Article  IV

4,    5,    6,    7,    8,    9,    10

 

Of the Resurrection of Christ.

      Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again His body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of mans nature; wherewith He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until He return to judge all men at the last day.

 

De Resurrectione Christi.

      Christus vere a mortuis resurrexit, suumque corpus cum carne, ossibus, omnibusque ad integritatem humanae naturae pertinentibus, recepit; cum quibus in coelum ascendit, ibique residet, quoad extremo die, ad judicandos homines reversurus sit.

 

Important Equivalents

 

From death    =          a mortuis.

To the perfection of man’s nature   =        ad integritatem humana naturae.

 

      The Article is virtually the same now as it was in 1553, but there is nothing corresponding to it in the Confession of Augsburg, or the Articles of the Concordat of 1538.  It is the natural sequel of the preceding Articles on the Person and Work of Christ.  Its purpose was evidently to emphasize the truth of the Resurrection and the reality of our Lord’s humanity in the face of primitive and subsequent denials.  The Docetism of the early Gnostics had been revived in the sixteenth century, and some taught that the flesh of Christ had not been real and is now so deified as to have lost all real humanity. [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 99.]  On this account it was felt essential to emphasize the real and actual physical resurrection [See Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, De Haeresibus, c. 5, De duabus naturis Christi.  This sentence of it is particularly important, though the entire section should be consulted: Quidam verbum in carnis naturam conversum asserunt, quam, quamprimum a morte in coelum fuit recepta, rursus volunt in naturam divinam reversam et absorptam esse.] which would show that our Lord did not lay aside His humanity when He arose from the grave and ascended into heaven.

      But as with previous Articles, so with this, there is no doubt that the Reformers wished to emphasize their agreement with the fundamental teaching of the universal Church concerning our Lord’s Resurrection.  Then, too, there seems to have been a special reference to certain eucharistic views associated with the ubiquity of our Lord’s humanity, which this Article would indirectly but effectively meet and controvert. [See also on Article XXIX.]

 

I – The Teaching of the Article

      As the Article contains several separate and yet connected truths, it seems best first to analyze it as a whole, and then to consider more in detail the chief doctrines taught and implied.

      1.  The Fact of the Resurrection. – “Christ did truly rise again from death.” – The emphasis is plainly on the reality of the physical resurrection.

      2.  The identity of the risen body. – “And took again His body.” – This is a further proof of actual resurrection which necessarily involves identity with the past.

      3.  The difference between the risen body and that which was buried. – “With flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature.” – The omission of “blood” may possibly refer to the essential difference between the body buried and that which was raised.  The Article, following Scripture, speaks of “flesh and bones,” and this phrase contrasted with St. Paul’s words about “flesh and blood” being unable to enter the Kingdom of God, may suggest that while the resurrection body was not constituted on a natural basis through blood, yet that it possessed “all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature.”  Thus, the true description of the Resurrection seems to be that it was an objective reality, and yet not merely a physical resuscitation.  It was the same, yet different; different, yet the same.

      4.  The Ascension. – “Wherewith He ascended into heaven.” – The Latin is significant, cum quibus, i.e. with all the parts of His physical nature herein specified.  Thus, following Scripture, the Article makes no distinction between the Resurrection and the Ascension as actual facts.

      5.  The Session. – “And there sitteth.” – This is a virtual repetition of the statement of the Creed, as based upon New Testament teaching.

      6.  The Return. – “Until He return.” – Another reference to that which is so prominent in the New Testament, the Second Advent of our Lord.

      7.  The Judgment. – “To judge all men at the last day.” – Again, following the Creed, the statement is quite general in regard to the purpose for which Christ returns.

 

II – The Place of the Resurrection in the New Testament

      The statements of the Article with reference to the Resurrection of Christ require the consideration of what Holy Scripture teaches concerning this event, and in order that we may more fully realize its spiritual meaning and practical use it is essential to look at the position it occupies in the record of the New Testament.

      1.  It was predicted by Christ Himself. – At first He used only vague terms (John 2:19). – Later on He spoke plainly, and whenever He mentioned His death He added a reference to the Resurrection (Matt. 16:21).  These statements are numerous and form an integral part of the teaching of Christ concerning Himself (Matt. 12:38,40, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:63; Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, 14:58; Luke 9:22, 18:33; John 2:19–21).

      2.  The record of the appearances after the Resurrection. – In all four Gospels the appearances of Christ are clear and prominent.  There were two sets of appearances, one in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee.  The detailed accounts of these appearances, especially when contrasted with the comparative fragmentariness of the story of Christ’s earthly life up to Palm Sunday are undoubtedly significant.

      3.  The Resurrection was prominent in the preaching of the Apostles.  On every occasion when they were faced with unbelievers, both Jews and Gentiles, the main theme of their testimony was “Jesus and the Resurrection” (Acts 4:2).  The choice of the new Apostle was associated with testimony to the Resurrection (Acts 1:22); the sermons of St. Peter made the Resurrection prominent (Acts 2:32, 4:10, 10:40).  In the same way, St. Paul was first of all convinced of the Resurrection (Acts 9:5), and then proclaimed it everywhere (Acts 13:30, 17:31, 26:8, 23; 1 Cor. 15:1–4).  It is impossible to ignore the prominence of this subject in Apostolic preaching.

      4.  The Resurrection is shown to be a spiritual force in the life of Christians (Rom. 1:4, 4:25, 6:9–11; Eph. 2:19, 20; 1 Pet. 1:21).

      5.  It is also set forth as the guarantee of hope in a future life (1 Cor. 15:20–23; 1 Thess. 4:14; 1 Pet. 1:3, 4).

 

III – The Proofs of the Resurrection*

[*The substance of this section is taken from an article by the author in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.  See also his Christianity is Christ, Ch. VII.]

      As the Resurrection has always been regarded as vital to Christianity, it is not surprising that opponents have concentrated their attacks on it.  There are several converging lines of evidence.

      1.  The first proof is the life of Jesus Christ Himself.  Whether in ordinary experience or in fiction there is a disappointment when a life which commences well finishes badly.  With Jesus Christ a perfect life ends in a shameful death, and it is impossible to regard this as a fitting close.  The Gospels give the Resurrection as the completion of the picture of Christ.  There is no doubt that He anticipated His own Resurrection, and His veracity is at stake if He did not rise.  Thus, the Resurrection is that of no ordinary man, but of One whose character had been unique, and for whose shameful death no proper explanation was conceivable. [Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, p. 122 f.]  In view, therefore, of His perfect truthfulness, any denial of His assurance of resurrection is impossible. [C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection, p. 30.]  Then, too, if death closed a life so remarkable, we are faced with the insoluble mystery of the permanent triumph of wrong over right; [C H. Robinson, ut supra, p. 36.] so that the Resurrection cannot be isolated from what preceded it, and the true solution of the problem is to be found in that estimate which “most entirely fits in with the totality of the facts.” [Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, p. 14.]

      2.  Another line of proof is the fact of the empty grave and the disappearance of the body.  The details of the record as to Christ’s death and burial are not now seriously challenged, and yet on the third morning the tomb was empty and the body had disappeared.  There are only two alternatives.  His body must have been taken out of the grave by human hands or else by superhuman power.  The human hands would have been those of His friends or His foes.  Even if the former had wished to do so they could hardly have accomplished their desire in the face of the obstacles.  If the latter had contemplated the removal it may be questioned whether they would have seriously considered it, since this would have been the most likely thing to spread the report of His Resurrection.  As St. Chrysostom said, “If the body had been stolen, they could not have stolen it naked, because of the delay in stripping it of the burial clothes and the trouble caused by the drugs adhering to it.” [Quoted in Day, Evidence for the Resurrection, p. 35.]  Besides, the position of the grave clothes proves the impossibility of the theft of the body. [See Greek of John 20:6, 7; Cf. 11:44; Grimley, Temple of Humanity, pp. 69, 70; Latham, The Risen Master; Expository Times, Vol. XIII, p. 293 f.; XIV, p. 510.]  Then, too, it is impossible to account for the failure of the Jews to disprove the Resurrection, since it was not more than seven weeks after the Resurrection that St. Peter preached the fact that Jesus Christ had been raised.  If the Jews could have produced the dead body it would have silenced the Apostle for ever.  “The silence of the Jews is as significant as the speech of the Christians.” [Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 357.]  Thus, the fact of the empty tomb with the disappearance of the body remains a problem to be faced.  It is now admitted that the evidence for the empty tomb is adequate, and that it was part of the primitive belief; [Streeter, Foundations, pp. 134, 154.] and it is important to realize the force of this admission because it is a testimony to St. Paul’s use of the term “third day,” and to the Christian observance of the first day of the week.  And yet it is often argued that the belief in the empty tomb is impossible, and some interpret the idea of resurrection to mean the revival of Christ’s spiritual influence on the disciples.  It is thought that the essential value of the Resurrection can be preserved even while surrendering belief in His bodily rising from the grave. [Orr. ut supra, p. 23.]  But how is it possible to believe in the Resurrection while regarding the foundation of this belief as an error?  The disciples, finding the tomb empty, believed that He had risen, and the belief can hardly be true if the foundation is false.  Besides, the various forms of the Vision theory are now regarded as inadequate, since they involve the change of almost every statement in the Gospel and the invention of new conditions of which the Gospels know nothing. [Orr, ut supra, p. 222.]  Why should the disciples have had this abundant experience of visions, and why should these have been strictly limited to a very brief period, and then suddenly come to an end?  They knew of the apparition of a spirit, like Samuel’s, and had witnessed the resuscitation of a body, like that of Lazarus, but they had never experienced or imagined the fact of a spiritual body, the novel combination of body and spirit.  It is, therefore, impossible to accept the theory of a real spiritual manifestation of the risen Christ, for no telepathic communication is equivalent to the idea of resurrection.  Psychical research in any case does not answer to the conditions of the physical resurrection recorded in the New Testament.  “The survival of the soul is not resurrection.”  “Whoever heard of a spirit being buried”? [Orr; ut supra, p. 229.]  Even though it is said that faith is not bound up with holding a particular view of the relation of Christ’s present glory to the body that was once in Joseph’s tomb, yet faith must ultimately rest on fact, and it is difficult to see how Christian belief can be “agnostic with regard to the facts which are so prominent in the New Testament, and which form a vital part of the Apostolic witness.  The attempt to set faith and historical evidence in opposition is unsatisfactory, and there is a growing feeling that it is impossible to believe in the Easter message without believing in the Easter facts.  When once the evidence for the empty tomb is allowed to be adequate, the impossibility of any other explanation is at once seen.  The evidence must be accounted for and adequately explained.  It is becoming more and more evident that various theories cannot account for the records in the Gospels or for the place and power of those Gospels in all ages of the Church.  The force of the evidence is clearly seen by the explanations suggested by some modern writers. [Those of Oscar Holtzmann, K. Lake, and A. Meyer can be seen in Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus, Ch. VIII, and that of Reville in C. H. Robinson, Studies in the Resurrection of Christ, p. 69.  See also article by Streeter, in Foundations.]  Not one of them is tenable without doing violence to the Gospel story and without putting forth new theories which are both improbable and without any historical or literary evidence.

      Others suggest that the Resurrection was a real objective appearance without implying physical reanimation, that “the Resurrection of Christ was an objective reality, but was not a physical resuscitation.” [C. H. Robinson, ut supra, p. 12.]  But difficulty arises as to the meaning of the term resurrection.  If it means a return from the dead, a rising again (re), must there not have been some identity between that which was put in the tomb and the “objective reality” which appeared to the disciples?  Wherein lies the essential difference between an objective vision and an objective appearance?  If the testimony of the Apostles to the empty tomb is believed, why may not their evidence to the actual Resurrection be also accepted.  It is, of course, clear that the Resurrection body was not exactly the same as when it was put in the tomb, but it is also clear that there was definite identity as well as definite dissimilarity, and both elements must be explained.  We are, therefore, brought back to a consideration of the facts recorded in the Gospels, and must demand an explanation which will take all of them into consideration and do no violence to any part of the evidence.  To predicate a new Resurrection body in which Jesus Christ appeared to His disciples does not explain how in three days’ time the body which had been placed in the tomb was disposed of.  The theory seems to demand a new miracle of its own. [Kennett, Interpreter, Vol. V, p. 271.]

      3.  The next line of proof is the transformation of the disciples due to the Resurrection.  Through their Master’s death they had lost all hope, and yet this returned three days afterwards.  When the message of the Resurrection first came they were incredulous, but when once they became assured of it they never doubted again.  This astonishing change in so short a time has to be explained.  Legendary growth was impossible in so brief a period, and the psychological fact of this marvelous change demands a full explanation.  The disciples were prepared to believe in the appearance of a spirit, but never seem to have contemplated the possibility of a resurrection (Mark 16:11).  Men do not imagine what they do not believe, and the women’s intention to embalm a corpse shows that they did not expect His Resurrection.  Besides, hallucination involving five hundred people at once and repeated several times is unthinkable.

      4.  The next line of proof is the existence of the primitive Church.  It is now admitted that the early community of Christians came into existence as the result of a belief in the Resurrection of Christ. [“There is no doubt that the Church of the Apostles believed in the resurrection of their Lord” (Burkitt, The Gospel History and Its Transmission, p. 74).]  Two facts stand out: (1) the Society was gathered together by preaching; (2) the theme of the preaching was the Resurrection of Christ.  The evidence of the early chapters of Acts is unmistakable, and it is impossible to allege that the primitive Church did not know its own history, and that legends quickly grew up and were eagerly received.  Any modern Church could readily give an account of its history for the past fifty years or more. [Orr, ut supra, p. 144.]  There was nothing vague about the testimony of the early Church.  “As the Church is too holy for a foundation of rottenness, so she is too real for a foundation of mist.” [Archbishop Alexander, The Great Question, p. 10.]

      5.  One witness in the Apostolic Church calls for special attention, the Apostle Paul.  He possessed the three essentials of a true witness: intelligence, candour, and disinterestedness.  His conversion and work stand out clearly in regard to his evidence for the Resurrection. [“He affirms that within five years of the crucifixion of Jesus he was taught that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures’” (Kennett, ut supra, p. 267).  “That within a very few years of the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus was, in the mind of at least one man of education, absolutely irrefutable” (Kennett, ut supra, p. 267).]  In view, therefore, of St. Paul’s personal testimony to his own conversion, and to his interviews with those who had seen Christ on earth, with the prominence given to the Resurrection in his teaching, we may rightly argue that he stands out beyond all question as a witness to the Resurrection.  His twenty-five years of service were based upon the sudden change wrought at his conversion; and if his conversion was true, Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything the Apostle was and did he attributed to the sight of the risen Christ. [It is well known how that Lord Lyttelton and his friend Gilbert West left Oxford University at the close of one academic year, each determining to give attention respectively during the Long Vacation to the conversion of St. Paul and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, in order to prove the baselessness of both.  They met again in the autumn and compared experiences.  Lord Lyttelton had become convinced of the truth of St. Paul’s conversion, and Gilbert West of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

      6.  The next line of proof is the record in the Gospels of the appearances of the risen Christ, and in view of the dates when the Gospels were written this should be considered in the order now stated.  The Resurrection was believed in by the Church for a number of years before the Gospels were written, and it is therefore impossible for these records to be our primary evidence.  We must get behind them if we are to appreciate the force of the testimony, and it is for this reason that, following the proper logical order, we reserve to the last our consideration of these appearances.  The point is one of great importance. [Denney, ut supra, p. 111.]  Whatever theory may be held as to the origin and relation of the Gospels, the appearances can be safely and thoroughly examined.  There are two sets of appearances, one in Jerusalem and the other in Galilee, and their number and the amplitude and weight of their testimony call for careful estimation.  Books dealing specifically with the Resurrection examine each appearance minutely, but this is impossible under the conditions of this work, though it may be remarked that no one can read the story of the walk to Emmaus (Luke 24), or the visit of St. Peter and St. John to the tomb (John 20) without observing the striking marks of reality in the accounts. [“It carries with it, as great literary critics have pointed out, the deepest inward evidences of its own literal truthfulness.  For it so narrates the intercourse of ‘a risen God’ with commonplace men as to set natural and supernatural side by side in perfect harmony.  And to do this has always been the difficulty, the despair of imagination.  The alternative has been put reasonably thus: St. Luke was either a greater poet, a more creative genius than Shakespeare, or – he did not create the record.  He had an advantage over Shakespeare.  The ghost in Hamlet was the effort of laborious imagination.  The risen Christ on the road was a fact supreme, and the Evangelists did but tell it as it was” (Bishop Moule, Meditations for the Church’s Year, p. 108).  See also Orr, ut supra, p. 176 f.]  The difficulties connected with the number and order of the appearances are probably due mainly to the summary character of the story, and do not invalidate the uniform testimony to the two facts: (1) the empty grave; (2) the appearances of Christ on the third day. [Orr, ut supra, p. 212.]  The very difficulties in the Gospels are a testimony to a conviction of the truth of the narratives on the part of the Christian Church through the ages. The records have been fearlessly left as they are because of the facts they embody.  If there had been no difficulties artificiality could have been charged against the records, and the fact that we possess these two sets of appearances is really an argument in favour of their credibility, since one set only might have been rejected for lack of support.

