8:29, 30, are the passages most favourable to the theory of St. Augustine.  And it is so fearful a thing to put a strained interpretation on the words of Christ, in order to adapt them to a system, that I would not willingly err, by pressing on others those interpretations which seem to me to be undoubtedly true.}

      Whatever then be philosophically true concerning man’s freedom and God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge; the question which is practical to us is, How far has God revealed in His word the grounds of His dealings with us?  If the foregoing investigation has been fairly conducted, we must conclude that the revelation which has been given us concerns His will and purpose to gather together in Christ a Church chosen out of the world, and that to this Church and to every individual member of it He gives the means of salvation.  That salvation, if attained, will be wholly due to the grace of God, which first chooses the elect soul to the blessings of the baptismal covenant, and afterwards endues it with power to live the life of faith.  If, on the other hand, the proffered salvation be forfeited, it will be in consequence of the fault and wickedness of him that rejects it.  Much is said of God’s will, that all should be saved, and of Christ’s death as sufficient for all men; and we hear of none shut out from salvation, but for their own faults and demerits.  More than this cannot with certainty be inferred from Scripture; for it appears most probable that what we learn there concerns only predestination to grace, there being no revelation concerning predestination to glory.

      The old Testament, our blessed Lord, St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, and after them the earliest Christian Fathers, seem thus in perfect harmony to speak of God’s election of individuals to His Church.  Of any further election we cannot say that they did speak.  New and more subtle questions were brought in by philosophers, like Clement and Origen, which were more fully worked out by the powerful intellect of St. Augustine, whose contact with philosophic heretics tempted him to philosophic speculations.  In later times the disputatious of the schoolmen still mingled meta physics with theology; till the acute but over-bold mind of Calvin moulded into full proportion a system, which has proved the fertile source of discord to all succeeding generations.  In the hands of the great Genevan divine it was not allowed to be quiet and otiose, but became the basis and groundwork of his whole scheme of theology.  Much of that scheme was sound and admirable; but it was so made to bend and square itself to its author’s strong view of predestination, that it lost the fair proportions of Catholic truth.

      Deep learning and fervent piety have characterized many who have widely differed in these points of doctrine.  It is well for us, disregarding mere human authority and philosophical discussions, to strive to attain the simple sense of the Scriptures of God.  But it is not well, when we have satisfied ourselves, to condemn those who may disagree with us; nor, because we see practical dangers in certain doctrines, to believe that all who embrace those doctrines must of necessity fall into evil, through the dangers which attach to them.  Discussions on subjects such as this do not, perhaps, so much need acuteness and snbtilty, as humility and charity.

Article  XVIII

Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.

      They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature.  For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jeans Christ, whereby men must be saved.

De speranda aeterna salute tantum in nomine Christi.

      Sunt et illi anathematizandi, qui dicere audent unumquemque in lege aut secta quam profitetur esse servandum, modo juxta illam et lumen naturae accurate vixerit, cum sacrae literae tantum Jesu Christi nomen praedicent, in quo salvos fieri homines oporteat.

Section  I – History

      The early fathers with great unanimity assert, that salvation is  only to be had through Christ, and in the Church of Christ.  So Ignatius says, “Let no one be deceived.  Even heavenly beings and the glory of angels and principalities, visible and invisible, unless they believe in the Blood of Christ, even for them is condemnation.” {Μηδεις πλανάσθω·  και τα επουράνια, και η δόξα των αγγέλων, και οι άρχοντες ορατοι τε και αόρατοι, εαν μη πιστεύσωσιν εις το αιμα Χριστου, κακείνοις κρίσις εστιν. – Ad. Smyrn. VI.}  “If any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God.” {Εαν μή τις η εντος του θυσιαστηρίου, υστερειται του αρτου Θεου. – Ad. Ephes. V.}

      Irenaeus says, “The Church is the entrance to life, all who teach otherwise are thieves and robbers.” {“Haec (h. e. ecclesia) eat enim vitae introitus; omnes autem reliqui fures sunt et latrones.” – Adv. Haer. III. 4.        }  “They are not partakers of the Spirit who do not come into the Church, but they defraud themselves of life.” {“Spiritus; cujus non sunt participes omnes qui non concurrunt ad ecclesiam, sed semetipsos fraudant a vita ... ubi enim ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei.” – Ibid. III. 40.  See the whole chapter.}

      Origen says, “Let no one deceive himself; out of this house, i.e. the Church, no one is saved.” {“Nemo ergo sibi persuadeat, nemo seipsum decipiat; extra hanc domum, id est, extra ecclesiam, nemo salvatur.” – Homil. in Jesum Nave, III. num. 5.}

      Cyprian, in speaking of the unity of the Church, says that “Whoever is separated from the Church is separated from the promise of the Church; that if a man have not the Church for his mother, he hath not God for his father; and that as to be saved from the deluge it was needful to be in the ark, so to escape now we must be in the Church.” {Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae jungitur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur.  Nec pervenit ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi.  Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est.  Habere jam non potest Deum Patrem, qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem.  Si potuit evadere quisquam qui extra arcam Noe fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadet.” – De Unitate Ecclesiae.  Oxf. 1682, p. 109.}

      Lactantius writes that, “if a person have not entered into, or have gone out of the Church, he is apart from salvation.” {“Sola Catholica ecclesia est quae verum cultum retinet.  Hic est fons veritatis, hoc est domicilium fidei, hoc templum Dei: quo si quis non intraverit, vel a quo si quis exierit, a spe vitae ac salutis aeternae alienus est.” – Lactant. Lib. IV. C. 30; see Pearson, On the Creed, p. 350.}

      Statements in great number to the same purport might be quoted.  The necessity of cleaving to Christ, of being baptized, and of belonging to the Church, is much and constantly dwelt upon; and so the rejection of baptism is often spoken of as excluding from life.

      In the Recognitions of Clement, a spurious but still a very early work, we find it argued from St. Matthew that “if a person is not baptized, not only will he be deprived of Heaven, but will not be without danger in the resurrection, however good his life may have been.” {“Si quis Jesu Baptisma non fuerit consecutus, is non solum coelorum regno fraudabitur, verum et in resurrectione mortuorum non absque periculo erit etiamsi bonae vitae et rectae mentis praerogativa muniatur.” – Coteler. I. p. 501, c. 55; see also p. 551, c. 10.}

      St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, “No one can be saved without baptism except the martyrs.” {εί τις μη λάβη το βάπτισμα, σωτηρίαν ουκ έχει πλην μόνον μαρτύρων, οι και χωρις του υδατος λαμβάνουσι την βασιλείαν. – Catechec. III. 7.}

      St. Gregory Nazianzen held that infants who die without baptism “will neither be glorified, nor yet be punished.” {τους δε μήτε δοξασθήσεσθαι, μήτε κολασθήσεσθαι περι του δικαίου Κριτου, ωςασφραγίστουςμεν, απονήρουςδε, αλλα παθόντας μαλλον την ζημίαν η δρασάντας. – Oratio XL. Tom. I. p. 653.  Colon.}

      And so the pseudo-Athanasius says, “it is clear that baptized children of believers go spotless and as believers into the kingdom.  But the unbaptized and heathen children neither go to the kingdom nor yet to punishment, seeing they have not committed actual sin.” {τα δε αβάπτιστα και τα εθνικα, ούτε εις βασιλείαν εισέρχονται·  αλλ ούτε πάλιν εις κόλασιν.  αμαρτίαν ουκ έπραξαν. – Quaestiones ad Antiochum, Quaest. CXIV.}

      When the Pelagian controversy had arisen, the question was considerably agitated as to how far it was possible for the unbaptized to be saved.  And as the Pelagians underrated baptism, their opponents naturally insisted on it more strongly.

      St. Augustine, the great anti-Pelagian champion, denounces, as a Pelagian error, the opinion that unbaptized infants could be saved. {See De Gestis Pelagii, C. XI.  Tom. X. p. 204.}  He denies that any can be saved without Baptism and the Eucharist. {De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, Tom. X. p. 15.}  The Pelagians seem to have promised to infants unbaptized a kind of mean between Heaven and Hell.  This Augustine utterly condemns; {De Anima et ejus origine, C. 9, Tom. X. p. 343.} and he himself positively asserts that no one apart from the society of Christ can be saved. {De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, C. 11, Tom. X. p. 80.}  Baptized infants, he says, at death passed into eternal life, unbaptized into death. {De Dono Perseverantiae, c. 30, 31, Tom. X. p. 837.}

      In the work of the pseudo-Ambrosius, which is generally atiributed to a writer of the name of Prosper, who is evidently a follower of St. Augustine, we read of some infants as regenerate to eternal life, others, unregenerate passing to perpetual misery. {De Vocatione Gentium, Lib. I. cap. 7; Lib. II. cap. 8.  Vossius attributes it to Prosper, bishop of Orleans in the sixth century, not to Prosper of Aquitaine, the disciple of St. Augustine.}