      When we examine all these converging lines of evidence it seems impossible to escape from the problem of a physical miracle, and this is the prima facie view of the evidence afforded.  It is this question of the miraculous that is at the root of much modern disbelief in the Resurrection.  The scientific doctrine of the uniformity and continuity of nature leads to the conclusion that miracles are impossible.  We are either not allowed to believe, or else we are told that we are not required to believe, in the reanimation of a dead body.  If this view is taken, “there is no need, really, for investigation of evidence; the question is decided before the evidence is looked at.” [Orr, ut supra, pp. 44, 46; C. H. Robinson, ut supra, Ch. II.]  But this position proves too much, since it would rule out all Divine interventions which might be called miraculous.  On this view it would be impossible to account for the Person of Christ at all.  “A sinless Personality would be a miracle in time.”  Those who hold a theistic view of the world cannot accept any a priori view that miracles are impossible.  The Resurrection, therefore, means the presence of miracle, and “there is no evading the issue with which this confronts us.” [Orr, ut supra, p. 53.]

      Of recent years attempts have been made to account for the Resurrection by means of ideas derived from Babylonian and other Eastern sources.  It is argued that Mythology provides the key, and that not only analogy, but derivation is to be found in it.  But there is nothing worthy of the name of historical proof afforded, and the idea is often quite arbitrary and prejudiced by the attitude to the supernatural.  There is literally no link of connection between these Oriental cults and the Christian belief in the Resurrection.

      And so we return to a consideration of the various lines of proof.  Taken singly, they are strong; taken together, the argument is cumulative and almost irresistible.  Every fact must have its adequate cause, and the only proper explanation of Christianity today is the Resurrection of Christ.

 

IV – The Theology of the Resurrection

      The Resurrection is not only a fact; it is a force, and its theology is so important as to call for special attention.  Indeed, the prominence given in the New Testament to teaching connected with it affords a strong confirmation of the fact itself, for it seems incredible that such varied and important truths should not rest on historical fact.  The doctrine may be briefly summarized.

      1.  Evidential. – The Resurrection is the proof of the atoning character of Christ and of His Deity and Divine exaltation. (Rom. 1:4).  It is shown in the New Testament to be the vindication of His character and the justification of what He had said concerning Himself and His Divine mission.  In this connection it is particularly significant to notice the emphasis placed on the fact that the Resurrection was the act of God rather than of Christ Himself.  After the actual Resurrection there does not appear to be a single text which attributes the Resurrection to Christ Himself.  Even those passages which are doubtful in the English are quite clear in the Greek, teaching that He was raised from the dead (Acts 2:32, Rom. 4:24, 25; 1 Cor. 6:14, 1 Thess. 1:10).  This emphasis on the act of God the Father is a striking testimony to His approval of the life and work of Jesus Christ.

      2.  Evangelistic. – The primitive Gospel included testimony to the Resurrection as one of its characteristic features, thereby affording to the hearers the assurance of Divine redemption.  It sealed the Atonement and bore testimony to its adequacy and certainty for men’s salvation (Rom. 4:25, 1 Cor. 15:1–4).

      3.  Redemptive. – The Resurrection is shown to be the guarantee of the believer’s justification, that on his acceptance of the message of the Gospel there is the absolute assurance of acceptance with God (1 Pet. 1:21).

      4.  – Spiritual. – The Resurrection of Christ is regarded as the source and standard of the holiness of the believer.  Every aspect of the Christian life from beginning to end is somehow associated therewith (Rom. 6).

      5.  Eschatological. – The Resurrection is the guarantee and model of the believer’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15).  As the bodies of the saints arose (Matt. 27:52), so ours are to be quickened (Rom. 8:11), and made like Christ’s glorified body (Phil. 3:21), thereby becoming spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15:44), that is, bodies ruled by their spirits and yet continuing to be bodies.  Thus, the Resurrection of Christ guarantees our resurrection (1 Thess. 4:14).  He completed a human experience which prepared Him to be the Saviour of the world, the Head of the Church, and provided Him with a Resurrection body which was the type of ours.  It is, of course, impossible to speak definitely about the believer’s resurrection body, but the example of our Lord’s Resurrection body is the best, indeed the only, illustration we possess.  All that we may say is that it will be a body and yet spiritual; spiritual and yet a body.  There will be identity and continuity with whatever differences of which at present we know, and perhaps can know, nothing. [See Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection; Milligan, The Resurrection.]

 

V – The Ascension and Session

      1.  The Ascension. – The New Testament regards the Ascension with its complementary truths of the session and intercession of Christ as the culmination of His redemptive work.  Our Lord Himself said to His disciples: “It is expedient for you that I go away,” and in this “expediency” there is something which has been very largely neglected by the Church.  It is doubtless due to the fact that Ascension Day is a weekday festival, instead of a Sunday one, that its observance has been very insignificant compared with that of Easter Day, and yet perhaps this is not the entire explanation of the comparative neglect of the festival of the Ascension and its profound meaning.  In the fourth Gospel there are at least twelve clear references to it (e.g. 1:51,  3:13, 6:62, 13:3, 17:11; and especially chaps. 14–16).  In the Epistle to the Hebrews no reference to the Resurrection is found, except in the concluding doxology, while the Ascension is the main spiritual truth.  Then, too, we see what it meant to our Lord Himself in St. Luke 9:51 and Acts 2:33.  It was at the Ascension that our Lord entered upon His work as Priest and King, and this is why the doctrinal position of the Epistle to the Hebrews centers in the fact of the Ascension in relation to our Lord’s priesthood.

      But it also meant much to the disciples as well, for the “expediency” applied to them as well as to our Lord.  (a) It brought a deeper peace.  Christ’s Ascension was the culmination of His earthly life and work, and gave purpose and reason to all the rest.  While the removal of the guilt of sin was associated with His death, and the destruction of the power of sin with His Resurrection, the removal of the separation caused by sin was associated with His Ascension, and herein lies the force of the Apostle’s word: “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God” (Rom. 8:34), so in the assurance that “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2) the conscience and heart find rest.  Christ’s righteousness has been accepted, His position is assured, and now access is possible to all believers.  (b) It elicited a stronger faith.  There was a great work to be done, and one that needed much confidence and boldness.  Only the thought of a victorious Master could make victorious disciples.  As long as His life was incomplete, or one of suffering only, their life would lack inspiration.  But the Ascension was the pledge of a victorious result (Heb. 4:14), and the disciples were therefore to “hold fast their confession,” for whatever struggle they might have it was certain to end in victory (2 Tim. 2:12).  (c) It led into a larger work.  During the earthly life of Christ His work was local only, but after He had been received into heaven He could not be limited to Judaea or Galilee.  The word was, “Go ye into all the world,” and in the Ascension of their Master the disciples would be elevated above narrowness and pettiness as they contemplated the purpose of worldwide evangelization.  (d) It gave a clearer hope.  They doubtless had the usual Jewish ideas of salvation, but it was their Master’s presence in heaven that made it real to them.  At once human and Divine He had told them that He was going to prepare a place for them (John 14:2, 3).  He went there as Forerunner and Pledge, and told them to rejoice because He was going to the Father (John 14:28).  His word for them was an inspiration, “Because I live ye shall live also.”  (e) It provided a greater power.  On earth their Master was necessarily limited and circumscribed, but at the right hand of God authority and power were His, and the disciples could therefore depend upon His presence and grace in all the work which He was sending them to do (Mark 16:20).  This was the meaning of His own word, “Greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father” (John 14:12), and so when the Comforter came they were enabled to accomplish tasks which even the Lord on earth was unable to do.  His presence and power led to the accomplishment of spiritual results of marvelous extent and influence (John 7:37–39, 16:7; Acts 2:33; Eph. 4:8).  Thus, the Ascension was to the disciples at once a cause of joy (Luke 24:52, John 14:28), the secret of fellowship (John 16:16, 20:17), and the standard of life (Col. 3:1 f.).

      2.  The Session. – Following the act of ascension the New Testament has not a little to say of our Lord’s present life in heaven.  Most Lives of Christ written of recent years commence with Bethlehem and end with the Ascension.  But the New Testament commences earlier and continues later.  It is with the glorified life of Christ above that the Article deals, and it is important to observe with some detail the Scripture teaching.  He is seated on the right hand of God (Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 8:1, 10:12).  He bestowed the gift of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4).  He added disciples to the Church (Acts 2:47).  He worked with the disciples as they went forth preaching the Gospel (Mark 16:20).  He healed the impotent man (Acts 3:16).  He stood to receive the first martyr (Acts 7:56).  He appeared to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:5).  He makes intercession for His people (Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25).  He is able to succour the tempted (Heb. 2:18).  He is able to sympathize (Heb. 4:15).  He is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25).  He lives for ever (Heb. 7:24, Rev. 1:18).  He is our Great High Priest (Heb. 7:26, 8:1, 10:21).  He possesses an intransmissible or inviolable priesthood (Heb. 7:24).  He appears in the presence of God for us (Heb. 9:24).  He is our Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1).  He is waiting until all opposition to Him is overcome (Heb. 10:13).  This includes all the teaching of the New Testament concerning our Lord’s life above.  It is important to keep strictly to this, because of a current view found in certain quarters that He is now offering Himself before the Father.  Many years ago a number of clergymen declared their belief in these terms: “We believe that in heaven Christ our Great High Priest ever offers Himself before the Eternal Father.” [Correspondence between the Rev. W. B. Marriott and Canon T. T. Carter, p. 3.]  And some recent works teach the same doctrine.  But it is impossible to reconcile this with what is found in the New Testament.  All our Lord’s offering is there regarded as in the past in connection with the Cross (Heb. 7:27, 9:14).  The offering is said to have been “once for all” (Heb. 10:10); and He is seated at God’s right hand (Heb. 1:3, 8:1, 10:2).  There was no altar in the Holy of Holies, the symbol of heaven (Heb. 9:3–5), and the Lamb in the midst of the throne in the Revelation is not offering Himself (Rev. 5:6, 7:17).  In a word, there is not a trace to be found of Christ’s presence above being a perpetual presentation before God of His sacrifice.  The Greek verb “offer” in the phrase, “somewhat to offer” (Heb. 8:3) is in the aorist tense, implying something completed, and, like all other references in the New Testament, it looks back on Calvary. [See Dimock’s treatment in Our One Priest on High (pp. 14–16), with the striking quotations from three masters of New Testament scholarship, Marriott, Westcott, and Gifford.]  One great authority, Bishop Westcott, shows that our Lord’s present work is that of applying the fruits of His completed Atonement, and that “we have no authority to go beyond” the teaching of Hebrews in this connection.  Further, no trace of this doctrine can be found in the Prayer Book.  If Christ were offering Himself or His sacrifice in heaven it would be so important a truth that it ought to occupy a position of definite prominence in the teaching of our Church.  But on opening the Prayer Book we find no trace whatever of it. [“Echo may answer ‘where’?  It is the only sound in reply.  There is a dead silence – no voice, or any to answer. ... We look at our time-honoured creeds – it is not there.  We turn to the grand anthem, which has come down to us from remote antiquity – the ‘Te Deum’; not a word.  We examine our Eucharistic Service – it is not there.  We find a proper Preface for the day of our Lord’s Ascension into heaven – it is not there.  In the obsecrations of our Litany we find mention of all the prominent points in our blessed Lord’s work for our salvation, but no word of any offering of sacrifice in heaven.  We look at the Articles of Religion.  It certainly is not there” (Adapted and abbreviated from Dimock, The Christian Doctrine of Sacerdotium, p. 13 f.).]  If, therefore, a doctrine is taught which cannot be found either in the New Testament or in the Prayer Book it is certainly no part of Anglican teaching.

      A somewhat different yet closely connected doctrine is sometimes taught by saying that our Lord is pleading His sacrifice above, as though pleading were not fundamentally different from offering.  The two must never be identified or confused.  It is, of course, true that our Lord is present in heaven because of the sacrifice He offered on Calvary, and obviously His intercession is founded on the fact of His complete atoning work.  But the New Testament, significantly as it would seem, never associates His intercession with the pleading of His sacrifice, and some of the best scholarship is entirely opposed to this view that our Lord is now engaged in pleading His sacrifice.  Thus, Bishop Westcott: – “The modern conception of Christ pleading in Heaven His Passion, ‘offering His blood’ on behalf of man, has no foundation in this Epistle.  His glorified humanity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His accomplished work.  He pleads, as older writers truly expressed the thought, by His presence on His Father’s throne.  Meanwhile, men on earth in union with Him enjoy continually through His blood what was before the privilege of one man on one day in the year.” [Hebrews, p. 230.  “The words, ‘Still ... His prevailing death He pleads’ have no apostolic warrant, and cannot even be reconciled with apostolic doctrine. ... So far as the Atonement in relation to God is spoken of in any terms of time, the Bible seems to me to teach us to think of it as lying entirely in the past – a thing done ‘once for all’”  (Life and Letters of F. J. A. Hort. Vol. II, p. 213).]

      It need hardly be said that the words connected with the Holy Communion, “Do this”; “Remembrance”; “Shew,” tell us nothing of our Lord’s present life in heaven. [Plummer, “St. Luke,” International Critical Commentary, p. 497 f.; Gore, The Body of Christ (First Edition), p. 315; W. B. Marriott, Memorials, p. 206.]

      So that our Lord is not offering Himself to the Father, or pleading His sacrifice, or representing, or even re-presenting His sacrifice, but He is appearing in God’s presence on our behalf; interceding there by His presence and on the basis of His completed redemption on the Cross; sympathizing; succouring, and saving the sinful; giving the Holy Spirit; governing and guiding the Church; waiting till He shall appear again.

      We are therefore to “lift up our hearts.”  It is significant that the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the crowning point or pith of the Epistle as “An High Priest who is set down” (chap. 8.  When the High Priest had presented the blood on the Day of Atonement his work was complete, and if we could imagine him able to remain there in the presence of God, it would be on the basis of that completed offering, and not on his continuing to offer, or present anything.  Besides, as there was no altar in the Holy of Holies, so there could not be any sacrificial offering.  Christ is not now at or on an altar, or at a mercy seat, but on the throne.  His presence there on our behalf, as our representative, inducles everything.

      Dr. Swete agrees with Bishop Westcott in holding that our Lord’s presence in heaven is His intercession: – “The Intercession of the Ascended Christ is not a prayer but a life.  The New Testament does not represent Him as an orante standing ever before the Father, and with outstretched arms, like the figures in the mosaics of the Catacombs, and with strong crying and tears pleading our cause in the presence of a reluctant God; but as a throned Priest-King, asking what He will from a Father Who always hears and grants His request.  Our Lord’s life in Heaven is His prayer.” [Swete, The Ascended Christ, p. 95.]

      We can well be content with the thought that He is there, and that His presence with the Father is the secret of our peace, the assurance of our access, and the guarantee of our permanent relation with God.  It is just at this point that one essential difference between type and antitype is noticed.  The High Priest went into the Holy of Holies with blood, but with regard to Christ’s entrance into heaven there is a significant alteration in the phrase. He is said to have gone there “through His own blood”; His access is based on the act of Calvary (Heb. 9:12).  It is in the priesthood of Christ that Christians realize the difference between spiritual immaturity and spiritual maturity (Heb. 6:1, 10:1), and it is the purpose of the Epistle to the Hebrews to emphasize this truth above all others.  Christianity is “the religion of free access to God,” and in proportion as we realize this privilege of drawing near and keeping near, we shall find in the attitude of Sursum corda, “Lift up your hearts,” one of the essential features of a strong, vigorous, growing, joyous, Christian life. [The last few sentences are based on and taken from the author’s article, “Priest,” in Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.  “Our faith has to lift up its head and thank God that our Great High Priest is no longer sacrificing for sin; that, having by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified, He now lives and reigns, sitting in His majesty, throned in His glory, holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, with power before which every knee must bow, giving victory to His saints, whom He loves to the end, able also to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Dimock, Our One Priest on High, p. 78).]

      There is one other matter that seems to call for attention connected with our Lord’s session in heaven.  When controversies arose in regard to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, some writers used language concerning the glorified body of our Lord which seemed to suggest that after His ascension His human nature became deified, and almost, if not quite, lost the attributes of humanity.  It is this that has led to the enquiry: Can we think of our ascended Lord as present everywhere as Man?  There can be no doubt whatever that the Article was intended to oppose this opinion, and a strong confirmation of this is seen by a comparison of the words of the Article with the rubric at the end of the Communion Service. [“No adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood.  For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.”]  The subject was thus clearly before the compilers of our Articles. [See also Reformatio Legum, De Haresibus, c. 5.]  The Article teaches unequivocally the local presence of Christ’s humanity in heaven, since He “took again His body ... wherewith He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth,” etc.  So that in regard to His humanity we may rightly speak of the Real Absence of Christ, just as we may also equally speak of the Real Presence in and through the Holy Spirit.  But while this is so, we are not for a moment to suppose that “the Two Natures” are in any way separated from each other even though, as in the record of our Lord’s earthly life, the union and correlation are beyond our comprehension.  Hooker has endeavoured to state the truth, though it must be confessed that even he is unable to shed much, if any, light on it.  While on the one hand he holds it “a most infallible truth that Christ as Man is not everywhere present,” he adds that “in some sense He is everywhere present even as Man,” and he speaks of this universal presence as “after a sort,” since wherever the Word is, the Manhood is united with it.  According to Hooker, therefore, there is a sort of presence of the Manhood by conjunction, a presence of cooperation and a presence of force and efficacy. [Hooker, Eccl. Pol., Bk. V., Ch. LIV, Section 7.]  There is really no danger of Nestorianism or Eutychianism if we carefully adhere to the plain teaching of Scripture as interpreted by the Article, that our Lord is absent as Man and yet present as God.  The difficulty is almost wholly due to an erroneous conception of our Lord’s glorified humanity as associated with the Holy Communion, but Scripture, with our Prayer Book following it, clearly limits the thought of our Lord’s death, and not His glorified state, to the Holy Communion, where, as Cranmer says, we are concerned with the body ut in cruce non in coelo.

 

VI – The Return And Judgment

      The Article follows the Creed in stating briefly yet plainly the expectation of our Lord’s coming again.

      I.  The Coming. – The return of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a mere doctrine to be discussed, nor a matter for intellectual study alone.  Its prominence in the New Testament shows the great importance of the truth, for it is referred to over three hundred times, and it may almost be said that no other doctrine is mentioned so frequently or emphasized so strongly. [Baptism is mentioned nineteen times in seven Epistles, and in fourteen out of twenty-one is not alluded to.  The Lord’s Supper is only referred to three or four times in the entire New Testament, and in twenty out of twenty-one Epistles there is no mention of it.  The Lord’s Coming is referred to in one verse out of every thirteen in the New Testament, and in the Epistles alone in one verse out of ten.  This proportion is surely of importance, for if frequency of mention is any criterion there is scarcely any other truth of equal interest and value.]  Just before our Lord died, He told His disciples that He would come again (John 14:3), and when He ascended, two heavenly messengers appeared to the Apostles corroborating the Master’s words by saying that He would come back in like manner as they had seen Him go (Acts 1:11).  Thenceforward this Coming was to be the “blessed hope” of His people until His glorious appearing (Tit. 2:3).  It is, therefore, important to distinguish clearly and constantly between our death and the coming of the Lord.  The two are always contrasted.  Death comes to all, Christian and heathen, but the Lord’s appearance is to apply to Christians alone.  Christ Himself clearly distinguished between death and His Coming (John 21:23).  The Creed, following the New Testament, is also quite clear as to the future and personal coming of Christ.  While there is a sense in which Christ came in and by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and while, moreover, He still comes to dwell in His people by the same Spirit, yet these are never to be identified with His future coming, for those who had received the Spirit were still to wait for Him from heaven (1 Thess. 1:8–10).  Thus, the Coming is the climax and culmination of His work of redemption, when the Body of Christ, the Church, will be completed, and the Lord will usher in that Kingdom which will eventually result in God being all in all (Eph. 1:14, Rom. 8:19–23, 1 Cor. 15:23–28).

      2.  The Judgment – The Article states in general terms the purpose of our Lord’s Coming as that of judgment “at the last day”.  But the New Testament has much more detail than this, and judgment is only a part of His work.  In the familiar words, “Lo, He comes, with clouds descending,” we have what may be called the second part of His Coming, the coming to judgment, according to the Creed.  But before that the New Testament seems to teach a coming for His people, and a taking of them away before He returns to the earth for judgment.  Of all the Scriptures which treat of the first part of the Coming there is none more explicit than 1 Thess. 4:13–18.  And while on details students of Scripture may differ, it may be said that there is universal belief in regard to the general lines of teaching expressive of the purpose of our Lord’s coming again.  Among other objects for which He is coming again are: (1) the taking to Himself of His redeemed disciples, including the resurrection of those who have died and the transformation of those who will be alive at His Coming.  (2) To reward His servants after their life of grace on earth.  (3) To usher in peace and rule this world now in rebellion.  (4) To gather together Israel and to place them in their own land.  (5) To execute judgment on the rejecters of His grace.  (6) To swallow up death in victory.  (7) To bind Satan and to usher in Eternity.  It is, therefore, usual to distinguish between Christ coming for His people and with His people, the latter being that which is specifically referred to in the Creed and the Article.  But whatever may be our view of detail we must not allow anything to interfere with our firm belief in the fact of the coming.  In the light of St. Paul’s inclusion of this in the Gospel preached at Thessalonica (2 Thess. 2:5), the outcome can only be spiritual loss if the coming of Christ is ignored or set aside.  There is no truth that so purifies and exalts the Christian life, none that so inspires the worker with earnestness and the discouraged and perplexed with hope.  On the institution of the Lord’s Supper reference was made by Christ to His coming again, and no one can enter fully into the meaning of the Holy Communion without looking forward to the Coming as well as backward to the Cross.  Salvation includes spirit, soul, and body, and this threefold completeness will only be realized in and through “that blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Great God and Saviour.”

      The reference to judgment is of particular value in the light of all the mysteries connected with the presence of sin and suffering.  Scripture clearly teaches that Christ the present Saviour is to be the future Judge (John 5:22, 27; Acts 18:3; Rom. 2:16), and in this judgment, marked as it will be by absolute impartiality and complete knowledge, man will find the perfect vindication of God and an explanation of all that is now mysterious and inexplicable.  The craving for judgment which is forced upon us by our reason and conscience will find its perfect realization in the action of Him to whom all judgment has been committed. [Maclear and Williams, Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England, p. 86, Note 2.]

 

Summary of Articles  II–IV

      Following the line of the Apostles’ Creed, these three Articles bring before us our Lord’s Person and work as Redeemer in a series of connected acts and facts which are to be factors and forces in our life.  It will be well to summarize these truths for the sake of completeness.

      1.  The Divine Sonship in which He is “equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead” ; “Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord “(Apostles’ Creed); “the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made” (Nicene Creed).

      2.  The Incarnation by which the Son of God became Son of Man.  “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary” (Apostles’ Creed); “And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man” (Nicene Creed).

      3.  The Death by which He made an atonement for sin.  “Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified” (Apostles’ Creed); “And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.  He suffered” (Nicene Creed).

      4.  The Burial and Descent into Hell by which He realized in completeness our human experiences.  “Dead and buried” (Apostles’ Creed); “And was buried” (Nicene Creed).

      5.  The Resurrection in which He was victorious over Sin, Satan, and Death.  “The third day He rose again from the dead” (Apostles’ Creed); “And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures” (Nicene Creed).

      6.  The Ascension and Session by which He was crowned as Priest, Intercessor, and Lord, bestowing grace and building up His Church.  “He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty” (Apostles’ Creed); “And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father” (Nicene Creed).

      7.  The Return, when He will receive His people, judge the world, and usher in eternal righteousness.  “From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead” (Apostles’ Creed); “And He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end” (Nicene Creed).

 

Article  V

      [The various aspects of this subject are more fully treated in the author’s The Holy Spirit of God, of which the treatment here is an abbreviation.  Reference may also be made to the bibliography in that work, special attention being called to the books by Dr. Swete, Bishop Moule, Professor Denio, Dr. Smeaton, and Dr. Davison.]

 

Of the Holy Ghost.

      The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

 

De Spiritu Sancto.

      Spiritus Sanctus„ a Patre et Filio procedens, ejusdem est cum Patre et Filio essentiae, majestatis, et gloriae, verus ac aeternus Deus.

 

Important Equivalents

 

Of one substance = ejusdem essentiae.

Very = verus.

 

      There was nothing corresponding to this Article in the Forty-two Articles of 1553, and there was none in the Confession of Augsburg.  It was derived entirely from the Confession of Wurtemberg, presented to the Council of Trent, 1552, and was introduced here in 1563.  The purpose was doubtless to give greater completeness of presentation of doctrine, but there seems to have been a necessity for the statement of the truth against certain denials of the time.  The Section, De Haeresibus, of the Reformatio Legum, contains frequent reference to, and denunciation of the various forms of misbelief which existed at the time, [“Quomodo vero haec putida membra sunt ab Ecclesiae corpore segreganda, quae de Christo capite tam perverse sentiunt, sic illorum etiam est execrabilis impudentia, qui cum Macedonio contra Spiritum Sanctum conspiraverunt, illum pro Deo non agnoscentes” (Reformatio Legum, De Heeresibus, c. 6).] and Article I of the Concordat of 1538 condemned those who represented the Holy Spirit as impersonal.

      The only virtual change was “substance” for “essence” in the English of 1571, the Latin remaining unchanged.

 

I. – The Teaching of the Article

      The Article elaborates the statement of Article I in regard to the Holy Spirit, and thereby follows naturally from the statements of Articles II, III, and IV respecting our Lord.  Before looking in detail at the theological topics embraced in the Article it will be useful to analyze it as a whole.

      1.  The Fact of the Holy Spirit; “The Holy Ghost”.

      2.  The Procession of the Holy Spirit; “Proceeding from the Father and the Son.”

      3.  The Equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son; “Of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son.”

      4.  The Godhead of the Holy Spirit; “Very and eternal God.”

      It will be seen that the Article follows closely the statements of the Nicene Creed in harmony with the Church doctrine of Chalcedon.

 

II – The Scripture Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

      1.  This is clearly a Bible doctrine and cannot be derived from any other source.  It is essentially a truth of revelation.  Naturally the subject is not so prominent in the Old Testament as in the New, but it is referred to in about half of the thirty-nine books, and the idea of the Spirit in Genesis is regarded as quite familiar, just as it is in St. Matt. 1.

      2.  The doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament calls for attention, first of all, and it is noteworthy that the New Testament identifies the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, thereby showing that there is no difference between them.  Indeed, the New Testament conception of the Spirit is very largely only intelligible when read in the light of the teaching of the Old Testament.  There are three main lines of teaching in the Old Testament in regard to the Holy Spirit: (a) the cosmical, or world-relation of the Spirit of God.  The Spirit associated with creation and human life as a whole; (b) the redemptive relation of the Spirit.  The connection of the Spirit with Israel; (c) The personal relation of the Spirit.  This is concerned with the spiritual life of individuals.  It is often asked whether there are indications of development in the Old Testament of the doctrine of the Spirit of God.  In the earlier books the Spirit is certainly depicted as a Divine energy, but in the later there seems to be something like an approximation to the doctrine of the Spirit as a Personal Being (Isa. 48:16; 63:9, 10; Zech. 4:6).  Perhaps, in general, the Spirit in the Old Testament is a Divine Agent rather than a distinct Personality.  God is regarded as at work by His Spirit.  One strong confirmation of the truth that the doctrine of the Spirit is a Bible doctrine is the fact that for all practical purposes the period of the Apocrypha from Malachi to Matthew contributed nothing to it.  It is only when we come to New Testament times that we are enabled to see the real implications of the Old Testament in the fuller light and richer experience of the days of Christ.

      3.  The New Testament is very full of the subject of the Holy Spirit, and it is found in every book, except three short and personal ones.  It emerges naturally and clearly from the revelation of Jesus Christ.  When we look at it in the light of the New Testament we notice three main divisions:–

      (a) The character and teaching of Christ.  In the Synoptic Gospels we have the Holy Spirit in relation to Christ Himself at each stage of His earthly manifestation.  Then there is the teaching of Christ, the general idea being that of the Holy Spirit as a Divine power, promised to the disciples for the fulfillment of the Divine purpose of redemption.  The Fourth Gospel is much fuller and more thoroughly developed, though it is particularly noteworthy that here, as in the Synoptic Gospels, there is a clear assumption of familiarity with the Holy Spirit (John 1:32 ff.).  But there is a distinct development of teaching in the Fourth Gospel, where the Spirit is personal, and closely associated at all points with the redemption of Christ.  Perhaps the most important feature in this Gospel is the use of the new term “Paraclete,” which is found in connection with the detailed teaching of chaps. 14–16.  The general idea of the Johannine teaching is that the departure of Christ was to issue in the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the special bestowal of the new covenant for the purpose of perpetuating Christ’s spiritual presence and effecting His redemptive work.  Thus, the Holy Spirit would at once be a revelation of truth, a bestowal of life, and an equipment for service.

      (b) From the Gospels it is natural to pass to the Acts of the Apostles as expressing the first thirty years of the Church’s life and work, and the prominence given there to the Holy Spirit is very remarkable.  There are at least seventy references, and on this account the book has been well called “The Acts of the Holy Spirit”.  This emphasis is really a testimony to the prominence of the Divine over the human element, and starting from the Day of Pentecost we see that the Spirit of God is at work, and, indeed, in supreme authority in every part of the early Church.  His Person, His gifts, and His work are everywhere, and the book is dominated throughout by the Spirit, because the life of the Church was controlled by His Divine presence and power.

      (c) The teaching of the Epistles will naturally follow, and in this St. Paul’s work is of the very first importance.  A remarkable fullness is seen in his writings and the teaching touches every part of his message.  The usual fourfold grouping of his Epistles reveals references to the Spirit in a variety of ways, and both in regard to the work and the nature of the Spirit St. Paul has very much to say.  The Holy Spirit is closely related to God (Rom. 8:9); is regarded as possessing personal activities (Eph. 4:30); and is intimately bound up with Christ (Rom. 8:9).  The activity of Christ as the Redeemer and Head of the Church is regarded as continued by the Holy Spirit, and yet with all this intimacy of association they are never absolutely identified.  A careful study of St. Paul’s teaching will support the view of a well-known writer that “the Apostle’s entire thinking stands under the influence of his estimate of the Spirit.” [Quoted in The Holy Spirit of God, p. 37.]  Other parts of the New Testament are slight and insignificant in comparison with the writings of St. Paul and St. John.

      4.  The summary of the teaching of the Bible on the subject of the Holy Spirit suggests the following lines: – (a) A close and essential relation of the Spirit to Christ; (b) the Holy Spirit as “the Executive of the Godhead” in and for the Christian Church; (c) the Deity of the Spirit (Matt. 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14); (d) the Personality of the Spirit.

      It will be seen from a study of the New Testament that the distinctions in the Godhead are always closely connected with Divine operations rather than with the Divine nature.  While there is nothing approaching the metaphysical Trinity of later days, the association of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with Divine operations is a clear implication of essential Deity.  The fundamental conceptions are the same throughout the whole of the New Testament, and there is no development of the doctrine of the Spirit through Ebionism to Orthodoxy.

 

III – The History of The Doctrine

      I.  The Ante-Nicene Period. – Sub-Apostolic Christianity was marked by experience rather than by reflection.  And yet immaturity of thought does not indicate error of experience, for the Spirit of God is never regarded as a creature.  It was heresy that compelled the Church to pay closer attention to the intellectual statements of the doctrine of the Spirit, and in particular Montanism led to a careful discrimination and thorough statement of the truth.  But the strongest confirmation of the doctrine in this non-reflective period is seen in the devotional life of the Church.  Experience is often the best witness to what is doctrinally implicit, and the evidence we possess of the life of the Church in these days bears unqualified testimony to the reality of the Divine Spirit.  Not only have we the earliest form of the Apostles’ Creed from this date, but Doxologies, and other hymns of praise, the Ordinance of Baptism, and the Invocation of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Lord’s Supper.  All bear witness to what the Church believed concerning the Holy Spirit.

      2.  From Nicaea to Chalcedon. – This non-reflective period concerning the Spirit could not continue in the light of the controversies of the time, and when the Deity of the Son had been established in opposition to Arianism, thought necessarily turned in the direction of the Deity of the Holy Spirit.  The Nicene Creed closed with a simple statement of belief: “And in the Holy Spirit.”  But if the Son was consubstantial with the Father, and therefore Divine, the Personality and Deity of the Spirit would naturally be inferred, even though not as yet specifically stated.  The question gradually arose after the Nicene Council, and controversy was due to those who were unable to accept the Deity of the Holy Spirit.  They were described by Athanasius as “enemies of the Spirit,” and afterwards designated Pneumatomachi.  They were led by Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, and it was the acuteness of the controversy that led to the summoning of the Second General Council at Constantinople, 381.  The result was the promulgation of a Creed which made some important additions to the declaration of belief in the Holy Ghost: “The Lord, the Life-Giver, that proceeds from the Father, that with Father and Son is together worshipped and together glorified.”

      But it is noteworthy that the term Homoousios (ομοούσιος) was avoided in expressing the Spirit’s oneness with the Father and the Son, nor was He even called God, though the terms in which His work was described cannot be predicated of any human being.  Thus, the question of the Deity of the Spirit was settled as the Deity of the Son had been settled at Nicaea fifty years before.  But the subject was still discussed and developed both in the East and in the West, and in 451 the Council of Chalcedon confirmed the decisions of Nicaea and Constantinople, stating that the clauses added in 381 were only intended to make the Nicene doctrine more explicit against those who had endeavoured to deny the Deity of the Spirit.  The Council endorsed both Creeds and incorporated them in the “Definitio” of Chalcedon.