      The earlier fathers, however, though, as we have seen, strongly stating that baptism, faith in Christ, union with the Church, are the only appointed means of safety, held language far less severe than St. Augustine’s on the possibility of salvation to the heathen and the unbaptized.  Justin Martyr, for instance, appears to have had the notion that ancient philosophers received some revelation from the Son of God, and so were led to oppose Polytheism. {Ου γαρ μόνον Έλλησι δια Σωκράτους υπο λόγου (i.e. ratione) ηλέγχθη ταυτα, αλλα και εν βαρβάροις υπ αυτου του Λόγου μορφωθέντος και ανθρώπου γενομένου και Ιησου Χριστου κληθέντος. – Apol x. p. 56. Comp. Dial. pp. 218, 220.}  Similar views must have occurred to Tertullian, who looked on Socrates as having some insight into Divine truth; {“Idem (Socrates) et quum aliquid de veritate sapiebat, deos negans,” &c. – Apolog. C. 46.} and thought that a kind of inspiration had reached the ancient philosophers. {“Taceo de philosophis, quos superbia severitatis et duritia disciplinae ab omni timore securos, nonnullus etiam afflatus Veritatis adversus Deos erigit.” – Ad Nationes, Lib. I. C. 10.  See Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 174, 345.}  Yet he seems to have believed the heathen generally under the dominion of the powers of darkness ; and Bishop Kaye thinks his opinion of the necessity of baptism must, if he had entertained the question at all, have led him to decide against the salvability of the heathen. {See as above under Article XIV.  Section II.}  There may, however, exist a strong persuasion of the necessity of baptism, without a decided dogmatizing on the condition of those to whom it has not been offered; and in any case on subjects so profound as this, we cannot always insist that any author shall be consistent with himself.  Clement of Alexandria, whose sympathies were strong with the ancient philosophers, speaks of the Law as given to the Jews and philosophy to the Greeks before the coming of Christ.  He considers philosophy as having borrowed much from Revelation, and thinks it was capable by God’s appointment of justifying those who had no opportunity of knowing better. {Ην μεν ουν προ της του Κυρίου παρουσίας εις δικαιοσύνην Έλλησιν αναγκαία φιλοσοφία. – Strom. I. p. 331.  φιλοσοφία δε η Ελληνική, οιον προκαθαίρει και προεθίζει την ψυχην εις παραδοχην πίστεως. Strom. VII. p. 839.  εικότως ουν Ιουδαίοις μεν νόμος, Ελλησι δε φιλοσοφία μέχρι της παρουσίας, εντευθεν δε η κλησις η καθολικη εις περιούσιον δικαιοσύνης λαόν. – Strom. VI. p. 823.}

      This charitable hope concerning the salvability of the heathen, though naturally less entertained by divines who, like Augustine, were engaged in opposing Pelagianism, is not confined to the earliest fathers.  St. Chrysostom, in commenting on St. Paul’s argument in the second chapter of Romans, verse 29, evidently implies that the religious and virtuous Gentile might have been saved, whilst the ungodly Jew would be condemned. {Chrysost.  Hom. VI in Epist. ad Rom.}  On the contrary, St. Augustine, with reference to the same passage, understood by the Gentile which does by nature the things of the Law, not the uninstructed heathen, but the Gentile Christian, who does by grace the things of the Law. {De Spiritu et Litera, § 43, Tom. X. p. 108.  Comp.  Contra Julianum, Lib. IV. 23, 24, 25, Tom. X. p. 597.}

      We have seen that Gregory Nazianzen and the pseudo-Athanasius believed in an intermediate state between Heaven and hell for heathens and infants unbaptized.  In this they are followed by Pope Innocent III and some of the schoolmen: and, no doubt, out of this arose the belief in a limbus for those children who die before baptism and before the commission of actual sin.

      To proceed to the period of the Reformation: the Council of Trent anathematizes all who deny that baptism is necessary to salvation; {Sess. VII.  Can. V.  De Baptismo.} which however is not the same thing as deciding on the state of the unbaptized.

      Among the foreign reformers, Zuinglius believed that all infants and heathens might partake of God’s mercies in Christ. {See on this subject under Art. XVII.}  Luther denies in plain terms remission of sins to any without the Church. {Catechismus Major.  Op. Tom. V. p. 629.}  But the Lutheran Confessions do not appear to say much on this head.  Calvin, though appearing to think baptism the only means whereby elect infants could be regenerate and so saved if they died, {Institut. IV. xvi. 17.} yet argues forcibly against such as consign all unbaptized infants to damnation. {Ibid. IV. xvi. 26.}  Still he says of the visible Church, that we have no entrance into life, unless she, our Mother, conceives us in her womb; and without her bosom is no remission of sins or salvation to be hoped for. {“Non alius est in vitam ingressus nisi nos ipsa (h. e. visibilis ecclesia) concipiat in utero, nisi nos pariat, &c.  Extra ejus gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum remissio, nec ulla salus.” – IV. i. 4.}

      Cranmer’s Catechism was published by him A. D. 1548.  It was translated from the Latin of Justus Jonas, a Lutheran divine.  Sometimes in the translation alterations were introduced by Archbishop Cranmer or under his direction which are peculiarly calculated to show his own opinions.  One strong passage on the subject of this Article is translated literally and with all the force of the original: “If we should have heathen parents and die without baptism, we should be damned everlastingly.” {Cranmer’s Catechism, Oxford, 1829, p. 39 of the Latin, p. 51 of the English.  See Preface, p. xvi.}  But another passage, which cannot be considered stronger, if so strong, is left out in the translation, apparently because Cranmer was unwilling so decidedly to dogmatize on this question.*

            {*The passage is in the Latin, p. 106.  “Et ut firmiter credamus has immensas, ineffabiles, infinitas opes et thesauros veros, primitias regni coelorum et vitae aeternae, tantum in ecclesia esse, nusquam alibi, neque apud sapientes et philosophos gentium, neque apud Turcicam illam tot millium hominum colluviem, neque apud papisticam illam et titulo tenus ecclesiam inveniri.”  These words are omitted in page 125 of the English; yet the following words occur in the same page: “Without the Church is no remission of sin.”  In the Confutation of Unwritten Verities (Works, IV. p. 510) Cranmer says, “To that eternal salvation cometh no man but he that hath the Head Christ.  Yea, and no man can have the Head Christ which is not in His Body the Church.”}

      In the first Book of Homilies we read, “If a heathen man clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and do such other like works; yet because he cloth them not in faith for the honour and love of God, they be but dead, vain, and fruitless works to him.  Faith it is that doth commend the work to God; for, as St. Augustine saith, whether thou wilt or no, that work which cometh not of faith is nought; where the faith of Christ is not the foundation, there is no good work, what building soever we make.” {First Part of Homily on Good Works.  Compare the language of St. Augustine, Contra Julianum, Lib. IV quoted under Art. XIII.}

      Noel’s Catechism is a work drawn up long after the putting forth of the Articles, and therefore not, like the writings of Cranmer and Ridley or the first Book of Homilies, historically calculated to elucidate the Articles; yet from the approbation it received in the reign of Elizabeth, it has been looked on as of high authority in the Church of England.  Its words on this subject are:—

      “M.  Is there then no hope of salvation out of the Church?

      “A.  Without it there can be nothing but damnation and death.” {M. Nullane ergo salutis topes extra Ecclesiam?  A. Extra eam nihil nisi damnatio exitium atque interitus esse potest.”}

      The above-cited passages show that the English reformers strongly held the doctrine that without Christ, without baptism, apart from the Church, no salvation is offered to man, and that if we reject them, we have no right to look for it.  It might even seem that they took the strong views of St. Augustine against the salvability of the heathen or of infants unbaptized, under any circumstances.  Yet there are some indications of reluctance to assume so decided a position.  It has already been observed that it is very possible to assert strongly that no other means of salvation are offered, that no other hope is held out, without determining positively that all who are cut off from the means of grace, inevitably perish.  Many of the fathers appear to have thought this a consistent view of the case.  Calvin, as we have seen, denied salvation out of the visible Church, and yet would not allow that all unbaptized infants perish.  And so Cranmer, though translating one strong passage from Justus Jonas, has left another out of his Catechism, probably because he would not pronounce definitely on the state of heathens and persons in ignorance.

      As to the wording of the Article itself, it comes naturally and properly between the Article on God’s election of persons into His Church and the Article which defines the Church itself.  It condemns that latitudinarianism which makes all creeds and all communions alike, saying that all men may be saved by their own sect, so they shape their lives according to it and to the law of nature.  The ground on which it protests against this view of matters is, that the Scriptures set forth no other name but Christ’s whereby we may be saved.  The opinion here condemned therefore is not a charitable hope that persons who have never heard of Christ, or who have been bred in ignorance or error, may not be inevitably excluded from the benefit of His atonement; but that cold indifference to faith and truth which would rest satisfied and leave them in their errors, instead of striving to bring them to faith in Christ and to His Body the Church, to which alone the promises of the Gospel are made, and to which by actual revelation God’s mercies are annexed.

Section  II – Scriptural Proof

      The teaching of the Article will be sufficiently established, if we show:–

      I.  That Holy Scripture sets out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men may be saved.

      II.  That salvation is therefore offered only in the Church.

      III.  That accordingly we have no right to say that men shall be saved by their own law or sect, if they be diligent to frame their life according to that law and the light of nature.

      I.  The first proposition appears from such passages as these, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).  “No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6).  “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). “ There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6).  “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).  “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.  He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12).  Compare Mark 16:15, 16; John 1:29, 3:14, 15, 17; 5:40, 10:9, 20:31, Acts 13:38, Rom. 7:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; 2 Tim. 1:10, Heb. 5:9, 11:6, 12:2.  “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  “To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).  “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:30, 31).

      II.  The second proposition appears from this:–

      When our Lord had offered the propitiation, by which He became the Saviour of mankind, He commissioned His Apostles to preach the Gospel and to found the Church; and “He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15, 16).

      Accordingly, when St. Peter’s sermon at the feast of Pentecost had produced a wonderful effect on those that heard it, so that they cried, “Men and brethren, what shall we do? then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:37, 38).  And so in like manner, whensoever persons were converted to the faith, they were at once baptized into the Church.  Compare Acts 8:12, 13, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47, 48; 16:33; 19:5, 22:16, &c.