      3.  Chalcedon to the Reformation. – The doctrine of the Deity of the Spirit being fully established, there still remained the question of His relation to the Father and the Son.  The term “Generation” was used to describe the relation of the Son to the Father, and the term “Procession” was employed to denote that of the Spirit.  But the question was whether this eternal “Procession” or “Forthcoming” was from the Son as well as from the Father.  The problem was Western, not Eastern, and the attitude indicates a difference which is explained by the conditions of the two Churches.  The Eastern was confronted with those who tended to regard the Spirit as inferior to the Son, and in order to protect the full Deity of the Spirit it was regarded as essential to represent Him as proceeding solely from the Father as the Fountain (πηγή) of the Godhead.  The Western Church, on the other hand, starting with the essential unity of the Son and the Father, desired to protect the truth that the Spirit is as much the Spirit of the Son as He is of the Father.  Otherwise there could be no equality.  It was this that led the West to express its truth by saying that the Spirit “proceeded” from the Father and the Son.  It was the great influence of St. Augustine that led the West to endorse this twofold “Procession,” and it became part of Western doctrine by incorporation into the Creed at the Council of Toledo in Spain, 589.  At Toledo the authority of the first Four Councils was acknowledged, and the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople rehearsed, and it is curious that in this rehearsal the Synod imagined that the Latin Creed represented the Greek original.  It is thus a matter of discussion how the words “And the Son” came into the Creed.  Some have thought this was due to a marginal gloss.  Dr. Burn adduces evidence to prove that the Council never added the words at all, that they are due to a blunder of a copyist of the Toledo text of the Constantinopolitan Creed. [Burn, The Nicene Creed, p. 40.]  The interpolation did not cause suspicion, but was repeated in several Synods as the orthodox doctrine, so that we have the remarkable fact of the Council professing to keep the text of the Creed pure, and yet laying stress on the Spirit’s “Procession” from the Son.  It is probable that increasing error was rendering further dogmatic definition necessary.  “The Toledan Fathers were only drawing out what seemed to them latent in the Creed.” [Burn. ut supra, p.41.]  It is essential to distinguish between the doctrine itself and its insertion in the Creed.  However and whenever it was inserted, the addition was unwarranted, because it was without proper ecumenical authority, and it was some time before the addition became part of the Roman version of the Constantinopolitan Creed.  The Western doctrine is thought to have come to England from Augustine of Canterbury, and during the Middle Ages little or nothing occurred of importance in connection with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

      Thus, three things were settled in the Western Church: the Deity of the Son at Nicaea, and the Deity of the Spirit at Constantinople, and the Procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son in the Western Creed.  Up to the time of the Reformation, Christian thought had been concerned too little with the Person of the Holy Spirit, but the Reformation marks an epoch in the history of the doctrine by its emphasis on His work in the individual and in the Church.  Further reference to the history up to the present day does not seem to be called for in connection with this Article; it must suffice to say that the problems which arose at the time of the Reformation may be said to extend to the present time. [The Holy Spirit of God, Chs. XIII–XVI.]

 

IV – The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

      The teaching of the Nicene Creed in regard to the Spirit is as follows : “ I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.” This statement involves the three doctrines in the Article : Personality, Deity, and Procession.

      1.  The Personality of the Spirit. – The use of the term “Person” in relation to the Godhead is, of course, difficult, because it expresses something essentially different from our modern view of personality.  Instead of meaning the fact of separate individuality, Personality in God is intended to convey an idea of an inner distinction which exists in the unity of the Divine Nature.  The facts of Scripture demand from us an acknowledgment of the unity of the Godhead and at the same time those interior distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit which we can only express by our word “Person”.  While, therefore, it is true that the term is used today in connection with human life in a way that is quite different from its use in connection with the Godhead, it is also true that no other term has yet been found adequate to express the essential distinctions in the Godhead.  The Holy Spirit is a Person because He works by personal activities on persons, and the facts of Scripture require this belief.  Further, the consciousness of the Church has always borne witness in the same direction.  Personal working needs continuity of action, and a clear conception of the Personality of the Holy Spirit is essential to His vital relation to the individual Christian and to the Church.

      2.  The Deity of the Spirit – The Deity is a necessary consequence of His Personality, for that which is attributed to the latter involves the former.  Here, again, belief is based on the facts and implications of Scripture, for the allusions to the Holy Spirit cannot be predicated of anyone but God Himself.  As we have seen, there is not the same clearness and fullness of revelation in the New Testament in reference to the Deity of the Spirit, yet it clearly arises out of the Scripture revelation and cannot possibly be expressed in any other way without doing violence to the facts of the case.  The Holy Spirit is at once the personal life of God and the “Executive of the Godhead” in relation to man, and however difficult may be the conception of the Holy Spirit within the Godhead it can never be disregarded without spiritual loss.

      3.  We have already seen something of the history of the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son, and it is important to obtain a true idea of the meaning of the Western Church in expressing and insisting on this doctrine.  On the one side the Spirit is associated with the Father as sent, given, and proceeding (Matt. 10:20; John 14:16, 26; 15:26).  On the other hand, He is associated with the Son, being called the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9); described as sent by the Son from the Father (John 15:26); bestowed by the Son on the Apostles (John 20:22, Acts 2:33); and called the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7, R.V.).  (See also Gal. 4:6, Phil. 1:19, 1 Pet. 1:11.)  So that, in the statement of the Creed, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, there was no intention of denying the one principium in the Father, but only a general assertion that the essence which the Father eternally communicates to the Spirit is also the essence of the Son, and that the Son shares and is involved in the act and process of communication.  The Eastern Church regards the Procession from the Son as temporal only through the Mission, and suspects our Western view of a tendency towards Sabellianism.  It would seem as though no reunion were possible without some change of doctrine; at any rate the Eastern Church does not regard the difference as merely verbal.  On the other hand, if the West dropped the Filioque, it might be thought to deny or question the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. [An authority on the Eastern Church, Mr. W. J. Birkbeck, writing to the Guardian, 28th January 1910, described what he called the chief of the many theological objections which the Easterns have to the insertion of the Filioque: “It is not so much that it puts something fresh into the Creed which has no Ecumenical sanction, but that its insertion cuts out something which was there before – namely, the μοναρχία in the Godhead.  That the Fathers of Constantinople I intended to emphasize this doctrine seems quite plain from their alterations of the παρα του πατρος, John 15:26 into the εκ του πατρος εκπορευόμενον of the Creed.  This is the reason that in ordinary parlance Russian theologians speak of the Western form nine times out of ten not as ‘the interpolated symbol,’ but as ‘the mutilated symbol’ (iskazhenny symvol; Miklosich in his Slavonic Roots gives ευνουχιάζειν as the first meaning of this verb).  By adding the word Filioque the Latins not only added to the Creed, but cut out from it what the Greeks look upon as a vital truth.  Our theologians ought at least to realize this before they press for the restoration of the Creed to its original form; they will then be able to do so with much better effect.”]

      One question of supreme importance has been raised during recent years: Is the doctrine of the Procession from the Son really justified, and does it represent a vital difference?  Several authorities are of opinion that it is this addition which has given to the West its admitted spiritual superiority over the East. [The Holy Spirit of God, pp. 145, 146.]  One writer goes so far as to say that the denial of the Procession from the Son has done much to fossilize the Greek Church.  It is undoubtedly true that no Western theologian ever wished to do anything more than to associate in the closest possible way the Holy Spirit with the Son of God, and in so doing it would seem as though this was keeping quite close to the characteristic New Testament conception of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus.  And so we may say that “without the Holy Spirit we have practically no Christ,” and without Christ we have practically no Holy Spirit.

 

V – The Place of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Christianity

      It will be evident from the foregoing that the Holy Spirit occupies a vital and essential place in the Christian system.

      I.  In Relation to the Godhead. – The full New Testament idea of God is that of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  It is impossible to question the fact that the New Testament affords clear proofs of such distinctions within the unity as can only be adequately expressed by the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.  And as Christ is within the Godhead it is impossible for the Spirit to be without, since this would imply an inferiority of the Spirit which is contradicted by the facts of Scripture and spiritual experience.

      In the same way the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is inextricably bound up with the revelation of Christ.  It is not in His absolute Being, but as the Spirit of Christ that He is revealed in the New Testament (Acts 16:7, R.V.).  The language in St. Paul’s Epistles about the indwelling of Christ and of the Spirit is practically identical (2 Cor. 3:17, Gal. 4:6), and yet with this practical identity there is an equally clear distinction.  Christ and the Spirit are different, yet the same; the same, yet different.  Redemption comes from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.  Christ is the Divine Saviour, and the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and in this association we have the spiritual and experimental foundations of the Trinity.  But however difficult it may be to express the difference between Christ and the Spirit, regarded as in the Being of God Himself, no difficulty must allow us to ignore the clear teaching of the New Testament and the personal testimony of Christian consciousness. There is a close and intimate connection, and yet Christ and the Spirit are never absolutely identical.  The Spirit is at once the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, and we believe that God can only become known to us in the Historic Jesus, Who is mediated to us by the Holy Spirit.

      2.  In Relation to Holy Scripture. – The Nicene Creed expresses a profound truth when it associates the Holy Spirit with the Old Testament, “Who spake by the prophets.”  It involves the important question of a Divine revelation which we believe has been given in the Person of Jesus Christ.  Holy Scripture as the embodiment of that revelation comes to us from God through the Spirit, and both in the Old Testament and in the New the Spirit is clearly associated with the written record of the Divine revelation (Acts 1:16, 2 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 3:7, 2 Pet. 1:21).  On any showing inspiration implies a specific and unique work of the Holy Spirit in giving to the Church the written embodiment of the Divine religion of redemption, and it is this uniqueness that gives Scripture its supreme authority as the work of the Holy Spirit of God.

      3.  In Relation to the Individual. – The Holy Spirit is described in the Nicene Creed as the “Life-Giver,” and this includes everything essential in His relation to the individual Christian.  Without that Spirit no man can be regarded as a Christian (Rom. 8:9, 1 Cor. 12:3), and it is the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ to man, and thereby to link the Jesus of history with the Christ of experience.  The great needs of the soul: conversion, communion, and character, are all made possible by the Holy Spirit, and His action covers the entire life of the believer from first to last.  The Spirit uses the truth of God to reveal Christ to the soul, and then every means of grace is associated with the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of Christ”.  In whatever way we contemplate individual life we see the need of the presence of the Spirit of God.

      4.  In Relation to the Church. – It is not without point that the expression of belief in the Holy Ghost in the Creeds is immediately followed by the confession of our faith in the existence of the Church.  This close connection suggests the truth of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the body of Christian people.  The New Testament teaches that the Spirit constituted the Church on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2, Cor. 12:13), and thereupon the Spirit abides in the Christian community, builds it up, governs it, unifies it, and provides in every way for its needs.  There is no part of the Christian Church, its life, work, power and progress, which is not in some way influenced by the Holy Spirit.

      5.  In Relation to Christianity. – The Holy Spirit is the guarantee of the best, and, indeed the only, satisfactory apologetic Gospel.  Mohammedanism and Buddhism have their ideas, their sacred books, and even their founders, but it is only in Christianity that God is made real to men.  In many respects the Holy Spirit is the ultimate fact in Christianity, for no other religious system has anything corresponding to this truth.  The Divine revelation given historically in the Person of Christ is made real to the soul by the Holy Spirit, and this is a characteristic mark in Christianity, since only therein is religion realized as a matter of personal communion with the Deity.  So that the Holy Spirit is the unique element of Christianity, and His presence constitutes the only “dynamic” by means of which Christianity can be recommended and vindicated to the world.  Whether we think of the individual or the community, the presence and power of the Holy Spirit are absolutely essential for life and progress.  The deepest needs of humanity can never be solved by philosophy, scholarship, or criticism.  The supreme need today is for that personal discipleship to Christ which is alone made available by the Holy Spirit.  Everything in the Old Testament points forward to the Coming of the Spirit, and everything in the New Testament emphasizes His presence in the Christian community.  It is this that makes the Article so important and the truth it enshrines of the most vital necessity in every aspect of life today.

 

II. – The Rule Of Faith (Articles VI–VIII).

            6.  The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

            7.  The Old Testament.

            8.  The Three Creeds.

 

      The subject of the Rule of Faith should obviously be considered before discussing particular doctrines included in the Faith.  It is only natural and right to think of the depository of Faith before we attempt to elicit the various aspects of teaching found therein.  And so the doctrines discussed in the first five Articles are derivable only from Scripture, the fount of essential Christian truth, which is the subject of the next Article.  From another standpoint it may be possible to regard the present as the logical order, that is, if we think of the doctrines of the Godhead as in general a Revelation, and then proceed to consider the seat and sphere wherein that Revelation is manifested and declared. [This aspect of the subject is taken by Maclear, who quotes Salmon’s Introduction to the New Testament, p. 1: – “For after settling that there is a Revelation, the question follows, How is that Revelation to be made known to us?  What are the Books that record it?  In other words, What is the Canon of Scripture?”]  But in view of the fact that the Articles are concerned with the substance of specific Christian doctrine the present arrangement is not appropriate to logical order.  For symmetry and proportion we naturally ascertain the depository of our Faith before we examine the contents.  It is also interesting to observe that the Helvetic Confessions and the Westminster Confession, together with the Irish Articles of 1615, put an Article on Scripture in the first place. [“Et in hac Scriptura sancta habet universalis Christi ecclesia plenissime exposita quaecunque pertinent, cum ad salvificam fidem, tum ad vitam Deo placentem, recte informandam.  Quo nomine distincte a Deo praeceptum est, ne ei aliquid vel addatur vel detrahatur” (Second Helvetic Confession, Article I).]  Our order is doubtless due to the fact that the Reformers were desirous of exhibiting the common Faith of Christendom before dwelling upon the differences between us and Rome, of which the question of the Rule of Faith is one of the chief.  Everything depends upon the point of view.  In a sense we say first of all, “I believe in God,” before we bear our testimony to the Scripture as the Word of God.  But inasmuch as our faith in God in this sense is only concerned with the conviction of His existence, and of a revelation from Him, the true spiritual order is, “I believe God has spoken through His word,” and then, “I examine that Word to see Who and what God is, and what He has said and done.”

 

Article  VI

 

Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation.

      Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.  In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

 

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis.  Exodus.  Leviticus.  Numbers.  Deuteronomy.  Joshua.  Judges.  Ruth.

The First Book of Samuel.  The Second Book of Samuel.

The First Book of Kings.  The Second Book of Kings.

The First Book of Chronicles.  The Second Book of Chronicles.

The First Book of Esdras.  The Second Book of Esdras.  The Book of Esther.

The Book of Job.  The Psalms.  The Proverbs.

Ecclesiastes, or Preacher.  Cantica, or Songs of Solomon.

Four Prophets the Greater.  Twelve Prophets the Less.

 

      And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life, and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.  Such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.  The Fourth Book of Esdras.  The Book of Tobias.

The Book of Judith.  The rest of the Book of Esther.  The Book of Wisdom.

Jesus the Son of Sirach.  Baruch the Prophet.  The Song of the Three Children.

The Story of Susanna.  Of Bel and the Dragon.  The Prayer of Manasses.

The First Book of Maccabees.  The Second Book of Maccabees.

      All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them for Canonical.

 

De divinis Scriptures, grad suffciant ad Salutem.

      Scriptura sacra continet omnia quae ad salutem sunt necessaria, ita ut quicquid in ea nec legitur, neque inde probari potest, non sit a quoquam exigendum, ut tanquam articulus fidei credatur, aut ad salutis necessitatem requiri putetur.  Sacra Scripturae nomine, eos Canonicos libros veteris et novi Testamenti intelligimus, de quorum auctoritate in Ecclesia nunquam dubitatum est.

 

De Nominibus et Numero Librorum sacra Canonica Scripture veteris Testamenti.

Genesis.  Exodus.  Leviticus.  Numeri.  Deuteronomia.  Josuae.  Judicum.  Ruth.

Prior Liber Samuelis.  Secundus Liber Samuelis.  Prior Liber Regum.  Secundus Liber Regum.

Prior Liber Paralipom.  Secundus Liber Paralipom.  Primus Liber Esdrae.  Secundus Liber Esdrae.

Liber Hester.  Liber Job.  Psalmi.  Proverbia.  Ecclesiastes, vel Concionator.  Cantica Solomonis.

IV Prophets Majores.  XII Prophets Minores.

      Alios autem libros (ut ait Hieronimus) legit quidem Ecclesia, ad exempla vita, et formandos mores; illos tamen ad dogmata confirmanda non adhibet: ut sunt:

Tertius Liber Esdrae.  Quartus Liber Esdrae.  Liber Tobiae.  Liber Judith.  Reliquum Libri Hester.

Liber Sapientiae.  Liber Jesu filii Sirach.  Baruch Propheta.  Canticum Trium Puerorum.

Historia Susannae.  De Bel et Dracone.  Oratio Manassis.

Prior Liber Machabeorum.  Secundus Liber Machabeorum.

      Novi Testamenti omnes libros (ut vulgo recepti sunt) recipimus, et habemus pro Canonicis.

 

Important Equivalents

Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation.  =  De divinis Scripturis, quod sufficiant ad salutem.

Or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation  =  aut ad salutis necessitatem requiri putetur.

Of the names and number of the Canonical Books  =  De nominibus et numero librorum sacrae Canonicae Scripturae.

For example of life and instruction of manners  =  ad exempla vitae, et formandos mores.

To establish any doctrine  =  ad dogmata confirmanda.

 

      This Article was the Fifth of the Forty-two Articles of 1553, when its title was Divinae Scripturae doctrina sufficit ad salutem (“The doctrine of Holy Scripture is sufficient to salvation”).  The Article asserted the sufficiency of Scripture but did not enumerate or define the Canonical books.  It read as follows: – “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation: So that whatsoever is neither read therein, nor may be proved thereby, although it be sometime received of the faithful, as Godly, and profitable for an order and comeliness: Yet no man ought to be constrained to believe it, as an article of faith, or repute it requisite to the necessity of Salvation.”

      In 1563 the clause “Although it be sometime received of the faithful, as Godly, and profitable for an order and comeliness” was omitted because the Article deals with questions of faith, not of order, the latter being discussed in Articles XX and XXXIV.

      The clause which defines the Canonical books was derived from the Confession of Wurtemberg, and was inserted in 1563.  This also contained a list of the Canonical books and also of the Apocrypha.  In 1571 the catalogue of the Apocrypha was completed by the addition of the names of several books.

      The language of the first paragraph of the Article may be compared with a similar statement in the Reformatio Legum, in which after a list of the Canonical books it is said: –

“Haec igitur generatim est sancta Scriptura, qua omnia creditu ad salutem necessaria, plene et perfecte contineri credimus, usque adeo ut quicquid in ea non legitur nec reperitur, nec denique ex eadem aut consequitur, aut convincitur, a nemine sit exigendum ut tanquam articulus fidei credatur.” [De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. 9.]

      The object of the Article is to state the position of our Church in regard to Scripture, both in opposition to Rome and also to the extreme wing of the Protestants of the sixteenth century.  It effectually meets the errors rife on both sides.  On the one hand it states the true position against the Roman view of the Rule of Faith; on the other it opposes the opinion of those who were so concerned with the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers that they despised the thought of religious teaching in books. [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, pp. 99, 373.]  The true Anglican position, following that of essential Protestantism, is careful to emphasize the written Word as against any dominion of ecclesiastical institution, or of subjective impressions of even genuine religious experiences. [“In quo genere teterrimi illi sunt (itaque a nobis primum nominabuntur) qui sacras Scripturas ad infirmorum tantum hominum debilitatem ablegant et detrudunt, sibi sic ipsi interim praefidentes, ut earum authoritate se teneri non putent, sed peculiarem quendam spiritum jactant, a quo sibi omnia suppeditari aiunt, quaecunque docent et faciunt” (Reformatio Legum, De Haeresibus, c. 3).]  But there does not seem much doubt that the Article is mainly directed against the fundamental error of Rome which had been stated by the Council of Trent several years before.*

      [*“The sacred, holy, oecumenical, and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost ... clearly seeing that this truth and discipline (of the Gospel of Christ) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted, as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the example of the Orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament – seeing that one God is the Author of both – and also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to Faith as to Morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.  And it has thought meet that a list of the Sacred Books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in anyone’s mind which are the Books that are received by this Synod, they are set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses – Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon (Chronicles), the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter consisting of 150 Psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve Minor Prophets ... two books of Maccabees, the first and the second.  Of the New Testament: (this Canon is the same as the Protestant).  But if anyone will not receive the said books entire with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid: let him be anathema” (Conc. Trident., Sessio Quarta, Decret. de Canon. Script., Waterworth’s Translation, pp. 18, 19. London, 1848).]

 

I – The Canon of Holy Scripture

      The second sentence of the Article logically comes first by showing what Scripture is before considering its position and the use made of it.

      The attitude of the Church is one of reverence for a volume consisting of sixty-six books; thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New; by many authors, and of very varied nature.  The former part is the Bible of the Jews, setting forth the Jewish religion in its historical development and different aspects covering centuries of time.  The Church inherited belief in the sacredness and authority of the Old Testament from our Lord and His Apostles.  The New Testament sets forth the Christian religion in various aspects, covering some sixty years, or two generations.  In contrast with the Koran, which is alleged to have come from Mohammed, none of the books of the New Testament are by the Founder of the Christian religion.  The Church had the Old Testament from the first, even in Gentile Christianity, and then gradually the books of the New Testament were added.  Canonicity is the fact, and canonizing is the method of recognizing these writings as possessed of Divine authority. [For the history of each separate book reference should be made to the Commentaries and Introductions.  For the New Testament as a whole Salmon’s Introduction is the most important.]

      1.  The word “Canon” comes from κανών, [See Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, Appendix A.] and is akin to קָנֶה, κάννα (reed). – The words “cane” and “canon” are cognate terms.  The word had active and passive senses.  A thing which is employed as a measure is first measured, and only then used to measure other things.  The passive meaning, anything measured, e.g. a measured racecourse at Olympia, in turn becomes a measure, and the word means a straight road or rule used for measurement: 2 Cor. 10:13–16 (passive); Gal. 6:16 (active).  Then the word came to mean any list of things for reference e.g. at Alexandria a list of classical writers was called κανών, and Eusebius calls chronological tables κανόνες χρονικοί (This is the meaning of the technical word “Canon” in relation to Scripture.)  The Canon of Scripture is used first of all in a passive sense, meaning that which is measured off, or separated from others, and then it is employed in an active sense, meaning that which measures or tests others.  Thus Scripture is (1) that which is measured or defined by the rule of the Church, and (2) that which, being measured, becomes thereby the rule of the Church for other cases.  The Bible contained the recognized list of books which have been measured by a certain rule or standard of measurement and have thereby become measures of other books.  The word is first used in the Christian Church by a poet, Amphilochius, 380, ο κανων των θεόπνευστων γραφων.  But Origen had spoken of “canonized books” or books put on the list.  Afterwards Jerome and Augustine, 400, used the word quite technically. [Jerome’s Prol. Galeatus; and Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 18, 38; Jerome saying of Tobias and Ruth, “non sunt in canone.”]

      2.  What, then, is the rule of the Church by which a book is measured, or defined as canonical? – The Article describes a Canonical Book as one “of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.”  The reference is to authority, not to authorship.  The statement is usually regarded as a difficulty, since it cannot apply to all the books and all the Churches, for the Reformers knew well the early doubts about some of the books.  It is probable that as the doubts were dead by the sixteenth century the reference is to the Church as a whole as distinct from individual Churches.  The matter was originally settled mainly by public reading and general usage.  The first three centuries never pronounced on the subject except by the testimony of individual and representative writers.  No corporate evidence was possible.  But when it became available and necessary it was soon seen that there was no real doubt as to our books.  The first corporate witness dates from the Council of Laodicea, 364, where the testimony is clear; and when once the whole Church was able to bear its testimony, the words of the Article are seen to be justified.

      3.  The grounds of Canonicity need consideration. – Why were certain books received and certain rejected?  The fundamental reason is the conviction that certain books came from men who were divinely inspired to reveal and convey God’s will: Prophets in the Old Testament and Apostles in the New.  Prophets were the recognized expounders of God’s will, and their writings were regarded as immediately authoritative.  The best illustration is found in Jeremiah 36 where the Prophet’s words were recognized as possessing authority at once.  Each book had this authority by reason of its prophetic source, and thence gradually came the collection into one volume, so that the Old Testament represents those books which Israel accepted on proper evidence as the Divine standard of faith and practice, because they were either written or put forth by prophetic men.  It was not the decision of the people that caused the collection, but the collection was due to their acceptance by the people.  The authority came from God through the prophets, and the recognition by the people was the effect of the Canonicity.  The action of the people was the weighing of evidence, and the outcome was testimony rather than judgment.

      In the same way the books of the New Testament were regarded as possessing Apostolic origin.  This may have been either by authorship or sanction, but there is no doubt that the primary standard of verification and acceptance was the belief that the books came from Apostolic men, either Apostles themselves or their associates.  So that the ground of Canonicity was not merely the age, or the truth, or the helpfulness of these books, but, beneath these characteristics, because they came from uniquely qualified instruments of God’s will.  All other tests were subsidiary and confirmatory.  It is, therefore, important and essential to distinguish between the ground of Canonicity and the ground of the conviction of Canonicity.  The latter is quite separate from the former, and is subjective, while the former is rational, objective, and leaves man no excuse.

      4.  The character of Canonicity. – It is particularly important to notice what Canonicity really implies and involves.  It created a book not a revelation.  Canonicity is analogous to codification, which implies the existence of laws already as separate books.  The authority of each book of the Bible would have been the same even if there had been no collection and codification.  So that the authority is not that of a book, but of a revelation; the revelation did not come to exist because of the Canonicity, but the Canonicity because of the revelation, and the Bible, as we have seen, is regarded as a revelation, because it is held to be the embodiment of the historic manifestation of the Redeemer and His truth. [Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, pp. 500–508.]  It has been well said that the Bible is not an authorized collection of books, but a collection of authorized books.  It is essential to remember that the quality which determines acceptance of a book is its possession of a Divine revelation.  So that Canonicity did not raise a book to the position of Scripture, but recognized that it was already Scripture.  Canonization was a decision based on testimony, and the canonizing process was the recognition of an existing fact.  It is, of course, true that the process of canonization implies accumulative authority, and adds immensely to the strength of the position as representing the witness of the entire Church, but it must never be forgotten that the authority of each separate book was in it from the first.

      5.  The History of the Old Testament Canon. – Although of necessity there was no complete history of the Canon in the Old Testament itself, yet there are indications of a growth which need to be considered.  While there is no record of the canonization of any book or collection, there is a frequent recognition of books as authoritative.  Provision was evidently made for writing, preserving, and teaching.  There are indications all through of gradual growth and accretion.  Among the passages the following may be adduced: Exod. 24:4–7, Deut. 31:9–13, 24–26 (Cf. 2 Kings 23:2), Josh. 1:8, 24:26; 1 Sam. 10:25, Deut. 17:18 f. (Cf. Psa. 19, 119, “testimony”), Prov. 25:1 (Cf. history by prophets), Isa. 34:16, Isa. 8:19, 20, Jer. 36:4, 45:1, Dan. 9:2, Zech. 7:12.  Proofs are forthcoming that in all periods this law was imposed and taught: Josh. 11:15, Jud. 3:4, 1 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 14:6, 2 Chron. 30:16, Dan. 9:11, Ezra 3:2, Neh. 10:28.  All this shows the gradual growth and progress, and the deposit of Sacred Books in the Sanctuary, a custom which is in harmony with the practice of other nations. [For fuller details of the history and progress, see W. H. Green, The Canon of the Old Testament.]

      6.  The History of the New Testament Canon. – The idea of a New Testament was natural from the analogy of the Old.  The Divine authority of the Old Testament is clear from the New (“oracles,” Rom. 3:2), and this influenced the early Church.  The Christian community, therefore, did not need to create the idea of a Canon, for it was there already, and in due course the books of the New Testament were regarded as authoritative, because they revealed Christ by the Divine Spirit, through inspired men.  As the Church did not grow up by natural law, but was founded by Christ, and authoritative teachers were sent forth by Him carrying with them a body of Divine Scriptures, the Church was never without its Bible or Canon, for wherever they went they imposed on the Churches they founded the Old Testament as the code of laws.  Christ was the authority, side by side with the Old Testament, and Christ was declared first by the words of the Apostles, and later by their writings (Acts 20:35).  This immediate placing of the new books among the Scriptures was inevitable, and gradually the books became known to the whole Church through the separate testimony of individuals and communities.  At the outset, Christ with the Old Testament was the authority for Christians, and this authority was necessarily oral at first, but it is almost certain that the words of Christ were put into writing very early. [Sir W. M. Ramsay considers that parts of our First Gospel were written before the death of Christ: Luke the Physician, p. 87.]  As the words of Christ were considered holy from the first, it was easy and natural to reverence a report as truly as the living voice, and thus no distinction was made between the spoken and written words of Apostles. [Sanday, Inspiration, p. 366.]  Then came letters of Apostles to particular Churches or individuals, and these would obviously be treasured and read at gatherings side by side with the Old Testament.  This public reading was the first step in the process whereby we got our New Testament.  Then came interchange with other Churches as the second step.  At first the Church seems to have been unconscious of the goal, and it was only later that the process was deliberate.  The Church had a New Testament Canon long before it had the conception of it, the fact before the idea.  The reception of an Apostolic letter would at once separate it from all else as an authoritative guide, and this would be the canonization of a single book.  While particular circumstances helped forward and accelerated the process, these cannot wholly account for it.  Heresy and schism doubtless hastened the completion of the Canon, but the New Testament was inevitable in any case.  Oral tradition was soon found to be inadequate, especially as heretics claimed their own tradition.  To the earliest Churches Scripture was not a closed, but an increasing Canon, one of gradual growth, like the Old Testament, and this would be so as long as there were living men specially “moved by the Holy Ghost”.  And so at the end of the process it was not felt to be anything novel or strange, but the whole Church confirmed what had long been familiar in individual Churches.  The formal recognition of the entire New Testament was exactly the same as that of separate books used by particular Churches and individuals, and the Church declarations were not the primary investment with authority, but only the record and registration of an authority long existing.  There is no evidence whatever of a gradual heightening of the estimate of books originally received on a lower level and at the commencement tentatively accounted Scripture.  On the contrary, the evidence is conclusive of estimation and attachment from the beginning.  As book after book came from the Apostolic circle it was received as Scripture and added to the old collection, until the books were numerous enough to be regarded as a separate section of Scriptures.

      All through, the question was, which were Christian writings, so that they might be used for life and worship.  The answer was that only the writings that could be regarded as of Apostolic sanction were to be included, all others being, therefore, ruled out.  And so Christianity was soon seen to be a book religion like the Jewish, for in no other way could the purity of tradition about Christ be preserved.  The Canon was part of a general movement of the Church during the last thirty years of the second century, when there was (1) a gradual collection of separate books to form the New Testament; (2) a gradual organizing of the Christian Church against its foes; (3) a gradual expression of belief as a deposit from the Apostles.  Thus, Scripture, the Christian Church, and the Christian Creeds were a threefold testimony to essential Christianity, and while everything on the surface seemed natural, incidental, and even occasional, a Divine power was really at work from the first giving the Church its authoritative books.  The Church was spiritually guided as to the Canon, which has been well called “the slow miracle of history”.  But this does not mean that the New Testament, the Ministry and the Creeds are of equal authority; it only refers to the human and historical side of the process of collecting the authorized books into a volume.  While the Canon (as a volume) is the work of the whole Church, the separate authority of each book is not, and in this latter sense the New Testament is not the product of the Church.  And the witness of the Church to Episcopacy is very different from, because far less assured, universal and primitive than, the witness to the books of the New Testament and the truths of the Creed.  These date from the first century, whereas Episcopacy confessedly is much later.  Nothing is more fallacious, as we shall see, than the idea that the New Testament is the product of the Church.  The Canon is, but the separate books are not.

      It is impossible to give anything like an adequate account of the process in these pages, [Reference may be made to Westcott, The Canon of the New Testament; Sanday, Inspiration; Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion; Charteris, Canonicity; Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century; Gregory, Text and Canon of the New Testament; Souter, Canon and Text of the New Testament.] but the germs during the first century seem to call for notice.  The claim to Divine authority is evident; Apostolic preaching was regarded as in the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:12), and even words were held to come from the Divine source (1 Cor. 2:13).  Apostolic commands carried Divine authority (1 Thess. 4:2), and these were found in writing (2 Thess. 2:15), and obedience to them was demanded (2 Thess. 3:14).  The acceptance of this was regarded as a test of spiritual life (1 Cor. 14:37).  It was inevitable that writings making such claims should be given equal authority, because possessing equal quality with the Old Testament. [St. Paul “is evidently as sure as any of the Old Testament prophets was ever sure that the message which he delivered was no invention of his own ... but that he was merely an instrument in the hands of God” (Sanday, Inspiration, p. 332).]  And they were therefore read at worship, a practice required by the Apostles (1 Thess. 5:27, Col. 4:16, Rev. 1:2), and interchanged between Churches (Col. 4:16).  Something like mutual attestation also seems to be found; thus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James appear to use St. Paul’s Epistles; 1 Tim. 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7 as “the Scripture” (η γραφή); 2 Peter 3:16 refers to St. Paul’s Epistles as “among the other writings” (Scriptures).  After this the line of such quotations is unbroken.  [Revelation: “The strongest language found in the older Scriptures he uses and applies to his own book,” Ch. 1:3; 10:7; 22:6, 7, 9, etc. (Sanday, ut supra, p. 375).]