      Hence, St. Peter (1 Pet. 3:21) speaks of baptism as saving us, like the ark of Noah; for baptism places us within the Church which, like Noah’s ark, is the place of refuge for Christ’s disciples in the flood of ungodliness around it.  And St. Paul tells us, that, “As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).  And as thus baptism, by placing us within the Church, puts us in a place of safety, a state of salvation, so it is the Church only which is said to be saved.  Christ is called “the Head of the body the Church” (Col. 1:18), and so is said to be “the Saviour of the body” (Ephes. 5:23), of which He is the Head.  He represents Himself as the Vine, and all members of His Church as branches of that Vine; and then says, “I am the Vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without Me ye can do nothing.  If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered” (John 15:5, 6).

      Again we read, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious Church”: &c. (Ephes. 5:25, 26, 27).  And accordingly, when first God’s grace by the preaching of the Apostles was bringing men to Christ, and to the Christian faith, we are told that “the Lord added unto the Church daily such as were being saved” (τους σωζομένος) (Acts 2:47).

      III.  As to believe in Christ, to be baptized into His Name, and incorporated into His Church, are the appointed mears to salvation; so to reject Him and continue in unbelief is the way to be lost.  When the Gospel was to be preached, our Lord promised that those who believed so as to be baptized should be saved, or placed in a state of salvation; but He added, “He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).  So He said of those that rejected Him, “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God; and this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:18, 19).  “He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day” (John 12:48).  And to St. John He declared that “the unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8).

      It is unnecessary to multiply proofs that as there is no salvation offered but by Christ and to those who believe and are baptized in His Name, so those who reject Him shall be rejected; and that therefore we cannot hold out the hope of salvation to those who adhere to another sect or law, as though they might be saved by that, if only they lived up to its requirements.  If it were necessary to add more, we might refer to those passages in which it is declared that, after the Gospel was come, the Law of Moses, being done away, could never give salvation to those who lived under it, (see Rom. 3:9, 23; 9:31, 32; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:21, 22; 5:2, 4, &c.)  If the Law of Moses could not justify, a law which did come from God; much less can we believe that any other creed, of man’s device, could be safe for any to abide in.

      The question concerning the salvability of the heathen need hardly be discussed.  It is quite certain that Scripture says very little about them.  Its words concern and are addressed to those who can hear and read them, not to those who hear them not.  The fact appears to be that no religion but Christ’s, no society but His Church, is set forth as the means of our salvation.  Those who have these means proposed to them, and wilfully reject them, must expect to be rejected by Christ.  Whether there be any mercy in store for those who, nursed in ignorance, have not had the offer of this salvation, has been a question; and it is not answered in this Article.  If we have some hope that they may be saved, still we must certainly conclude, not that their own law or sect well save them, but that Christ, who tasted death for every man, and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, may have mercy on them, even though they knew Him not. {Passages, such as Psalm 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God,” are brought forward as proving that all heathen nations shall be damned.  Yet hell in this case is Hades, not Gehenna; and on the other hand, Rom. 2:11–16, Acts 17:26, 27, 30, appear to prove that it is not impossible heathens may be capable of salvation.  No doubt the reason why so little is said about them is that it is impossible that what is said can reach them.  “I hold it to be a most certain rule of interpreting Scripture that it never speaks of persons when there is a physical impossibility of its speaking to them. ... So the heathen, who died before the word was spoken, and in whose land it was never preached, are dead to the word; it concerns them not at all; but, the moment it can reach them, it is theirs, and for them.” – Dr. Arnold’s Life and Correspondence, Letter LXV.}

Article  XIX

Of the Church.

      The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

      As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also, the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

De Ecclesia.

      Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum praedicatur, et Sacramenta quoad ea quae necessario exiguntur juxta Christi institutum recte administrantur.  Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, et Antiochena; ita et erravit Ecelesia Romana, non solum quoad agenda, et caeremoniarum ritus, verum in his etiam quae credenda sunt.

Section  I – History

      After speaking of God’s election, probably meaning thereby election to the blessings of His Church; after declaring that the promise of salvation is not to be held out to all persons of all sects and religions; the Articles proceed to define the Church itself, into which God predestinates individuals to be brought, and which is appointed as the earthly home of those who embrace the Gospel and would be saved.

      A distinct definition was naturally called for at the Reformation, when great schisms were likely to arise, and when the Church of Rome claimed to be the only true Church of God, and made communion with the Pope a necessary note of the Church.  Such distinct definitions we may not always meet with in earlier times.

      Ignatius calls the Church, “the multitude or congregation that is in God”; {το εν Θεω πληθος. – Trall. 8.} says of the three orders of clergy, that “without these there is no Church”; {χωρις τούτων εκκλησία ου καλειται. – Ibid. 3.} and, “wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” {όπου αν φανη ο επισκοπος, εκει το πληθος έστω·  ώσπερ όπου αν η Χριστος Ιησους εκει η καθολικη εκκλησία. – Smyrn. 8.}

      Justin Martyr identifies the Church with those called Christians, partakers of the name of Christ; speaks of it as one synagogue and one assembly; and says it is as the daughter of God. {Ότι τοις εις αυτον πιστεύουσιν, ως ουσι μια ψυχη και μια συναγωγη, και μια εκκλησία ο λόγος του Θεου, ως θυγατρι τη εκκλησία τη εξ ονόματος αυτου γενομένη, και μετασχούση του ονόματος αυτου (Χριστιανοι γαρ πάντες καλούμεθα), κ. τ. λ. – Dial. p. 287.}

      Ireneus speaks of the Church as consisting of “those who have received the adoption; for this is the synagogue of God, which God the Son has assembled by Himself.” {Haer. III. 6.}  It is the Paradise of God planted in the world; and the fruits of the garden are the Holy Scriptures. {v. 20.}  It is spread throughout the world, sown by Apostles and their followers, holding, from them, the one faith in the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, and General Judgment.{1:2 (where the faith of the Church is given nearly in the words of the Creed); v. 20.}  It is ,one, though universal. {1:3, 3:11, 5:20.}  Its Head is Christ. {3:18, 5:18.}  It is a visible body, animated by one Spirit, everywhere preaching one and the same faith, one and the same way of salvation. {τουτο το κήρυγμα παρειληφυια, και ταύτην την πίστιν, ως προέφαμεν, η εκκλησία καίπερ εν ολω τω κόσμω διεσπαρμένη, επιμελως φυλάσσει, ως ένα οικον οικουσα, και ομοίως πιοτεύει τούτοις ως μίαν ψυχην και την αυτην εχουσα καρδίαν, και συμφώνως ταυτα κηρύσσει, και διδάσκει, και παραδίδωσιν, ως έν στόμα κεκτημένη. – Lib. I. cap. 3; also Lib. V. cap. 20.}  The tradition, or doctrine of the Apostles is carefully preserved in the Church, and the succession of pastors and bishops from the Apostles. {Lib. III. cap. 3.}  He says the successors of the first bishops might be enumerated in many Churches; and singles out more particularly the Churches of Rome and Smyrna, giving a catalogue of the bishops of Rome from St. Peter and St. Paul. {Ibid.}

      Tertullian speaks of the Church as composed of all the Churches founded by Apostles, or offsprings of Apostolic Churches and living in the unity of the same faith and discipline. {De Praescript. Haeretic. 20. 21.}

      The Church, according to Clement of Alexandria, is the assembly of the elect, { Ου νυν τον τόπον αλλα το άθροισμα των εκλεκτων, εκκλησίαν καλω. – Strom. VII. p. 846.} the congregation of Christian worshippers; {το άθροισμα των ταις ευχαις άνακειμένων.  “The congregation of those who dedicate themselves to prayer.” – Strom. VII. p. 848.} the devout Christians being, as it were, the spiritual life of the body of Christ, the unworthy members being like the carnal part. {Σωμα δε αλληγορειται η εκκλησία Κυριου, ο πνευματικος και άγιος χορός·  εξ ων οι το όνομα επικεκλημένοι μόνον, βιουντες δε ου κατα λόγον, σάρκες εισί. – Strom. VII. p. 885.}

      Origen says the Church is the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, the members being all who believe in Him. {Λέγομεν ότι Σωμα Χριστου φασιν ειυαι οι θειοι λόγοι, υπο του Υιου του Θεου ψυχ_ύμενον, την πάσαν Θεου εκκλησίαν, μελη δε τούτου του Σώματος ειναι ως όλου τους δε τίνας τους πιστεύοντας. – Contra Celsum, VI. 48.}  The visibility of the Church he expresses by saying that we should give no heed to those who say, “‘There is Christ,’ but show Him not in the Church, which is full of brightness from the East to the West, and is the pillar and ground of the truth.” {“Non debemus attendere eis qui dicunt, Ecce hic Christus, non autem ostendunt Eum in Ecclesia, quae plena est fulgore ab oriente usque ad occidentem, quae plena est lumine vero, quae est columna et firmamentum veritatis.” — Comm. in Matthae. c. xxiv.  See Palmer On the Church. I. pt. I. ch. III.}

      Cyprian calls the Church the Mother of all the children of God; compares it to the ark of Noah in which all who would be saved should take refuge; and says that whilst it puts forth its rays through all the world, yet it is but one light. {“Ecclesia Doimni luce perfusa per orbem totum radios suos porrigit, unum tamen lumen est ... Habere jam non potest Deum Patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem.  Si potuit evadere quisquam qui extra arcam Noe fuit; et qui extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadet,” &e. – De Unitate Ecclesiae, pp. 108, 109, Fell.}

      Athanasius we find speaking of Christ as the foundation of the Church; {Contra Arian. III. p. 444, Colon.} and of unfaithful Christians as the tares among the good seed. {De Semente, p. 1064.}