      The process of canonization may be outlined as follows: –

      1.  A.D. 50–100: composing, writing.

      2.  A.D. 100–200: collecting, gathering.

      3.  A.D. 200–300: comparing, sifting.

      4.  A.D. 300–400: completing, recognizing.

      Without entering upon the detailed history in the second century it may be noted that suddenly, about 170, we find the New Testament practically complete, with a hesitation about seven of our books, and four other books as a sort of New Testament Apocrypha.  Evidently there was a process of collecting going on very rapidly, and more interest was felt in getting hold of possible Scriptures than of sifting them.  Through the absence of accurate knowledge some temporary mistakes were made, but though a section of the Church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of certain books, and though doubts may have arisen afterwards in sections of the Church as to the apostolicity of others, yet in no case was it more than a minority of the Church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterwards to doubt the credentials of any of the books now received, and in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.  After the second century no one ever really attempted to put forth new documents as Apostolic and authoritative, or to amend them.  The content of Scripture was substantially made up, and henceforward differences were not so much on Scripture as on the interpretation.  It is particularly striking that hitherto no Councils, Synods, or Decrees had been connected with the Canon.  These had absolutely no influence in making the Canon, but only in registering it after it was made.  This is particularly important because of the modern tendency to think the Canon was due to the arbitrary arrangement of Church leaders.  The movement for the Canon was inevitable and vital, neither artificial nor superficial.  It was due to the great mass of Christian people who from their spiritual life provided testimony to the separate books which led to the collection of a complete Canon.  Unconscious at first, the movement was ever tending towards the goal.  In the third century a great process of sifting went on.  The Church was cautious and conservative, while heretics were free in dealing with books.  The fourth century naturally addressed itself to the task of obtaining testimony from all parts of the Church to the New Testament books in use, in order thereby to show clearly what was the authoritative Canon.  The greatest writer of this period was Eusebius of Caesarea, who gives a list of New Testament books in three classes: –

(a) Class 1. – His New Testament; books accepted: “Homologoumena” (ομολογούμενα).  Hebrews is probably included in Paul’s Epistles, and Revelation is accepted “with hesitation”.

(b) Class 2. – Books spoken against or disputed: “Antilegomena” (αντιλεγόμενα).  “But yet read by the majority,” viz. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude.

(c) Class 3. – Books rejected: “Notha” (νόθα). Regarded as spurious.  A number like Hermas, Barnabas, etc., and “with hesitation,” Revelation.

      The rejection of certain books was due to the fact that they were not accepted by the Churches of his day.  Soon catalogues of the accepted New Testament appeared, and the Church received into their New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as given by Apostles to Churches as the code of law.  We must not mistake the historical evidences of slow circulation to authentication over a widely extended Church for the evidences of slowness of canonization by the authority or test of the Church itself.

      The Middle Ages accepted implicitly the Canon thus stamped, and notwithstanding the discussion at the Reformation, especially in connection with Luther, the matter rested until the end of the eighteenth century, when in the general movement of criticism the Canon was inevitably included in discussion.  Westcott says that the evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament is “more complete, more varied, more continuous than can be brought forward for any other book.” [The Canon of the New Testament, p. 503.]  And Sanday, speaking of the importance of early Christian literature, says that the Church has not discarded “one single work which after generations ... have found cause to look back upon with regret.” [Sanday, ut supra, p. 27.]  The reopening of the question today and the thorough examination of the historical materials is not likely to alter the New Testament, and certainly cannot deny, or even minimize its significance in the history of Christianity.  It may be confidently said that no critical conclusion will alter, even by one book, our New Testament, which has been rightly described as “the fixed magnitude”.  One thing especially should count in this connection.  Westcott says, “No one can read it as a whole without gaining a conviction of its unity, not less real because it cannot be expressed or transferred.” [The Canon of the New Testament, p. 502.]

      In studying the history of the Canon, four questions must be asked and carefully distinguished:–

      1.  When was the New Testament Canon completed?  That is, when was the last authoritative book given to any Church by an Apostle?

      2.  When did any one Church acquire a completed Canon?  (This is a matter for historical investigation.)

      3.  When did the completed Canon obtain universal circulation and acceptance?

      4.  On what ground and evidence did Churches with incomplete New Testament accept the remaining books when they were made known to them?

 

II – The Limits of the Canon of Holy Scripture

      After giving a list of the names and number of the Canonical books the Article refers to “other books,” which it is said that the Church reads for instruction and example, but does not use to establish any doctrine.  These are all concerned with Old Testament times, and are generally spoken of as the Apocrypha.  This term, however, is inaccurate.  The word απόκρυφος originally had two meanings: (a) esoteric teaching, and (b) that which shunned the light because it was afraid.  But these books were on the contrary (a) read publicly to all, and (b) are not spurious.  A better term would be Ecclesiastical Books.  They are sometimes called Deuterocanonical.  It is, therefore, important to be quite clear in regard to the distinction between the Canonical and non-Canonical books.  The Jewish Old Testament of today is identical with our own, and the same fact can be traced back to the first century.  A Tract in the Talmud, of second century date, bears witness to this, and in particular the testimony of Josephus is quite clear.  He was born A.D. 37, and as a man of learning and information his testimony is of the first importance.  The fact that he endeavours to harmonize the Bible of his day with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet is an illustration of what he held to be the Jewish Bible. [“We have not tens of thousands of books discordant and conflicting, but only twenty-two, containing the record of all time, which have been justly believed. ... From Artaxerxes [Artaxerxes Longimanus, 465–425] everything ... is not deemed worthy of like credit because exact succession of prophets has ceased. ... No one has dared to add, or take from, or alter anything.”]  There is no trace of any difference on this point among themselves.  Alexandrian Jews would naturally avoid any breach with their Palestinian brethren, and the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus shows what was believed in Egypt among Greek-speaking Jews.  Although Philo, A.D. 41, is not so clear, no list of his being available, yet there is not much doubt about his agreement with the rest.

      And yet the “ other books “ referred to in the Article are found in the Septuagint, not in the Hebrew, and the question at once arises whether they were part of the Canon.  Unfortunately the origin of the Septuagint is obscure both in regard to date and authorship, and, to add to the difficulty, all our present Septuagint MSS. are Christian in origin.  It seems more probable that these books were regarded as an appendix, especially as the Alexandrian and Palestinian Canon agreed.  It is thought by some that the question of the Old Testament Canon was only settled at the Synod of Jamnia, A.D. 90.  But the question then discussed was not so much as to admission as to continuance and possible exclusion.  There does not seem to be any proof of an unsettled Canon, but only of action against a Canon already decided.  An open Canon at that date would be altogether against the plain testimony of Josephus. [Green, Canon of the Old Testament, Ch. VI, especially, p. 78.]  The witness of the New Testament is clear, even though no list of books is available.  Negatively, we may note that our Lord never charged the Jews with mutilation, or corruption, or addition, but only with making Scripture void, and, positively, it may be noted that although the use of the Septuagint is seen as the familiar version, not one quotation appears from the Apocrypha.  There are reminiscences, but no authoritative quotations.

      The following are the main reasons why the distinction made in the Article is maintained:

      1.  These books of the Apocrypha were never included in the Jewish Canon.

      2.  They are never quoted in the New Testament.

      3.  They were never confused by men like Origen and Jerome, who knew Hebrew.

      4.  They are not found in the earliest extant catalogue, Melito of Sardis, 171.

      5.  They are not found in the earliest Syriac version, Peschitto.

      6.  In Justin Martyr’s dialogue against Trypho the Jew, no mention is made of any difference between them as to the Canon.

      7.  In Origen’s catalogue the Canonical Old Testament is found, not the Apocrypha.

      8.  Tertullian gives the books of the Old Testament as twenty-four, which agrees with the Talmudic number.

      9.  In the fourth century full testimonies are found to this distinction both in East and West, e.g. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, Hilary of Poictiers.

      10.  St. Augustine associates the Apocrypha with the Old Testament, and his confusion was pretty certainly due to his ignorance of Hebrew, though even he shows that the Old Testament was regarded as of higher rank. [De Civitate Dei, Bk. XVII, last chapter.]  But it is through his influence that these books are now included in the Roman Catholic Canon.

      11.  In the following centuries, from the sixth to the sixteenth, Augustine’s confusion is rejected “by a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers,” who follow Jerome and distinguish clearly between the Canonical and the Apocryphal books. [Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 255–259; see also article, “Canon of Old Testament,” by Moller in Murray’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary.]

      12.  Even in the Septuagint they are found as an appendix, and not with the rest of the Old Testament.  So that it was not their authority which led to their insertion, but the insertion which led to their being regarded as authoritative.

      13.  Internal evidence also condemns them.  Thus Tobit and Judith have doctrinal, chronological, historical, and geographical errors.  The books make no claim to Divine inspiration, and several clearly disown any such feature.

      The question is important as between us and the Roman Catholic Church, because by the Council of Trent, 1546, seven of the books were placed in the Old Testament Canon, while in 1692 the books were included in the Canon of Scripture by the Eastern Church.  But, as already seen, this action is without any justification from history, or the contents of the books; which contain many clear proofs of mere human origin, and that they are not to be regarded as part of Holy Scripture.  This is one of the fundamental points of difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome on the subject of the Rule of Faith.

      And so we return to the statement of the Article, following St. Jerome, that we use the books for information about the period from Malachi to Matthew, and also for guidance in regard to life, but we do not accept them as Divinely authoritative for doctrine. [“Sicut ergo Judith et Tobiae, et Machabaeorum legit quidem Ecclesia, sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit; sic et haec duo volumina legat ad aedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam” (Preface to the Books of Solomon).]  Our usage may be summed up as follows: –

      “(a) The Benedicite from the Apocrypha is appointed as a Canticle for use at Morning Prayer.

      (b) Lessons are appointed from the Apocrypha at Morning and Evening Prayer.  See the Prayer Book Calendar, October 27th–November 18th, Holy Innocents’ Day, and the feasts of St. Luke and All Saints. [The Revised Lectionary of 1922 has added many more lessons from the Apocrypha.]

      (c) Two of the Offertory Sentences in the Communion Service are taken from the Book of Tobit.

      (d) In the Homilies the Apocrypha is very often quoted, and is even spoken of as the Word of God.” [Tyrrell Green, The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation, p; 52.]

 

III – The Character of Holy Scripture

[Several of the topics of this Article are treated more fully

in the author’s The Holy Spirit of God, Chs. XX, XXVI–XXIX.]

      The Article refers to the Bible as the record or embodiment of a Divine revelation which, as such, is meant to be authoritative for life.  Revelation is the unfolding of the character of God, the supernatural communication from God to man of truth which the human mind unaided could not discover, and of grace for life which human power alone could not provide.  This revelation of the will of God for man may be oral or written, but for our present purpose it is to be understood of a written communication.  And it is taught by the Articles; here and elsewhere, that this unfolding is found supremely in Holy Scripture. [For proofs that Holy Scripture is a Divine revelation references must be made to the usual books on Christian Evidences, where the apologetic aspect of the subject is necessarily treated.  Of these perhaps special attention should be given to the chapters in Fishers’ Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, and Henry Roger’s The Supernatural Origin of the Bible.]  The possibility of revelation is obvious from the character and power of God, whilst its probability is equally clear from the conception of God as One who having made man, would desire to communicate with him.  When, therefore, we accept a Divine revelation as both possible and probable it is not difficult to accept its credibility.

      1.  The need of such an Authoritative Revelation is universally admitted.  Authority is essential in every aspect of life and in every branch of knowledge, and when we apply the question to religion we see that man, even as man, and still more man as a sinner, requires an authoritative revelation to guide him in the way of life.  Whatever may be said of the light of nature, it is impossible to doubt the necessity of the further and fuller light of revelation (Psa. 19; Acts 14:17, Rom. 1:17–20, 32; 2:15; Eph. 3:9).  The only light on such subjects as the character of God, the possibility of deliverance from sin, and the assurance of a future life comes from Divine revelation, while the ignorance and helplessness of man in his natural state called for the light and grace of Divine revelation.

      2.  The Source of this Authority must necessarily reside in God Himself.  He is the Fount of truth and grace, and authority can only be found in the revelation of God.  This revelation is personal, both in God as Source and in man as the object, and the personal expression of it was the Lord Jesus Christ.

      3.  But at this point the question arises, where is this personal revelation embodied or recorded, and how may it become available for man?  God is invisible, and in order that a personal Divine revelation may influence human life it must be available somewhere.  If God has revealed Himself to man in Christ, it ought to be possible to find and use the revelation.  There are only three possible answers to this question.

      Some say that human reason is the seat of authority.  But while reason is both valuable and necessary as one of the means of distinguishing the claims of authority it is quite another thing to claim for it the seat of authority itself, especially as it is only one of several human faculties, and as it has been affected by sin.  Reason is rightly regarded as a channel, but not a source.  It weighs and appropriates the data offered to it, but does not create them.

      Others say that the Church is the seat of authority, but, leaving for the present the full consideration of this question, it may be asked where such a Church is to be found, since the Church in the fullest, truest meaning of the term, “the blessed company of all faithful people,” is itself the product of Divine revelation, having come into existence by accepting God’s revelation in Christ.  Since, then, the Church is thus the result of revelation it is difficult, if not impossible, to think of it as the seat of authority, for this would mean that the Church embodies its Creator.

      The only other answer is that given by the Article, that the seat of authority is found in the Word of God recorded in the Bible.  This means that Holy Scripture preserves for us God’s revelation in the purest available form.  Christianity is based on the Person of Christ, and our supreme need is the clearest and completest form of His revelation of Himself.  Our great requirement is that the vehicle of transmission, whatever it may be, shall be certain and assuring, and we believe that this certitude is guaranteed in Holy Scripture as in no other way.  Written language seems best to serve the Divine purpose, having the marks of durability, catholicity, and purity, and the testimony of the entire community of Christians through the ages corresponds to the teaching of the Article that in Holy Scripture God has revealed Himself.  He might have made direct and oral communications to every person, but to this method there are many serious objections.  It would have to be repeated as many times as there are persons, and it would so open the way for imposture that there would be no means of detecting those who were guilty of fraud.  On the other hand, a written communication, properly accredited and given once for all, has decided advantages in its certainty, permanence, and universal availability.

      4.  This Divine authority of Holy Scripture as the embodiment of a Divine revelation is based on a belief in the unique inspiration of the writings, for both in the Old Testament and also in the New there are marks and claims of a position in regard to God’s will that can only be described as unique (Acts 1:16, Heb. 3:7, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:20.  Whether we describe it as inspiration or not, there is an element in Scripture which makes it stand out from all else in literature and history, and by this we mean a special influence differing both in degree and also in kind from the ordinary spiritual influence of the Holy Spirit.  It is a communication of Divine truth for human life, and it is that which makes the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, fundamental for Christianity.  It has been well described as “not the first stage of the evolution, but the last phase of the revelationary fact and deed.” [Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, p. 152.]  When the New Testament is compared, or rather contrasted, with the literature of the second century, we are enabled to see this unique activity of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of inspiration, for the most valuable and beautiful of later works cannot compare with what is found in the New Testament.  Writers of various schools testify to this remarkable difference, and from this we argue that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was the Spirit of inspiration, while later He was the Spirit of illumination.  It is thus that the revelation in Scripture gives it its uniqueness.  The revelation is the proof of inspiration, and the inspiration in turn guarantees the revelation.  Nor is this truth set aside by the emphasis placed in recent years on the “human element” in the Bible.  In the details scholars have discerned traces of the idiosyncrasies of various writers, and this is not surprising, for it is patent everywhere.  But there is a serious danger in this kind of examination, because a man may so concentrate on details as to miss the meaning and purpose of the whole book.  This is perhaps one of the perils of a good deal of modern investigation of the Bible.  Inspiration means such an union of the Divine and human elements that the result is guaranteed to us as the thought of God for the life of man.  The Holy Spirit so used the faculties of the writers that without any supersession, but working through them, the Divine truth was given to, through, and for man, and when we accept the book as a record of the Divine revelation it will be found that it is not the “human element” that impresses, but the Divine element.  God is realized as speaking through its pages and revealing truth to the soul.  By all means let us discover all that we can about the “human element,” but let us never forget that it is not the human but the Divine element that constitutes the Bible, the Word of God.  It is fallacious, and indeed, impossible to attempt to separate and distinguish the Divine and the human elements.  The true idea is not the Divine and the human, but the Divine through the human.  When this is realized the Bible speaks with Divine and convincing authority.*

      [*For the theory of Inspiration, see the author’s The Holy Spirit of God, pp. 155–158, and Additional Note.  It is sometimes said that the Church of England nowhere lays down any theory of inspiration.  This is doubtless true, and the explanation is that the question of inspiration was not a matter of dispute in the sixteenth century.  This question is not formally mentioned simply because it is presupposed.  Our Church was not then engaged in establishing the authority of Scripture or in basing that authority on Divine inspiration.  These things were not questioned, and being universally admitted were taken for granted.  What the Church was then doing was asserting that these Divinely inspired Scriptures, “of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church,” were the sole and exclusive authority for the consciences of men as the Articles of Faith, or as necessary to salvation.  In view of these circumstances it is simply impossible to argue that the inspiration of Scripture was left an open question, when every reference to Scripture shows that the compilers of the Articles based their teaching on the claim that Scripture alone should be regarded as an authority.  A suggestion of this is found in the reference in Article XXII, “God’s Word Written.”]

      The proof of this position may be briefly stated without encroaching unduly on the province of apologetics.  The authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture are evident from the objective and subjective phenomena associated with it.  The objective history of the Bible, especially in the element of prophecy in the Old Testament, the record of the unique people of Israel, and the picture of Christ, all stamp it as Divine, while the experiences of the people of God in response to this objective revelation support the contention that it comes from God.  The words of Coleridge that the Bible “finds” us more thoroughly than any other book are often quoted, but unless this effect is understood to arise out of the supernatural revelation objectively contained in the Scripture it is, of course, inadequate.  Indeed, it has been well pointed out, it is inadequate on other grounds, because the teaching of our Lord does very much more than “find” us, for it creates and transforms the life of everyone that receives it. [“We may say in Coleridge’s phrase that we believe the teaching of Jesus, or acknowledge its (or His) authority because it ‘finds’ us more deeply than anything else; but any Christian will admit that ‘find’ is an inadequate expression.  The teaching of Jesus does not simply find, it evokes or creates the personality by which it is acknowledged.  We are born again by the words of eternal life which came from His lips, and it is the new man so born to whom His Word is known in all its power” (Denney, Article, “Authority of Christ,” Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels).]