      Cyril of Jerusalem says The Church is called Ecclesia (assembly), because it calls out and assembles together all; just as the Lord says, “Assemble all the congregation to the door of the tabernacle of witness” (Lev. 8:3).  The Church is called Catholic, because it is throughout all the world; because it teaches universally all truth; because it brings all classes of men into subjection to godliness; because it cures all spiritual diseases, and has all sorts of spiritual graces.  It is distinguished from sects of heretics, as the Holy Catholic Church, in which we ought to abide, as having been therein baptized. {Cateches.  XVIII. 11, which see at length.}

      Gregory Nazianzen calls it a Vineyard, into which all are summoned as to their place of work, as soon as they are brought to the faith; into which, however, they actually enter by baptism. {Oratio Quadragesima, p. 650, Colon.}

      St. Ambrose says The faith is the foundation of the Church; not St. Peter, but St. Peter’s faith; for the Church is like a good ship beat against by many waves; but the true faith on which the Church is founded should prevail against all heresies. {“Fides ergo est Ecclesiae fundamentum.  Non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est, quia portae mortis ei non praevalebunt: sed confessio vincit infernum.  Nam cum Ecclesia multis tanquam bona navis fluctibus saepe tundatur, adversus omnes haereses debet valere Ecclesiae fundamentum.” – De Incarnationis Sacramento, cap. V.}

      As the remains of the great fathers who flourished late in the fourth and early in the fifth century are far more voluminous than those of their predecessors; so also the increase of heresies, and especially the schism of the Donatists, led to their speaking oftener and more fully of the Church and its blessings; and this is observable more in the Latin than in the Greek writers.

      With Chrysostom, the Church is Christ’s Body, and the thought of this ought to keep us from sin.  And though the Head is above all principality and power, yet the body is trampled on by devils – so unworthy are members of Christ. {Hom. III.  In Epist. ad Ephes.}  This body consists of all believers, some honourable, some dishonourable members. {Hom. X. In Ephes.}  It is both one and yet many; and the regenerating Spirit is given to all in baptism. {Hom. XXX.  In 1 Corinth.}

      With Rufinus, the true Church is that in which there is one faith, one baptism, and a belief in one God, Father, Son, and Spirit; and the Church, thus pure in the faith, is spotless. {Expositio in Symbolum Apostol.  Art Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam.}

      With Jerome and Augustine, the Church is the ark of Noah, which St. Peter said was a type of our salvation by baptism.  But, as there were evil beasts in the ark, so bad Christians in the Church. {Hieronym.  Adv. Lucifer.  Tom. IV. p. 302; August.  Enarr. in Psalm. xxiv.  Tom. IV. p. 131.}  The meaning of Church (Ecclesia) is, according to Jerome, congregation. {Comment.  Lib. III. in Proverb. c. xxx.; Ecclesia enim congregatio vocatur: Tom. V. p. 590.}  It is not held together by walls, but by the truth of its doctrines.  And where the true faith is, there is the Church. {“Ecclesia non parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate; Ecclesia ibi est, ubi fides vera est.” – Comm. in Psalm. cxxxiii.  Tom. II. Append. p. 472.}  Its head is in Heaven, but its members upon earth. {“Caput in coelo, membra in terra.” – Ps. xc. Tom. II. App. p. 361.}  It is built on prophets and apostles; {Comment. in Ps. xvii. Tom. II. Appendix, p. 393.} and there is no Church without a priesthood. {“Ecclesia non autem, quae non habet sacerdotes.” – Adv. Lucifer.  Tom. IV. p. 302.}

      Augustine says, “The Church (Ecclesia) is so named from vocation or calling.” {“Ecclesia ex vocatione appellata.”  In Epist. ad Roman.  Inchoata Expositio, Tom. III. pt. II. p. 925.}  It is the New Jerusalem; {De Civitate Dei, Tom. VII. p. 594.} the Robe of Christ; {Ibid. p. 452.} the City of the Great King; {Ibid. p. 479.} the City of God. {Ibid. pp. 335, 510.}  It is the field of God; {Enarr. in Ps. cxxxiv.  Tom. IV. p. 1497.} in which, however, spring both tares and wheat. {Serm. XV. de 8 v.  Psalm XXV.  Tom. V. p. 89; Serm. CXXIII.  In Vigiliis Paschae, Tom. V. p. 967.}  It is not only visible, but bright and conspicuous.  It is a city set on a hill, which cannot be hid. {Enarr. in Psalm. lvii.  Tom. IV. p. 547; Serm. XXXVII.  De Proverb. cap. xxxi. Tom. V. p. 181.}  It may be as clearly known, and as certainly recognized, as was the risen Body of Christ by St. Thomas. {Enarr. in Ps. cxlvii.  Tom. IV. p. 1664.}  The Church below consists of all believers; the Church above, of the angels of heaven. {“Ecclesia deorsum in omnibus fidelibus, Ecclesia sursum in angelis.” – Enarr. in Psalm. cxxxvii.  Tom. IV. p. 1527.}  The Church is not all pure and free from stain; the just are mingled with the unjust. {De Civitate Dei, I. 35; XVIII. 48, 49; Tom. VII. pp. 30, 531.}  The Church indeed now is washed with water by the word (Eph. 5:26); yet not to be “without spot or wrinkle” (Eph. 5:27), till the Resurrection.  {De Perfectione Justitiae, Tom. X. p. 183.}  After the Resurrection, the bad members shall be taken away, and there shall be none but the good. {Serm. CCLII.  In Diebus Pasch. Tom. V. p. 1041.}  No doubt, baptism cleanses those who receive it from all sin; but after baptism fresh sins may be committed; and therefore, from that to the Judgment, there is constant need of remission. {De Gestis Pelagii, Tom. X. p. 206.}  So essential are the Sacraments to the existence of the Church, that Augustine says the Church is formed by the two Sacraments, which flowed from the side of Christ, just as Eve was formed out of the side of Adam, who was a type of Christ. {“Quod latus lancea percussum in terra sanguinem et aquam manat; procul dubio sacramenta sunt quibus formatur Ecclesia, tanquam Eva facta de latere dormientis Adam, qui erat forma futuri.” – Serm. CCXIX. cap. 14, In Vigiliis Paschae, Tom. V. p. 962.  The same idea is expressed by St. Chrysostom, Homil. in Johan. 85, Tom. II. p. 915.  See under Art. XXV.}

      It naturally strikes us, that the above and similar statements of the fathers concerning the Church are not, for the most part, of the nature of logical definitions.  They are essentially practical, and even devotional in their character.  Yet by comparing them together, we may find that the very definitions of our own Article are implicitly given by them.  Thus we have heard their teaching, – that the Church is a visible body, capable of being known and recognized, – that the very word Church means congregation, – that it is a congregation of believers, or of the faithful, – that its great support and characteristic is the true faith preserved by it, – that baptism admits to it, – that it is essential to its existence to have a rightly ordained ministry, who are able to minister the Sacraments, which Sacraments are even spoken of as forming the Church. {When St. Augustine says that the Church is formed by the Sacraments, he means that we are first joined to the Church by baptism, and preserved in spiritual life and church-communion by the Eucharist.}

      The Creeds do not exactly define, but give titles to distinguish the Church.  The Apostles’ Creed calls it the Holy Catholic Church; and the Constantinopolitan Creed calls it One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.  Its unity depends on unity of foundation, unity of faith, unity of baptism, unity of discipline, unity of communion.  Its holiness springs from the presence of Christ, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, the graces conferred upon its members by partaking of its Sacraments and living in its communion.  Its apostolicity results from its being built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, continuing in the doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles, holding the faith of the Apostles, governed and ministered to by a clergy deriving their succession from the Apostles.

      The designation Catholic, used in all the Creeds and throughout the writings of the fathers, originated probably in the universality of the Christian Church, as distinguished from the local nationality of the Jewish synagogue.  The same Christian Church, one in its foundation, in its faith, and in its Sacraments, was spread universally through all nations.  But, as sects and heresies separated by degrees from the one universal Church, forming small and distinct communions among themselves, the term Catholic, which at first applied to all who embraced the religion of Jesus, was afterwards used to express that one holy Church which existed through all the world, undivided, and intercommunicating in all its branches, as contra-distinguished from heretics and schismatics.  Hence Catholic, in one view of the term, became nearly identified with orthodox.  And so, whilst the one Catholic Church meant the true Church throughout the world, yet the true and sound Church in a single city would be called the Catholic Church of that city, {Thus Constantine writes to the Church of Alexandria: “Constantine the Great, Augustus, to the people of the Catholic Church of Alexandria.” – See Athanasii Opera, I. 772, 773, 779; Colon.  Suicer, II. 14.} its members would be called Catholic Christians, and the faith which they held in common with the universal Church was the Catholic faith.  Accordingly, St. Cyril admonishes his people that, if ever they sojourned in any city, it was not sufficient to inquire for the Church or the Lord’s house; for Marcionists and Manichees, and all sorts of heretics professed to be of the Church and called their places of assembly the House of the Lord; but they ought to ask, Where is the Catholic Church?  For this is the peculiar name of the Holy Body, the Mother of us all, the Spouse of the Lord Jesus Christ. {Cateches. XVIII. 12.}

      The unity and catholicity of the Church were imminently perilled by the schism of the East and West, when the entire Latin Church ceased to communicate with the entire Eastern Church.  From that time to this there has been no communion between them; though possibly neither branch has utterly rejected the other from a share in the unity of the Church and of the faith. {On this subject consult Palmer, On the Church, I. pt. I. ch. IX. sect. 2.}

      The gradual corruption in the Western Church perilled still further unity and catholicity.  The unity of communion was preserved through the West of Europe, but important points of faith and practice were corrupted and impaired.  Hence the many protests and divisions in Germany, England, and other parts of Europe, ending in that great disruption known as the general Reformation.

      At that period some even of those who were sensible of the corruptions felt that to adhere to the communion of Rome was essential if they would abide in the fellowship of the Apostles and the unity of the Catholic Church.  Others, as Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, held that sound faith and purity of doctrine were more essential to catholicity than undivided communion even with the bishops and existing Church of their own land; arguing that a Church could not be Catholic which did not soundly hold the Catholic faith and duly administer the holy Sacraments.  Luther indeed never wished to separate from the Church, but ever appealed to a true general council; and the Confession of Augsburg declared that the Lutherans differed in no Article of faith from the Catholic Church, {Confess. August. A. D. 1531, Art. XXI.  Sylloge, p. 133.} holding that the Churches ought jure divino to obey their bishops.  Bishops, it is said, might easily retain their authority if they would not command things contrary to good conscience.  All that was sought was that unjust burdens should not be imposed which were novel and contrary to the custom of the Catholic Church. {Syll. p. 157.  See also Palmer, I. pt. I. ch. XII. § 1, p 361.}

      Our own reformers had a less difficult part to play, for though, in order to return to primitive purity of faith, they were obliged to separate from most of the continental Churches, they were themselves, for the most part, the bishops and clergy of the national Church; and there was therefore no internal secession from the jurisdiction of the Episcopate, though there was necessary alienation from the great body of the Church.

      In this unhappy state of things, the Church which remained in communion with Rome arrogated to itself the name (too often since conceded to it) of the Catholic Church; maintaining that she was the one true Church from which all others had separated off, – that communion with the see or St. Peter was essential to the unity, catholicity, and to the very existence of the Church, and that all who were separated from that communion were heretics and schismatics.

      This led naturally to definitions of the Church on the part of the reforming clergy and the reformed Churches.  The VIIth Article of the Confession of Augsburg is evidently the origin of the XIXth Article of our own Church.  There we find it said that “There is one Holy Church to abide forever.  And the Church is a congregation of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered.” {Conf. August. Art. VII.  Sylloge, p. 125, also p. 171.}

      Luther, in commenting on the Article in the Creed concerning the Holy Catholic Church, says, “Church, or Ecclesia, means properly the congregation or communion of Christians”; and expounds that Article of the Creed thus, “I believe that there is a certain congregation and communion of saints on earth, gathered together of holy men under one Head, Christ; collected by the Holy Spirit, in one faith and one sentiment, adorned with various gifts, but united in love, and accordant in all things, without sects or schism. ... Moreover, in this Christianity we believe that remission of sins is offered, which takes place by means of the Sacraments and absolution of the Church.” {Catechismus Major.  Opera, Tom. V. p. 628.}

      Calvin defines the Visible Church as “the multitude of men diffused through the world, who profess to worship one God in Christ; are initiated into this faith by baptism; testify their unity in true doctrine and charity by participating in the Supper; have consent in the Word of God, and for the preaching of that Word maintain the ministry ordained of Christ.” {“Universalem hominum multitudinem in orbe diffusam quae unum se Deum et Christum colere profitetur; Baptismo initiator in Ejus fidem coenae participations unitatem in vera doctrina et caritate testatur: consensionem habet in verbo Domini, atque ad ejus praedicationem ministerium conservat a Christo institutum.” – Institut. Lib. I. s. 7.}

      The English reformers have given in works of authority some definitions of the Visible Church besides that contained in this Article.  The second part of the Homily for Whitsunday (set forth early in Elizabeth’s reign, therefore, after the Articles of 1552, but before the final sanction of the XXXIX Articles by the Convocation of 1562 and 1571) gives the following as the notes of the Church: “The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God’s faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head corner-stone, Ephes. ii.  And it hath always these notes or marks whereby it is known: pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ’s holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline.”

      Very similar are the statements of the Catechism of Edward VI, A. D. 1553, the year after the first draught of the Articles.  “The marks of the Church are, first, pure preaching of the Gospel: then brotherly love: thirdly, upright and uncorrupted use of the Lord’s Sacraments, according to the ordinance of the Gospel: last of all, brotherly correction and excommunication, or banishing those out of the Church that will not amend themselves.  This mark the holy fathers termed discipline.” {Enchirid. Thoeologicum, I. p. 26.}

      Noel’s Catechism also enumerates, first, sound doctrine and right use of the Sacraments, and then the use of just discipline.{Ibid. I. p. 276.}

      Bishop Ridley gave a definition exactly conformable to the above: “The holy Catholic or universal Church, which is the communion of saints, the house of God, the city of God, the spouse of God, the body of Christ, the pillar and stay of the truth; this Church I believe, according to the Creed: this Church I do reverence and honour in the Lord.  The marks whereby this Church is known unto me in this dark world, and in the midst of this crooked and froward generation, are these, – the sincere preaching of God’s Word; the due administration of the Sacraments; charity; and faithful observances of ecclesiastical discipline, according to the Word of God.” {Conferences between Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer, Ridley’s Works, Parker Society edition. p. 123.}

      The difference which strikes us between these definitions and that of the Article is that in them there is added to the notes in the Article, “the observance of ecclesiastical discipline,” or, as the Homily terms it, of “the ecclesiastical keys”.  Now it is probable that the compilers of the Articles, who elsewhere made this use of the keys one note of the Church, omitted it in the Article itself, as considering that it was implied in the due administration of the Sacraments.  For what is the power of the keys and the observance of discipline, but the admission of some to, and the rejection of others from, the Sacraments and blessings of the Church?  Where, therefore, the Sacraments are duly ministered, there too discipline must exist. {The definition of the Church by the Roman Catholic divines does not materially differ from those of the Reformers, except in one important point.  Bellarmine gives it as follows: “Nostra sententia est ecclesiam unam tantum esse, non duas, et illam unam et veram esse coetum hominum ejusdem Christianae fidei professione et eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac praecipue unius Christi in terris Vicarii Romani pontificis.” – Controvers. General.  Tom. II. p. 108, Lib. III.  De Ecclesia, C. 2.}

      It may be right to say something of the invisible Church.  The Article says nothing of the invisible Church; but as it uses the term “visible Church,” it implies a contradistinction to something invisible.  Now “invisible Church” is not a Scriptural term, but a term of comparatively late origin; and there are two different views of its meaning.  Some persons by it understand the saints departed, who, in Paradise or the unseen place (Hades), are no longer militant and visible, but form part of the true Church of God, – the Church in fact in its purified and beatified contrition, freed from its unsound members, and “without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.”

      Others, however, (and the Reformers were mostly of this opinion,) believed that within the visible Church we might conceive to exist a body of true saints, persons not only communicating with the outward Church, but, moreover, really sanctified in heart, who not only now partook of Church privileges, but would forever reign with Christ.  These formed the invisible Church, whom none knew but God; whereas the visible Church was composed of faithful and unfaithful, of tares and wheat.*

            {*Calvin expounds this doctrine at length, Inst. Lib. IV. cap. i.  It may be seen in the writings of the English Reformers, e.g. The Institution of a Christian Man.  See Formularies of Faith in the Reign of Henry VIII. p. 52; Edward VI. Catechism, Enchir. Theol. p. 24; Noel’s Catechism, Ibid. p. 272; Cranmer’s Works, III. p. 19; Ridley’s Works, p. 126.

            The fathers do not appear to have recognized this distinction, although in St. Augustine and some others there are frequent and evident allusions to the difference of the body of the really faithful and the mere outward communion of the Church.  St. Augustine mentions it as an error of the Pelagians, that they looked on the Church as composed of perfectly holy persons, Haeres. 88.  And afterwards, Calvin attributes the same opinion to the Anabaptists, Inst. IV. i. 13.}

      It is however certain, that the Article confines itself to the consideration of the visible Church, and gives us no authoritative statement concerning the invisible Church.  And, indeed, the reformers themselves vary considerably in their statements on the subject, though the sad corruptions in the visible Church in their days led them naturally to apply some of the promises in Scripture to a secret body, and not to the universal Church.  There does not appear anything in the Liturgy or formularies of the Church which specially alludes to this distinction of the visible and invisible Church.  The Church spoken of there is the Body of Christ, the ark of Christ’s Church, and still the congregation of all who profess and call themselves Christians, the congregation of Christian people dispersed through the world, built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, the blessed company of all faithful people, into which a child is incorporated by baptism, of fellowship with which the adult is assured by communion, and for all members of which we pray that they may be led into the way of truth, and so walk in the light of truth, that at last they may attain to the light of everlasting life.  And so we pray “for all estates of men in God’s Holy Church, that every member of the same, in his vocation and ministry, may truly and godly serve Him,”* that is, may be faithful, not unworthy members of the Body.