      Thus, the Bible stands apart from all other books on the threefold ground: (1) that it embodies a supernatural revelation; (2) that because of this it possesses a unity of structure and purpose; (3) that it reveals and produces spiritual qualities which can only be explained by direct inspiration.  It is sometimes said that the Bible is the Word of God, while at other times it is said that the Bible contains the Word of God.  These are both true, if held together, though either alone is liable to misapprehension.  If we only say the Bible is the Word of God we are in danger of forgetting that it contains the words of men also, many of which are not true in themselves, though the record that they were spoken is true and reliable.  If, on the other hand, we limit our belief to the phrase, the Bible contains the Word of God, there is the opposite danger of not knowing which is God’s word and which is man’s, an entirely impossible position.  The Bible is the Word of God in the sense that it conveys to us an accurate record of everything God intended man to know and learn in connection with His will.  The Bible contains the Word of God in the sense that in it is enshrined the Word of God which is revealed to us for our redemption.

      Thus, there is no contradiction between these two expressions.  From different standpoints they are both true, each balances the other, and both together should be held clearly and firmly.  The one thing which can never be removed from the Bible is its character as a continuous, complete, and coherent revelation of the mind and will of God for redemption, and when we accept the revelation embodied in Scripture we are led to understand more thoroughly than ever what Scripture is, its place and power.  Faith in the revelation leads to faith in the Scriptures, and the character of the Bible, as expressed in this Article and as used elsewhere in the Church of England, may be summed up in the following statements:

      “1.  Assuming a true revelation to be given us by God, could such a revelation be preserved without a pure Scripture?

      2.  Granting Christ to be the culmination of Divine revelation, what could we know of Jesus without a faithful Scripture?

      3.  Assuming the Church to be an institution of Christ, what could we know of the foundation, laws, sacraments, doctrine of the Church without an authoritative Scripture?

      4.  Assuming that the Church has a mission to the world, how could the Church carry on the propagation of the gospel and the evangelization of the world without a trustworthy Scripture?

      5.  Assuming the end of salvation to be holiness, and growth in knowledge and grace in the believer, how could spiritual life be perceived, described, and Christian character be built up without an inspired Scripture?” [Orr, “The Church and the Holy Scriptures.” An Address.]

 

IV – The Sufficiency of Holy Scripture

      I.  In stating that Holy Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation the Article emphasizes one of the fundamental principles of the Reformation, because the Mediaeval Church had taught and practiced the view that Scripture was not “sufficient,” but had to be supplemented and interpreted by the traditions which the Church possesses and has preserved from the beginning.  The question of the place of Scripture was therefore vital in the sixteenth century, and it is not surprising that it is emphasized here and elsewhere with such clearness and force.  Without any hesitation or qualification our Church teaches that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for “salvation”.  The Bible is a book of and for redemption.  It is not primarily a collection of literature, though it is full of literature, nor is it scientific in character or purpose, though it contains not a little science.  It is not even merely a book of history, though it is probably true that the substance of more than half of it is in the form of history.  It is a spiritual book intended for man’s salvation.  This statement can be further interpreted and illustrated by the words of the Ordination Service when men are commissioned to the work of the priesthood:–

      “The Bishop. – Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all Doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation, through faith in Jesus Christ? and are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?

      Answer. – I am so persuaded, and have so determined by God’s grace.”

      2.  The reason for this position is that Scripture presents the written record of the revelation of God in Christ in its purest form.  Christianity is built on Christ, and our supreme requirement is the clearest and purest form of that revelation.  The books of the New Testament being products of the Apostolic age give this, but at a later date it would have been impossible, because the writings would not have come from men in special and unique association with Jesus Christ.

      (1) Our first reason for regarding Scripture as sufficient is found in the claim of Scripture itself.  The Old Testament could not claim finality for itself as a whole because of its gradual growth from separate authors, but we can see throughout the process the claim of the prophets to authority and inspiration (Deut. 8:15–20, 2 Sam. 23:1, 2; Isa. 9:8, Jer. 2:1, Ezek. 1:1), and the New Testament sets its seal retrospectively on the sufficiency and finality of the Old Testament.  Thus, our Lord’s relation to the Old Testament is seen in His quotations, prefaced by, “It is written”; “Have ye not read?”  He also used the facts of the Old Testament (e.g. John 5:39), and He referred to the three divisions of the Old Testament Canon (Luke 24:27–44).  Then the Apostles held the same views of the Old Testament, St. Paul referring to the authority of the writings (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), and St. Peter to the inspiration of the writers (2 Pet. 1:21).  This is the uniform view of the Old Testament in the New (Matt. 22:29, Acts 17:11, Rom. 15:4).  In the same way the New Testament could not claim sufficiency or finality for itself for the same reason of gradual growth, for, of course, Rev. 22:18, 19 and John 20:30, 31 refer to these two books alone.  Yet it is impossible to avoid noticing our Lord’s emphasis on His words (John 17:12, 18:9, 37).  Then, too, St. Paul makes a claim to inspiration (1 Cor. 14:37, 1 Thess. 4:2–8), and there seems to be a mutual attestation of various authors (Acts 1:1 and Luke 1:1–4, 2 Pet. 3:15, 16; Luke 10:7 and 1 Tim. 5:18; Cf. Deut. 25:4).  One passage in particular is very striking as showing signs of portions of Gospel already known, either orally or in writing.  In 1 Cor. 9:9–14 we have the exact order of thought found also in 1 Tim. 5:18.  St. Jude is able to speak of the faith “once for all delivered” (ver. 3), while special emphasis is laid upon the finality of God’s revelation in His Son in contrast with the fragmentary revelation of older days (Heb. 1:1, 2).  We may consider, too, the remarkable significance given by our Lord to the words of Scripture (John 10:34 with Psalm 82:6, John 15:25 with Psa. 35:19).  Again, the opening of the Epistles conveys the same idea (Gal. 1:1, 2 Cor. 1:1, Col. 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2 Pet. 1:1, 1 John 1:5), and also the substance of the Epistles (1 Thess. 4:1, 2; 5:27; 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:14).  All this shows an implicit claim to sufficiency and finality; indeed, it is assumed in the whole matter and manner of the New Testament.  A father is not in the habit of frequently reminding his children of his position and authority; the very nature and tone of his commands will lead them to realize and acknowledge his relationship of authority, and this much more effectually than by means of any verbal assertion.

      (2) The testimony of Church history is wholly in the same direction.  This position of our Church on the sufficiency of Scripture can be supported by writings extending from the earliest ages of the Church.  The value of this testimony lies in the fact that the Fathers in bearing witness to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture constitute one of the strongest supports of the view held by our Church.  And it is hardly too much to say that these authorities are practically unanimous as to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as our Rule of Faith:–

      “The ancient Church did faithfully and continually recur to this pattern, and faithfully recognized the limitation of its function.  It is evident how constant is the effect of the scriptural pattern, on which they are mainly occupied in commenting, in molding and restraining the teaching of Origen and Chrysostom and Augustine.  The appeal to Scripture is explicit and constant.  These fathers knew that they existed simply to maintain a once-given teaching, and that the justification of any dogma was simply the necessity for guarding the faith, once for all, delivered and recorded.  There can be no doubt of their point of view.” [Gore, The Body of Christ, pp. 222, 223.  Detailed testimonies can be seen in Maclear, Introduction to the Articles of the Church of England, p. 104 f., and, as he says, “Such quotations might be greatly multiplied.”]

      It is not without point that at the Council of Chalcedon the Gospels occupied a place in the middle of the assembly.

      (3) Then, too, every heresy in the early ages claimed to be based on Holy Scripture, and in particular the Gnostics asserted that they had their own Canon and interpretation.

      (4) Further, certain books that were reverenced in the early Church died out, like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

      (5) The ancient Liturgies are saturated with Scripture, and the most severe attacks of opponents were invariably directed against Scripture.

      (6) Indeed, the whole record of the Church tells the same story, and if there is one fact plainer than another in Christian history it is that Christ does not fully reveal Himself independently of knowledge and study of the Bible as the Word of God.  Whenever Scripture has been neglected the reality of Christ’s presence and grace has been obscured, and as often as men have come back to the Bible our Lord has again become real among His people.  As a body of divinely authoritative writings the books of the Bible were accepted by the post-Apostolic age, and Church history is full of examples of the use of these writings as the sufficient authority on the matters of which they speak.

      (7) The spiritual and practical value of Holy Scripture is another reason for believing in its sufficiency as a Rule of Faith.  Although the Bible is comparatively small it is, nevertheless, so full that nothing can be required for the spiritual life that is not found there.  Then, too, in spite of all that may be said to the contrary, Scripture is clear in regard to the guidance required for man’s spiritual life.  It is also remarkable for its definiteness.  There is never any real doubt as to its meaning on vital issues, for it contains an answer to every essential question concerning Redemption, Holiness, and Immortality.  Such titles as “The Word of God,” “The Gospel of Christ,” “The Law of the Lord” indicate this sufficiency.  Indeed, we may speak of the very existence of the Bible as one of the most convincing proofs of the truth of the Article, for obviously any written account is intended to supply a trustworthy record.  Even the accessibility of the Bible can be adduced in support of its sufficiency.  It is a book easily obtained, quickly read, and admittedly adequate to every conceivable circumstance, and to the soul that receives it it affords its own convincing proofs.  To the soul that receives its message the Bible gives implicit satisfaction and thereby proves its own adequacy. [“Unto a Christian man there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable than the knowledge of Holy Scripture, forasmuch as in it is contained God’s true word, setting forth His glory, and also man’s duty.  And there is no truth or doctrine necessary for our justification and everlasting salvation, but that is or may be drawn out of that fountain and well of Truth” (First Homily).]

 

V – The Supremacy of Holy Scripture

      From the sufficiency the Article naturally proceeds to state the supremacy of Scripture: “So that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”  This is borne out by the emphasis placed on Scripture in other Articles.  Thus, the three Creeds are to be received and believed “because they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”  Points of doctrine are constantly based on passages of Scripture (see Articles IX, XIV, XV, XVII, XVIII).  The doctrine of the Church is also tested by and made subject to the Word of God (see Articles XIX, XX, XXI).  Certain doctrines are condemned because they are repugnant to Holy Scripture (Article XXII).  In the Sacramental Articles in addition to actual quotation of the words of Scripture there is a constant appeal to Holy Writ (Article XXVIII).  Questions of Church order and discipline are discussed in the light of Scripture (Articles XXXII, XXXIV); and even in questions dealing with the relations of Church and State we find the same principle laid down (Articles XXXVII, XXXIX).  Thus eighteen out of the Thirty-nine Articles make definite reference to Holy Scripture, some of them more than once, while there are verbal quotations from and references to “Christ’s ordinance and commandment.”  The Old Testament has an Article to itself.  Nothing could well be clearer than this emphasis on the supremacy of Holy Scripture.

      If it is asked why this is and must be so, the answer is that which has already been given, because Scripture embodies the revelation of God to the world as the Source of authority.  The revelation of the Person of Christ is found in Holy Scripture in its clearest, fullest, and purest form.  Since Christ is the Source of our religious knowledge the condition of our knowing Him centuries after His historical appearance is that we must know about Him, and for this perpetuation and transmission we must have an objective body of historical testimony.  The supremacy of the Bible is due to the fact that it gives this, for the great outstanding fact of history is the supernatural figure of Christ, who is enshrined for us in the written word.  We adhere to the Bible ultimately on this ground alone, for it is the presence of Christ in the Bible that gives it its uniqueness as our supreme authority in religion.

      This supremacy of the Bible has several applications which call for special consideration.

      1.  Holy Scripture is supreme over Reason.  There is a great tendency to find the seat of authority within man himself, as though the consent of the mind is the foundation of all certitude.  Now while reason is both valuable and necessary as one of the means of distinguishing the claims of authority, and also as a recipient of the truth of revelation, it is altogether different to claim for it the seat of authority itself.  We are, of course, prepared to insist upon the importance of reason as the only faculty for judging anything, as Butler showed long ago, for no authority can be legitimate which subverts or stultifies reason, and the right of verification is the bounden duty of every man.  But if there is such a thing as reality independent of our mind, it is obvious that human consent cannot be the foundation of truth, for certitude is only the result of the acceptance and experience of a reality outside ourselves.  To regard reason as autonomous is to deny the existence of objective reality.  Reason does not create, it only weighs, and then accepts or rejects what is offered.  The true idea of authority is that which is not against reason, but in accordance with it.  We therefore hold, following the Article, that the supreme authority is the Divine revelation in Christ embodied in the Bible.  We believe that in this way the vehicle of transmission is certain for litera scripta manet, and that this could not be so with any mere human faculty.  Revelation does not dishonour reason, but honours it by appealing to it with evidence, for to the spiritual, enlightened mind the Scriptures make a constant appeal.  Reason has the vital duty to perform of judging of man’s need of Divine revelation and then of examining the credentials of revelation.  Then when the credentials are examined, reason necessarily yields to the superior authority of Divine revelation and finds in it the principle and law of life.  The modern tendency to fix the seat of authority within is liable to the error of pure subjectivity unless it is safeguarded by the consciousness of a true objective element in knowledge.  The idea that “objective” and “external” are identical is incorrect, for since the ultimate authority is Christ Himself we can see at once that while Christ is dwelling in us He is not thereby identical with us.  He is the Divine revelation mediated through Holy Scripture, and applied by the Holy Spirit at once objective and subjective, external and internal.  It is perhaps necessary to repeat that as the Lord Jesus Christ is our supreme authority we accept the Bible because it enshrines His Divine revelation in the best available form.  All that we desire is the highest knowledge of Christ, and this we hold to be found in Scripture, and while we constantly emphasize the importance and necessity of reason in its work of testing the proofs of revelation, it is equally essential that reason should yield to those proofs when it has proved them satisfactory.

      2.  Holy Scripture is also supreme over the Church.  This was the fundamental principle laid down at the Reformation, as the whole history testified.  Holy Scripture was regarded as the warrant for everything essential in Church life and progress.  Indeed, the Church itself is the product of Divine revelation by the acceptance of the Word of God proclaimed through inspired Apostles.  The Christian community, whether regarded as universal, or consisting of national Churches, has its rightful place of authority, but it is certainly not coordinate with Scripture, as the Articles plainly teach (Articles XX, XXI, XXXIV). [Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (Second Edition), p. 27; Wace, Principles of the Reformation, p. 236 ff.]