            {*Collect for Good Friday.  The following are the other principal expressions in the Liturgy and Prayers concerning the Church: –

            “That it may please Thee to rule and govern Thy holy Church universal in the right way,” &c. (Litany).  “More especially we pray for the good estate of the Catholic Church, that it may be so guided and governed by Thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth,” &c. (Prayer for all Conditions of Men).  “Who hast purchased to Thyself an universal Church by the precious Blood of Thy dear Son. ... Who of Thy Divine Providence hast appointed divers orders in Thy Church” (Prayers for Ember Weeks).  “Merciful Lord, we beseech thee to cast Thy bright beams of light upon Thy Church, that it being enlightened by the doctrine of thy blessed Apostle and Evangelist St. John, may so walk in the light of Thy truth that it may at length attain to the light of everlasting life (Collect for St. John’s day).  “O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship in the mystical Body of Thy Son Christ our Lord” (Collect for All Saints).  “O Almighty God, who hast built Thy Church upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head cornerstone” (Collect for St. Simon and St. Jude).  The Prayer “for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth” is a prayer for all states of men, kings and councils, bishops and curates, all the people in health or sickness.  The first prayer for the child to be baptized asks, “that he, being delivered from Thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ’s Church.”  And after the baptism we thank God that He hath “incorporated him into His holy Church.”  So in the Post-Communion we thank God for feeding us in the Sacrament, thereby assuring us that we are very members “incorporate in the mystical Body of His Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people.”  In the bidding prayer ministers are enjoined to move the people to join them in prayer in this form: “Ye shall pray for Christ’s holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland and Ireland,” &c. (Canon 55).}

      II.  The latter part of the Article concerns the errors of one portion of the Church, the Church of Rome.

      The Church of Rome claimed to be the whole Catholic Church.  Here we declare our belief that she is but one branch or portion of the Catholic Church, and that an erring branch, erring not only in practice and discipline, but in matters of faith.  This is illustrated by reference to the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all of which are said to have erred in doctrine as well as discipline; and, like them, the Church of Rome is said to have erred.  In what points Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch may be considered as having erred in matters of faith is a question which has been mooted by expositors of this Article.  Dr. Hey thinks it was in favouring Arianism and condemning Origen.  The great point on which the Western Church separated from the Eastern was the doctrine of the procession of the Third Person of the Trinity.  It was an acknowledged fact in the West that on this point the Eastern Churches had erred.  When therefore the Article, writing in condemnation of errors in the Church of Rome, speaks first of the errors of the Eastern Churches, perhaps it specially alludes to that point in which the Church of Rome would hold, in common with the Church of England, that these Churches had erred.  So the statement would be a kind of argumentum ad hominem, a premise sure to be granted.  But this part of the Article is directed against Romanist, not against Eastern or Alexandrian errors which are only introduced obiter.  Some might expect the Article to have denounced the Church of Rome, not as a Church in error, but as the synagogue of Antichrist, an antichristian assembly, not an erring Church.  No doubt, at times, such is the language of the reformers who, in their strong opposition to Romanist errors, often use the most severe terms in denouncing them.  But in their most sober and guarded language, not only our own, but Luther, Calvin, and other continental reformers, speak of the Church of Rome as a Church, though a fallen and corrupt Church.

      Thus Luther says, “We call the Church of Rome holy, and the bishops’ sees holy, though they be perverted and their bishops impious.  In Rome, though worse than Sodom and Gomorrha, there are still Baptism and the Sacrament, the Gospel, the Scripture, the ministry, the name of Christ and God.  Therefore the Church of Rome is holy.”  “Wherever,” he adds, “the Word and Sacraments substantially remain, there is the holy Church, notwithstanding Antichrist reigns there, who, as Scripture witnesseth, sits not in a stable of demons or a pigsty, or an assembly of infidels, but in the most noble and holy place, even the temple of God.” {Comment. in Galat. 1:2; Opp. Tom. V. pp. 278, 279.}

      Calvin, writing to Laelins Socinus, maintains the validity of Popish baptism, and says that he does not deny some remains of a Church to the Papists. {Calv.  Zozino Epistolae, p. 51, Amstelod. 1667.}  In another epistle to the same he writes, “When I allow some remains of a Church to the Papists, I do not confine it to the elect who are dispersed among them; but mean that some ruins of a scattered Church exist there; which is confirmed by St. Paul’s declaration that Antichrist shall sit in the temple of God.” {“Quod ecclesim reliquias manere in papatu dico non restringo ad electos qui illic dispersi sunt: sed minas dissipatae ecclesiae illic extare intelligo.  Ac ne mihi longis rationibus disputandum sit, nos Pauli auctoritate contentos esse decet, qui Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum pronunciat.” – Epist. p. 57.  See also Institut. IV. ii. 12.}

      As to the writings of our reformers, to begin with the reign of Henry VIII, the Institution of a Christian Man has, “I do believe that the Church of Rome is not, nor cannot worthily be called the true Catholic Church, but only a particular member thereof” ... “and I believe that the said Church of Rome, with all the other particular Churches in the world, compacted and united together, do make and constitute but one Catholic Church or body.” {Formularies of Faith, p. 56.}  So the Necessary Doctrine, “The Church of Rome, being but a several Church, challenging that name of Catholic above all other, doeth great wrong to all other Churches, and doeth only by force and maintenance support an unjust usurpation.” {p. 247.}

      In Cranmer’s Catechism, after a denunciation of the great sin of worshipping images of the saints, it is said: “Thus, good children, I have declared how we were wont to abuse images; not that I herein condemn your fathers, who were men of great devotion, and had an earnest love towards God, although their zeal in all points was not ruled and governed by true knowledge; but they were seduced and blinded partly by the common ignorance that reigned in their time, partly by the covetousness of their teachers,” {Catechism, pp. 26, 27.} &c.  Here the members of the Church before the Reformation are spoken of as pious, though ignorant and misled. So Cranmer frequently charges popery, not on the people, but on the Pope and the friars who deluded them. {Works, III. p. 365.  “I charge none with the name of papists but that be well worthy thereof.  For I charge not the hearers, but the teachers, not the learners, but the inventors of the untrue doctrine.”}  In his appeal at his degradation, he says, “Originally the Church of Rome, as it were the lady of the world, both was and also was conceited worthily, the mother of other Churches.”  He then proceeds to speak of corruptions introduced into the Roman and afterwards into other Churches, “growing out of kind into the manners of the Church their mother”; he says, there is no hope of Reformation from the Pope, and therefore from him appeals to a “free general council” of the whole Church; and adds, that he is “ready in all things to follow the judgment of the most sacred word of God, and of the holy Catholic Church.” {Works, IV. pp. 125, 126, 127.}

      So then, although the English, like the foreign reformers, frequently called the papal power Antichrist, the Man of sin, the Beast, &c., deplore and condemn the idolatrous state of the Church before the Reformation, and of the Church which continued in union with Rome after the Reformation, and in consequence often use language which appears to imply that the Church of Rome was no true Church at all; still they often speak, as this Article does, of the Church of Rome as yet a Church, though a corrupt, degenerate, and erring Church.  Accordingly, the XXXth Canon declares: “So far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things that they held or practised, that, as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men; and only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches, which were their first founders.”

      The tone and temper of the Church of England appears therefore to be that of a body earnestly and steadfastly protesting against Romanism, against all the errors, abuses, and idolatries of the Church of Rome, and the usurpation of the See of Rome; but yet acknowledging that, with a fearful amount of error, the Churches of the Roman communion are still branches, though corrupt branches of the universal Church of Christ.

      The divine who has been commonly considered as the most accredited exponent of the principles of the Church of England, thus speaks in her behalf: “In the Church of Christ we were (i.e. before the Reformation), and we are so still.  Other difference between our estate before and now we know none, but only such as we see in Judah; which, having some time been idolatrous, became afterwards more soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and superstition. ... The indisposition of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us from performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them could be no excuse if we did not perform our duty.  Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them.  For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel, that they are in one respect enemies, but in another beloved of God (Rom. 11:28); in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate touching her grievous abominations, yet, touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ.” {Hooker, Eccl. Pol  III. i. 10.}

      This is not the language of one great man; but most consistent with it have been the sentiments of almost all those eminent writers of our Church, who are known and reverenced as the great types of Anglican piety, learning, and charity. {The student may consult Palmer, On the Church, ch. XI, where he will find quotations from Bp. Hall, Archbp. Usher, Hammond, Chillingworth, Field, &c.}  It is infinitely to be desired that there should be no relaxation of our protest against error and corruption; but the force of a protest can never be increased by uncharitableness or exggeration.  Let Rome throw off her false additions to the Creed, and we will gladly communicate with her; but, so long as she retains her errors, we cannot but stand aloof, lest we should be partakers of her sins.

Section  II – Scriptural Proof

      The word εκκλησία, rendered Church, should, according to its derivation, signify persons called out from among others for some purpose.  At Athens the Ecclesia was the general assembly of the people, convened by the crier for legislation.  In the old Testament, the word is often used by the LXX to translate the Hebrew קָהָל, which commonly expresses the assembly or congregation of the people of Israel.*  Accordingly, when adopted in the new Testament, it is used to signify the whole assembly or congregation of the people of God under the Gospel, as it had been before to signify the congregation of the people of God under the Law.  And as συναγωγη, Synagogue, was the more frequent word for the congregation of the Jews; so perhaps our Lord and his Apostles adopted, by preference and for distinction’s sake, the word εκκλησία, Church, for the congregation of Christians.

            {* קָהָלis often rendered εκκλησία, as Deut. 9:10, 18:16, Judges 21:8; 1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron. 7:8, 12; often it is rendered συναγωγη, as Exod. 16:1–3, Lev. 4:13, 14, 21; Num. 16:3, 20:6.  In Psalm 22:22, “the midst of the Congregation will I praise Thee,” is rendered by the Apostle, “In the midst of the Church will I praise Thee” (Heb. 2:12).  So St. Stephen speaks of “the Church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38), meaning the congregation of the Israelites.}

      1.  Now it is well known and obvious that the word Congregation as read in the old Testament not only meant an assembly of the people gathered together at a special time for worship, but was constantly used to express the whole body of worshippers, the whole people of Israel, the congregation which the Lord had purchased (e.g. Ex. 12:19.  Lev. 4:15.  Num. 16:3, 9; 27:17.  Josh. 22:18, 20.  Judg. 21:13, 16.  Ps. 74:2).

      This too, mutatis mutandis, is the ordinary acceptation of the word Church in the new Testament.  It applies to the society of Christians, to those who believe in Christ, to those who live in Christian fellowship, and partake of Gospel privileges.  For example: “Give none offence, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). {In this passage the “Church” is used to distinguish Christians from Jews and heathens.}  “On this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18).  “Saul made havoc of the Church” (Acts 8:3).  “Persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9).  “The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47).  “Fear came on all the Church” (Acts 5:11).  “  The Church is subject unto Christ” (Eph. 5:24).  “God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets,” &c. (1 Cor. 12:28).

      2.  But it also signifies the Church, or body of Christians in a particular town or country.  Thus we read of “the Church which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1); “the Church which was at Antioch” (Acts 13:1); “the elders of the Church at Ephesus” (Acts 20:17); “the Church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2.  Compare Rom. 16:1, 4; 1 Cor. 16:1, Col. 4:16, Rev. 2, 3, &c. &c.)

      3.  It is used even for a single family of Christians, or a single congregation meeting for worship as the first Christians did in a private house, e.g. “Priscilla and Aquila, and the Church that is in their house” (Rom. 16:5.  1 Cor. 16:19); “Nymphas and the Church which is in his house” (Col. 4:15); “The Church in thy house” (Philem. 2).  And accordingly at times we find the word used in the plural, as signifying the various congregations of Christians, whether in one single city or throughout the world; as Acts 9:31, 15:41.  Rom. 16:4.  1 Cor. 7:17, 11:16, 14:33, 16:1, 19.  Rev. 1:4, 11; 2:23, &c.

      We may say therefore, that as the Congregation among the Jews signified either a body of worshippers, or more often the great body of worshippers assembled at the temple or tabernacle, or the great body of the Jewish people considered as the people of God; so the Church amongst Christians signifies, in the new Testament, either a single congregation of Christians, or the whole body of Christians in a particular place, or the whole body of Christians dispersed throughout the world.

      In our Article the word Church is interpreted Congregation, probably on the ground of the above considerations; namely, because such is the original meaning of the word, and such its application many times in Scripture.  The Church is called “a Congregation of faithful men,” coetus fidelium, because those of whom the Church is composed are the professed believers in Jesus Christ, that body of people “first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26).

      The name which our Lord Himself most frequently uses for the Church is, “the kingdom of God,” or “the kingdom of Heaven”.  The prophets constantly spoke of the Messiah as the King who should reign in righteousness (Isai. 32:1), the King who should reign and prosper (Jer. 23:5), the King of Israel, who should come to Zion, “just, and having salvation” (Zech. 9:9).  Daniel foretold that, when the Assyrian, Medo-Persian, and Grecian empires had passed away, and after the fourth great empire of Rome had been established, “the God of Heaven should set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed” (Dan. 2:44); that the Son of Man should have given Him “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him” (Dan. 7:14).  These prophecies led the Jews to expect that Messiah should set up a temporal kingdom, with all the glory and splendour of the kingdoms of this world.  Our Lord Himself, therefore, uses the language of the Prophets, and the language current among the Jews, continually calling the Church, which He was to establish, by the name of kingdom: “My kingdom,” “kingdom of God,” “kingdom of Heaven,” though often correcting the mistaken views entertained of it, and explaining that His kingdom was not of this world.  (See Matt. 3:2, 4:17, 12:28, 13:38.  Mark 1:14, 4:11, 26, 30; 10:15.  Luke 4:43, 7:28, 8:1, 9:2, 62; 16:16.  John 3:3.  Acts 1:3; &c.)

      Having premised thus much concerning the names or titles of that body of which the Article treats, we may next proceed to consider how the Scriptures prove the various statements of the Article.

      1.  That the Church is a visible body of believers.

      2.  That the pure word of God is held and preached in it.

      3.  That the Sacraments are duly ministered in it, according to Christ’s ordinance.

      1.  First, then, the Church is a visible body of believers.

      This, we have already observed, does not interfere with the belief that there is a body of persons within the Church, known only to God, who differ from the rest in being not only in outward privilege, but also in inward spirit, servants of Christ; whom some have called the invisible Church, and who being faithful unto death, will enter into the Church triumphant.  Nor does it interfere with a belief that the saints who are in Paradise, and perhaps also the holy angels of heaven, are members of the Church invisible, the company of God’s elect and redeemed people.  What we have to deal with here is the Church of God considered as Christ’s ordinance in the world, for the gathering together in one body of all believers in Him, and making them partakers of the various means of grace.

      It is argued indeed in limine, that the Church and kingdom of Christ cannot be visible, because our Lord said, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.  Neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20, 21).  This, however, proves no more than this.  The Pharisees, who had asked “when the kingdom of God should come?” “expected a kingdom of earthly glory, pomp, and splendour.  Our Lord answered that this was not the way in which His kingdom should come, not with observation, nor so that men should point out, Lo here! as to a splendid spectacle.  On the contrary, God’s reign in the Church should not be like an earthly king’s, but in the hearts of His people. {Many consider that the passage ought to be rendered not “within you,” but “amongst you,” εντος υμων, i.e. Though you expect to see some sign of a kingdom, yet in truth the kingdom of God is already come among you, and you have not recognized it.  But it is to be noted that in the new Testament the words Kingdom of God signify three things: – 1. The reign of Christ in His Church on earth.  2. The reign of Christ in the hearts of His people.  3. The reign of Christ in the eternal kingdom of glory.}

      But it is plain, both from prophecy and the new Testament, that the Church was to be, and is, a visible company.  “The mountain of the Lord’s house was to be established on the top of the mountains, and all nations were to flow unto it” (Isai. 2:2).  Among the earthly kingdoms, Christ’s kingdom was to grow up gradually like a stone hewn without hands till it became a mountain and filled the earth, breaking in pieces and consuming the worldly empires (Dan. 2:35, 44).  The kingdom of heaven in the Gospels is compared to a field sown with good and bad seed growing together till the harvest; to a marriage supper, where some have no wedding-garments; to a net taking good and bad fish, not separated till the net be drawn to the shore; by which we cannot fail to understand the outward communion of Christians in this world, in which the faithful and unfaithful live together, not fully separated till the Judgment (Matt. 13:24–30, 47–50; 22:11, 12).  Such parables would be inapplicable to an invisible company, and can only be interpreted of a visible body.

      Our Lord distinctly commanded that, if a Christian offended against his brother, the offence should be told to the Church (Matt. 18:17).  But if the Church were not a visible and ascertainable body, such a thing could not be.  Accordingly our Lord addresses His Church, as “the light of the world, a city set on a hill, that cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14).  St. Paul gives Timothy directions how to act as a bishop, that he might “know how to behave himself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (Tim. 3:15).  This would be unintelligible, if the Church were only an invisible spiritual society of faithful Christians, and not an outward organized body.  So, when first persons were brought in large numbers to believe the Gospel, we are taught that all those who were placed in a state of salvation were “added to the Church” (Acts 2:47); evidently, from the context, by the rite of baptism.  This again plainly intimates that the Church was a definite visible body of men.  The same appears from such expressions as the following: “Fear came on all the Church” (Acts 5:11); “a great persecution against the Church” (Acts 8:1); “assembled themselves with the Church” (Acts 11:26); “God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets” (1 Cor. 12:28).  The clergy are called “the elders of the Church” (Acts 20:17.  James 5:14) who are “to feed the Church of God” (Acts 20:28), to “take care of the Church of God” (1 Tim. 3:5).  People are spoken of as cast out of the Church (3 John 10).  The same thing appears again from what is said of local or national Churches, which, being branches of the one universal Church, are evidently and constantly spoken of as the visible society of Christians in their respective cities or countries. (See Acts 11:22, 13:1, 14:23, 15:3, 22.  Rom. 16:1, 16, 23.  1 Cor. 6:4, 7:17, 11:16, 14:33, 16:1, 19.  Gal. 1:22.  1 Thess. 2:14.  Rev. 1:4, &c.)

      Accordingly, St. Paul, when he speaks of the unity of the Church, speaks not only of spiritual, but of external unity also; for he says, “There is one body, and one spirit” (Eph. 4:4).  And our blessed Lord, when praying for the unity of His disciples, evidently desired a visible unity, which might be a witness for God to the world; “that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe,” &c. (John 17:21).

      We conclude therefore that, as the primitive Church always held, so Scripture also teaches, that the Church is not merely a spiritual and mystical communion of faithful Christians, known only to God, but is a visible body of those who are outward followers of Christ, consisting partly of faithful, partly of unfaithful, but all professed believers in the Gospel.

      2.  The first characteristic given us of this body is that the pure Word of God, or, in other language, the true faith is kept and preached in it.

      The Church is called by St. Paul “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15); whence it is manifest that a main province of the Church is to maintain and support the truth.  Our blessed Lord prayed for His disciples, that the Father would “sanctify them through His truth” (John 17:17).  He promised to the Apostles that “the Spirit of truth should guide them into all truth” (John 16:13).  He bade them “go and teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19).  And we learn of the first converted Christians that they “continued in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” (Acts 2:42).  Accordingly, the Apostles speak of the faith as ONE (Ephes. 4:5); of the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3); urge Christians “earnestly to contend for” it (Jude 3); and desire their bishops “to rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Tit. 1:13).

      Hence to introduce false doctrine or heresy into the Church is described as damning sin.  St. Peter speaks of those “who privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1).  St. Paul classes heresies among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20).  He says, “If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9).  He bids Timothy withdraw himself from those “who teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim. 6:3, 5).  And to Titus he says, “A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject” (Tit. 3:10).  St. John bids, “If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed” (2 John 10).  He says, “Whosoever abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9).  And calls all who “deny the Father and the Son,” or “deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” not Christians, but Antichrists (1 John 2:22.  2 John 7).

      Thus Scripture represents the Church as a body holding the truth, nay, “the pillar and ground of the truth”; and heretics, or persons holding vital error, are spoken of as apart from God, to be rejected, and not received as fellow Christians or members of Christ’s Church.

      The wording of our Article, “the pure word of God,” may be somewhat difficult.  Some would confine the meaning of it within very narrow limits, others would extend it to an indefinite latitude.  We must notice that the expression is not “the word of God is purely preached,” but, “the pure word of God is preached.”  If the former words had been used, we might have doubted in what body of Christians God’s Word was always purely preached, with no mixture of falsehood or error.  But “the pure word of God” is preached, wherever the main doctrines of the Gospel are preserved and taught.  The question, however, of “fundamentals” has always been considered difficult; and different persons have chosen to make different doctrines fundamental, according to their own peculiar views of truth.  Hence, some have excluded almost all Christians except themselves from holding the pure word of God; others have scarcely shut out Arians, Socinians, or even Deists.  We may be sure the Church intended to maintain the purity of Christian truth, yet without the narrowness of sectarian bigotry.  The way in which her own formularies are drawn up, – the first five Articles being almost a repetition and enforcement of the chief Articles of the Creed, and the eighth containing the Creeds themselves, – the question addressed to all members of the Church before admission to baptism, in the Catechism and in sickness, as to whether they believed the Creed, – the repetition on every Sunday and holy day of two of the Creeds, and once every month of the third, in the public service by the congregation, – the expressed adherence by the reformers to the decrees of the first four General Councils, – the general agreement to the same effect by the primitive Church, with which the reformers declared themselves to be in perfect accordance and unison: – these, and the like considerations, make it nearly certain that the compilers of the Article would have, and must have intended, that all who truly believed the Creeds of the Church were so far in possession and belief of “the pure word of God” as not to have forfeited the character of Christians or the fellowship of the Christian Church.

      3.  The next mark of the Church is that “the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance.”  We know that among the Jews circumcision and the passover were essential to the existence of the people as the congregation of the Lord, and that he who rejected or neglected either was to be cut off from His people (Gen. 17:14.  Exod. 12:15).  When the Lord Jesus founded His Church, He appointed the two Sacraments to supersede the two great ordinances of the Synagogue, namely, baptism to initiate the convert or the child, the Eucharist to maintain communion with Himself and with His people.

      The command which He gave to His Apostles was to “make disciples of all nations by baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19): that is to say, persons from all nations who believed the Gospel were to be admitted into the number of the disciples, the Church of Christ, by the Sacrament of baptism.  We know that the Apostles acted on this command, ever receiving by the rite of baptism all who had been converted to the truth.  (See Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 13, 36–38; 9:18; 10:47, 48; 16:14, 15, 33; 19:3, 5.  Rom. 6:3, 4.  Gal. 3:27.  Col. 2:11, 12.  1 Pet. 3:20, 21, &c.)  Nay! our Lord Himself declared, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).  Whence it is quite clear that a Christian Church must administer baptism according to our Lord’s command and the example of the Apostles, for otherwise its members could not be “born of water”.

      But our blessed Lord, moreover, commanded His Apostles to break the bread and bless the wine in remembrance of Him; and declared the bread broken and the cup poured out to be His Body and Blood (Matt. 26:26–30).  Moreover, He declared that except a Christian received the grace of His Body and Blood, he had no life in him (John 6:53).  Accordingly, we ever find that the Apostles and the Apostolic Churches “continued stedfastly in the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42; 20:7, 11.  1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:17, &c.); believing and declaring, that the “cup which they blessed was the communion of the Blood of Christ, and the bread which they brake was the communion of the Body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16).

      These two Sacraments, therefore, Baptism and the Holy Communion, were the ordinance of Christ, essential to the existence of His Church, steadily administered by His first ministers, and received by His early disciples, as completely as Circumcision and the Passover in the old dispensation of the Jews.  The Article therefore justly asserts that it is a necessary note of the Church that the Sacraments should be duly ministered according to the ordinance of Christ.

      4.  There is still one more point to be noticed.  The Article says the “pure word of God” is not only to be held, but to be “preached”; and that the Sacraments are to be “DULY ministered according to Christ’s ordinance.”  The first expression at once suggests the question, “How shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent?”  The second expression suggests the inquiry, How can sacraments be DULY ministered? and, whom has Christ authorized to minister them?  The definition evidently implies the consideration of a ministry: even as we saw both fathers and reformers mentioning a duly ordained ministry as essential to the character of a Church.  The present Article may possibly have less distinctly enunciated this, because in two future Articles the subject is specially treated.

      It is a truth hardly questioned, that our Lord did ordain a ministry for the preaching of the word, and that those so ordained did exercise that ministry and considered themselves as sent by Christ to fulfill it.  (See Matt. 10; 28:19, 20.  Luke 10:1, 16.  John 20:21, 23.  Acts 20:20, 26:17.  1 Cor. 4:1, 9:16, 17; 12:28.  2 Cor. 1:1.  Gal. 1:1.  Eph. 4:11, 14.  Phil. 1:1.  Col. 4:17.  1 Tim. 3:1.  Tit. 1:5.  1 Pet. 5:1, &c. &c.)  It is also quite certain that those to whom He gave authority to baptize, and those whom He commanded to bless the cup and break the bread in the Communion, were His commissioned and ordained Apostles (see the institution of the Eucharist in Matt. 26, and of Baptism in Matt. 28).  Moreover, we never hear of any one in the new Testament except a minister of God attempting to baptize or to administer the Holy Communion.  We know equally well that the practice and belief of the Primitive Church was that none but bishops and presbyters should minister the Communion, and, ordinarily at least, none but bishops, priests, or deacons, should preach or baptize.

      Thus then we conclude that to the right preaching of the Word, and to the due administration of the Sacraments according to Christ’s ordinance, a ministry such as Christ ordained is necessary and therefore is included in the definition of this Article.

      Moreover, as Baptism was to be with water, and the Eucharist with bread and wine, these elements must be used in order that they be duly administered; and with the elements that form of words which Christ has prescribed, at least in the case of Baptism, where a distinct form has been given.  And so, the Sacraments to be duly administered need first the right elements, then the right form of words, and lastly a ministry according to the ordinance of Christ.

      5.  It has been already noticed, that the definitions of the Article may be fairly considered as including the statement given in the Homily and in other partly authoritative documents, that one note of the Church is discipline, or the power of the Keys.  For if the Sacraments be duly ministered, unfit persons must be shut out from them; and if there be a duly constituted ministry, that ministry must have the power of the Keys committed by Christ to His Church.  But, as this subject falls more naturally under Article XXXIII, we may defer its fuller consideration for the present.

      The formularies of our Church have expressed no judgment as to how far the very being of a Church may be imperilled by a defect in this particular note of the Church; as by mutilation of the Sacraments, imperfect ordination, or defective exercise of the power of the Keys.  At the present time these questions force themselves on us.  But the English Church has been content to give her decision as to the right mode of ordaining, ministering Sacraments, and exercising discipline, without expressing an opinion on the degree of defectiveness in such matters which would cause other communions to cease from being Churches of Christ.

      II.  “The Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.”

      So many of the Articles specially enter upon the errors of the Church of Rome that the subject may require very brief notice here.  By “matters of faith” probably it is not intended to express articles of the Creed.  Had the Church of Rome rejected the Creeds, and those fundamental articles of the faith contained in them, the Church of England would probably have considered her distinctly as a heresy, and not as a corrupt and erring Church.  But there are many errors which concern the faith of Christ, besides those which strike at the very foundation and would overthrow even the Creeds themselves.

      Amongst these we may reckon all those novelties and heterodoxies contained in the Creed of Pope Pius IV, or of the Council of Trent.  They are thus reckoned up by Dr. Barrow: 1. Seven Sacraments.  2. Trent doctrine of Justification and Original Sin.  3. Propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass.  4. Transubstantiation.  5. Communicating under one kind.  6. Purgatory.  7. Invocation of Saints.  8. Veneration of Relics.  9. Worship of Images.  10. The Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches.  11. Swearing Obedience to the Pope.  12. Receiving the decrees of all synods and of Trent. {Barrow, On the Pope’s Supremacy, p. 290, conclusion.}

      It is true that these do not involve a denial of the Creeds, but they are additions to the Creeds, and error may be shown in excess, as well as in defect of belief.  They are to be received by all members of the Church of Rome, as articles of faith.  They are not with them mere matters of opinion.  Every priest is required to swear that they form parts of the Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved.*  Now the Church of England holds all of them to be false: several of her Articles are directed against these very doctrines as fabulous and dangerous; and therefore she must conclude, that “the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living and manner of ceremonies, but also in” those very points which she herself has declared to be “matters of faith”.

            {*The Creed of Pope Pius IV begins with a declaration of firm faith in the various Articles in the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan Creed; and then continues with a like declaration of firm faith in the twelve novelties enumerated in the text.  It finally rejects and anathematizes all things rejected and anathematized by the Council of Trent.  And concludes with a solemn vow and profession of all this as “the true Catholic faith, out of which no one can be saved.”  “Hanc veram Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse potest ... sponte profiteor ac veraciter teneo, spondeo, voveo ac juro.  Sic me Deus adjuvet et haec sancta Dei evangelia.”  Concil. Trident.  Canones et Deereta, pp. 370, 373, Monast. Guestphalorum, 1845.}