      But it is sometimes said that as the Church existed many years before the New Testament was written the Church must necessarily be supreme.  This conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow.  To be anterior does not of necessity mean to be superior.  To be before does not always mean to be above.  Besides, it is not quite correct to say that the Apostolic Church had no Bible, because the Old Testament was constantly used and appealed to in Jewish and Gentile Churches, and St. Paul could say, with the simple addition of faith in Christ Jesus, these Old Testament Scriptures were “able to make wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15), [“It is sometimes said, and an important truth lies concealed under the phrase, that the Church existed before the Bible.  But a Christian of the earliest days, if you had used such words to him, would have stared at you in undisguised amazement.  He would have explained to you that in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms the Christian possessed all the Scriptures he could want, for they all spoke of Christ” (Turner, The Journal of Theological Studies, October 1908, p. 14).] and we can see the position of the Old Testament from our Lord’s appeal to it, and the use made of it in the Apostolic Church (cf. Acts 17:11).  But quite apart from this the argument that because the Church was before Scripture therefore it is above Scripture calls for further attention.  It is quite true that the Church existed before the written word of the New Testament, but first of all there was the spoken word through Christ and His Apostles.  On the Day of Pentecost the Word of God was proclaimed, and on the acceptance of that Word the Church came into existence, being formed by the Word of God.  Every similar proclamation of the Gospel led to the same results, and communities of Christians came into existence based on the acceptance by faith of a Divine revelation.  As long as the Apostles’ teaching was available, nothing more was required; but as time went on, it was necessary to embody the Apostolic message in a permanent form.  Thenceforward to all ages the written Word became equivalent to the spoken Word as the seat of authority.  The fact is the same throughout; the form alone was changed. [“In the history of the world the unwritten Word of God must of course be before the Church.  For what is a Church (in the wider sense of the word) but a group of believers in God’s Word?  And before the Word is spoken, how can there be believers in it?  ‘Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.’  Therefore the Word of God must be before faith.  It is only of the Bible, or written volume of God’s oracles, assuredly not of God’s spoken Word, that we assert it to have been brought into existence later than the Church” (Goulbum, Holy Catholic Church: quoted in Four Foundation Truths, p. 13).]  Thus, the Apostles were the seat of authority at the first, and they have continued so to this day, the only difference being between their spoken and written word.  The Word created the Church, not the Church the Word. [“Our authority is not the Church of the first century, but the Apostles who were its authority.  The Church does not rest on its inchoate stage (which would poise it on its apex) but on its eternal foundation – a Christ who, in His apostolic Self-Revelation, is the same deep Redeemer always” (Forsyth, The Principle of Authority, p. 96).  “We have a variety of opinions and sections in the first Church, but I am speaking of the representative apostles, and of the New Testament as their register and index.  The Church of the ages was not founded by the Church of the first century, but by the apostles as the organs of Christ.  We are in the apostolic succession rather than in the ecclesiastic.  It is not the first Church that is canonical for us Protestants, but the apostolic New Testament” (Forsyth, ut supra, p. 142; see also pp. 146–155).]  The same thing is seen today in the Mission Field, where a Church exists in most places through the Word spoken long before the written Word can be given.  The Rule of Faith is the conveyance of a Divine Authority to man, and the Bible as a Rule of Faith must have existed in the minds of Christ and His Apostles long before it was or could be committed to writing.  As such, it preceded and conditioned the origin and life of the Church.  The relation of the Church to the Word is, in the words of Article XX, “a witness and a keeper”; a witness to what Scripture is, and a keeper of that Scripture for the people of God. [See also on Article XX.]  But this is very different from being the maker of Scripture, for’ the Church, as such, is not the author of Holy Writ. [“The Church from her dear Master / Received the gift Divine” – (Bishop Walsham How).]  Thus, the Word first spoken and then written is at once the foundation and guarantee of the Church.  The witness of the primitive Christian community is valuable, because of its nearness to Apostolic times, but if it should be said that we are therefore bound to receive what the Church says, we reply that on the one hand we do not receive Scripture on account of the Roman Catholic Church, and on the other that the Church in the present consideration is universal, and its work is only ministerial, not supremely and finally authoritative.  But this is simply the position and work of a witness to an already existing revelation.  The function of the Church is exactly parallel to that of the Jewish Church in relation to the Old Testament.  The Prophets were the messengers and mouthpieces of Divine revelation and delivered their writings to the Jews, who thereupon preserved them, and thenceforward bore their testimony to the authority of the Divine revelation embodied therein.  In the same way the Christian Church received the New Testament writings from the Lord Jesus Christ through His Apostles and Prophets, and now the function of the Church is to witness to this fact and to keep these writings for use by Christian people.*  We therefore apply the touchstone of continuity and ask two questions: Has the Church preserved Scripture aright?  Has it properly interpreted Scripture?  But the former does not involve the latter.  There is no desire to detract from the place of the Church as testifying and teaching; [“By experience we all know that the first outward motive leading men so to esteem of the Scripture is the authority of God’s Church” (Hooker, Eccl. Pol., Bk. III, Ch. VIII, Section 14).] on the contrary we are prepared to give every possible weight to the testimony of the Church as of real importance in its proper place, but for every reason we refuse to coordinate the Church with Scripture as our authority for the Christian religion. [“All communities of Christians agree in this, that the Divine Rule is contained in Holy Scripture.  They differ as to the authority of an Ecclesia Docens.  Necessarily there must be something analogous to the latter, even in the smallest sect.  The danger lies in the direction of substituting an independent for an interpretative authority.  Undoubtedly this danger, always insidious, is contemplated here.  The intention is not to dispense with an Ecclesia Docens, but to indicate its proper function and to insist upon its responsibility for fulfilling the same” (Maclear and Williams, ut supra, p. 99).]  This position of the supremacy of Holy Scripture above the Church is fundamental to the Church of England, and represents one part of what has been called “a line of deep cleavage” [Report of the Royal Commission on Discipline, 1906, Vol. IV, p. 53.] between us and Rome.

      [*“The books of the Bible were given to the Church more than by it, and they descended on it rather than rose from it.  The Canon of the Bible rose from the Church, but not its contents.  The Bible and the Church were collateral products of the Gospel” (Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, p. 140).

      “The New Testament is not the first stage of the evolution, but the last phase of the revelationary fact and deed. ... The Creeds are not parallel to the Church, but the Bible is.  They are products of the Church.  The Bible is not.  It is a parallel product of the Spirit who produced the Church.  They are two products of one Spirit; the one is not the product of the other.  The Bible was not produced by the Church, and yet the Church was there before the Bible.  Both were there collaterally from the Spirit.” (Forsyth, op. cit., p. 152.

      “If He died to make a Church, that Church should continue to be made by some permanent thing from Himself, either by a continuous Apostolate supernaturally secured in the charisma veritatis, as Rome claims, or by a book which should be the real successor of the Apostles, with a real authority on the vital matters of truth and faith.  But we discard the supernatural pope for the supernatural book” (Forsyth, op. cit., p. 171.]

      3.  This question of the Bible and the Church has a special application to what is known as Church Tradition.  The Church of Rome puts tradition, that is, Church beliefs, customs and usages, on a level with Scripture as the Rule of Faith, and this constitutes a fundamental difference between the two Churches, as Bellarmine, one of the ablest Roman controversialists, allows.  While granting that Scripture is a Rule of Faith, according to Rome it is not a complete, but only a partial Rule, and therefore there are some things not found in it.  This subject was considered at the Council of Trent in 1546, and the decree was well known to the compilers of this Article.  It is as follows: –

      “The sacred and holy OEcumenical and General Synod of Trent ... keeping this always in view that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel should be preserved in the Church, which (gospel) before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth and then commanded to be preached by His apostles to every creature, as the fountain both of every saving truth and also of the discipline of morals; and perceiving that this truth and discipline is contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even to us, transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates, with equal affection of piety and reverence, all the books both of the Old and also of the New Testament – seeing that one God is the author of both – as also the said traditions, both those appertaining to faith as well as those appertaining to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church.” [Conc. Trident., Sessio Quarta, Decret. de Canon. Script.]

      This position calls for careful consideration.  The word “tradition” has a great variety of meanings.  (1) Sometimes it refers to a usage in worship (1 Cor. 11:2); (2) at other times it means a doctrine (Matt. 15:3; 2 Thess. 2:15).  In the latter case doctrinal traditions may be those that are not found in Holy Scripture or those that are recorded there.  No one objects to all tradition, for we constantly use rites and ceremonies which are not found in Holy Scripture, though they are in proper accord with it.  What our Church rejects is any doctrinal tradition which has no warrant in Scripture.  Thus, all through the ages the doctrines of our Lord’s Deity, Incarnation, and Atonement have been handed down, and we accept them.  But, on the other hand, there are distinctive doctrines of Rome, such as Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Mariolatry, which we do not accept because we hold that they are not Apostolic, for it is a matter of supreme importance to know whether a tradition is really Apostolic, since only that which can be proved to originate with our Lord and His immediate followers can rightly be regarded as possessing Divine sanction, and there is not the slightest proof that any of the distinctive doctrines of the Church of Rome are derivable from that source. [“Whether the Apostles taught more or otherwise than what is recorded in the Canonical Scriptures, no Church or individual is now in a position to adduce a syllable thereof with certainty” (Litton, ut supra, p. 37).]

      The words of the Apostle are sometimes used to support this view of the co-ordination of tradition with Scripture : “ Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle “ (2 Thess. ii. I 5). But the question is not what St. Paul taught in his day, but whether at the present time we can distinguish between oral and written traditions of Christianity. No one questions for a moment that St. Paul’s oral instructions were obligatory on his converts, but it is altogether different to believe that the oral tradition claimed to-day by Rome corresponds with this apostolic teaching. The supreme question is whether there are not fundamental Divine truths which are not found in the New Testament. The same thing is true in regard to the Apostle’s exhortation to Timothy, to “ guard the deposit (i Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. x 2-54). St. Paul assuredly taught certain doctrines to Timothy by word of mouth, but again the question arises whether there are any doctrines to be believed to-day which are not contained in the written Word.

      But it is sometimes urged that there are certain doctrines which are taught today, not because of Scripture, but by reason of Church custom, special reference being made to the observance of the Lord’s Day, as to which, it is said that we reverence it because of the tradition of the universal Church.  But the argument is more plausible than real, for, in the first place, the principle of one rest day in seven is fundamental in Scripture and is not merely Jewish, while the change from the seventh day to the first is entirely suitable to the circumstances of our Lord’s Resurrection.  The strongest argument for setting apart one day out of seven for the worship of God is neither Jewish precedent nor Christian practice, for the authority of the Lord’s Day is essentially Scriptural, and the usage of the Church is in reality only a witness to an observance which finds its supreme warrant in Holy Scripture.  We value all proper appeal to Church tradition, believing that it has its place and power, but this is very different from coordinating it with Scripture.  The natural tendency in such a case is to reverse the order and to make Scripture subject to tradition, so that while in theory tradition is equal to Scripture in practice it becomes paramount.  The moral authority of the universal Church is weighty, and no individual Christian can lightly reject it.  But, after all, this is only the work of a witness to an ultimate and original authority, and in making the Bible supreme in things essential we are only doing that which is at once natural and necessary. [Bishop Gore said at the Bristol Church Congress, 1903: “The Word of God in the Bible is the only final testing ground of doctrine.”]  Tradition is of great value in the interpretation of Scripture, and no one would wish to under-rate its importance.

      “It is one thing to use tradition as a help towards arriving at the true sense of Scripture, and quite another thing to make it a source of Christian doctrine.” [Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 238.]

      Tradition is also of value for rites and customs, and all such ecclesiastical matters, so far as they are in harmony with the principles of the Word of God, the Anglican Church heartily accepts. [See Article XXXIV; see Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 299–304; quoted in Gibson, ut supra, pp. 246–248.]  But this is altogether different from regarding Church tradition as our supreme authority in matters of doctrine and practice.

      “This risks making the Ecclesia Docens independent instead of interpretative, as though Scripture were not the sole source of Catholic truth, and as though an Article of the Faith might rest on Church teaching alone as a sufficient basis in itself.  Such were a departure from the primitive conception of the authority of Scripture.” [Maclear and Williams, ut supra, p. 104.]

      This position of the supreme authority of the Bible over tradition is the assertion of the historic basis of Christianity.  Sabatier truly says: – “It is a historic law that every tradition not fixed in writing changes in the process of development.” [Sabatier, The Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit, p. 40.]

      Bishop Gore shows the truth of this in connection with the history of the Jews, and points out the application of this fallacy to those in authority in the Christian Church.  They ought to have been more thoroughly on their guard against anything that would tend to detract from the constant appeal to Scripture as the supreme authority.  In regard to the Mediaeval Church, Dr. Gore’s words are important and significant: – “The specific appeal to the Scriptures of the New Testament to verify or correct current tendencies is gone. ... The safeguard has vanished.” [Gore, The Body of Christ, p. 220.]

      There is perhaps nothing more certain in history than the untrustworthiness of tradition without some historic and literary safeguard.*  It is also curious that in every religion, true or false, men have tended to be wise above that which is written.  The people of the book have not been contented with it.  Jews, Mohammedans, as well as Roman Catholics, have their traditions, and not seldom these are found to subvert the written authority.  Our Lord’s words about the Jews in this respect are of special importance, and the threefold charge made in the Gospels is particularly noticeable.  The Pharisees first of all held tradition (Mark 7:3); the result was that they laid aside the Divine command to hold tradition (ver. 8), with the outcome of rejecting God’s Word in order to keep their own traditions (ver. 9).

      [*“Tradition is utterly unsafe.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition is the concrete proof of the assertion.  Unwritten tradition is always coloured and transformed by the medium through which it passes.  An unwritten Gospel would be subject to all the fluctuations of the spiritual life of man and most likely to gravitate downward from the spiritual to the carnal and formal.  Institutions may symbolize or embody truth, but without a written standard they always tend to become external means of grace, or sacraments.  They are ladders on which we may climb up or down.  Without a corrective it is usually down” (Mullins, Freedom and Authority in Religion, p. 349).]

      Thus, insecurity of tradition constitutes the supremacy of the Bible the charter of spiritual freedom. It is a great mistake to think that the function of the Church is to settle definitely every question of difficulty as it arises, for no trace can be found of any such view, either in Scripture, or in the Creeds, or in the early Church history. Nothing would have been easier than for the Church to summon a Council and settle all disputes by a majority, but no such action was ever taken ; on the contrary, we know that after the Council of Nicaea the struggle went on for many years before the decisions of that Assembly were universally accepted. The great authority of the first Four General Councils is acknowledged, and their doctrinal standards are our heritage to-day. But even their decisions were accepted only because they commended themselves to the entire Church as in accordance with Divine revelation. It was this subsequent endorsement by the whole Christian world and not the mere decision of a Council which constituted the real test of universality. [See on Article XXI.]  But while we cannot for a moment coordinate tradition with Scripture, we are ready to appeal to the former whenever possible and necessary.  The testimony of the primitive Church is invaluable in many respects, but there is a wide difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant appeals to tradition: – “Tradition is either an exposition of apostolic doctrine, or an addition to it.  If an exposition, how is it to be shown that the Reformation branch of the Church was wrong.  If an addition, what becomes of the claim for the apostolicity of all Catholic doctrine?” [Forsyth, The Principle of Authority, p. 359, Note.]

      It is this fundamental difference that enables us to see the right and wrong view of appeal to the beliefs and customs of the Church.*  It is always a satisfaction to obtain the consensus of Church opinion, but its use is only that of historical evidence, and not something which settles the matter apart from proper consideration.

      [*“Romanists appeal to the Church in her organized and official capacity.  Protestants appeal to the individuals who compose the Church, and appeal to them, not for their official sanction, but for information upon a simple question of fact.  Romanists appeal to the Church as a judge whose decision is final.  Protestants appeal to her members as credible witnesses.  Romanists appeal to her for an authoritative decision upon a question which they are unable or indisposed to examine for themselves.  Protestants appeal to her members for evidence, which they weigh as they would any other evidence.  According to the Romish view, the Church collects the evidence, passes upon it, and declares her judgment in the premises, from which judgment there is no appeal.  According to the Protestant view, the persons who compose the Church may collect the testimony and perpetuate it from generation to generation, but each individual may and should pass upon it for himself” (McPheeters, “Objections to Apostolic Authorship or Sanction as the Ultimate Test of Canonicity,” Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. VI, p. 42).]

      When this is clearly understood it removes all objections to what is called “private judgment.”  It is easy to introduce confusion by contrasting and opposing Church authority and private judgment.  But there is no such contradiction.  What is called private judgment is the decision of the whole nature of man, judgment, conscience, and will, in his desire to know and follow the truth.  He does not thereby separate himself from, or set himself above the corporate Christian consciousness, so far as he can discover that, but while he welcomes and weighs truth from every side he feels that Scripture is the supreme and final authority for life.*  Authority is always based on the possession of superior knowledge, and no true Christian can have any objection to the authority that comes from any individual or corporate body which actually possesses snore and better information than himself.  All that his duty to Christ requires is that the information derived from others should be examined, compared, and tested by Holy Scripture as the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and practice, and when this is done there will be little or no practical difficulty in arriving at a proper decision.

      [*“As a matter of fact, the unlimited right of private judgment is not a fruit or the Reformation but of the Renaissance and of the Revolution with their wild individualism.  It is Socinian and rationalist, it is not Protestant.  The Reformation certainly made religion personal, but it did not make it individualist.  The Reformation, if it destroyed the hierarchy of the Church, did not destroy the hierarchy of competency, spiritual or intellectual.  In a political democracy we speak of one vote, one value; but in the intellectual and spiritual region all opinions are not of equal worth; nor have they all an equal right to attention.  What the Reformation said was that the layman with his Bible in his hand had at his side the same Holy Spirit as the minister.  Each had the testimony of the Spirit as the supreme religious Expositor of Scripture” (Forsyth, ut supra, p. 320).]

      This position is abundantly justified on every ground.  Our Lord Himself appealed to the Scriptures as the touchstone of truth.  Our personality has been created in a relationship of direct responsibility to God.  The Christian religion teaches beyond all else that the soul is in direct personal relationship to God, while welcoming all possible light through human channels in helping us to decide for ourselves.  Then, too, this position has ever been productive of the finest characters and the noblest examples of individual and corporate Christian life.  It is also at least noteworthy that all the great systems of religion have their sacred books, as though a book were absolutely necessary to a religion.  So that the ultimate court of appeal must be the spiritual, enlightened judgment of the individual Christian with reference to any and every matter of conscience.  This is the absolute right of the individual, whether like the Protestant he exercises it continually from the Bible, or whether like the Roman Catholic he exercises it once for all in deciding to submit himself to what he believes to be an infallible guide.  But the final decision must be made by the spiritually illuminated Christian consciousness, guided by the Word of God, advised by every possible channel of knowledge available, and led by the Holy Spirit of God.

 

VI – The Practical Use of Holy Scripture

      The use of Holy Scripture as sufficient and supreme in all essential matters can be applied in various ways.

      1.  We use it against a Rationalism which is not content without demanding a reason for everything.  But, as we have already seen, reason is only one faculty, while religion speaks to all.  In the light of what has been said about the duty of verification of revelation by reason, it is obvious that to set up reason as supreme would be to insist upon a false or at least an inadequate and partial criterion.  Christ is our authority, and to the spiritual enlightened reason Christ makes His constant appeal.

      2.  We use it against what is called Mysticism, which in various forms tends to emphasize the inner light as against, or additional to, the written Word.  This is a modern danger of real force and seriousness, and it is essential to remember that the Holy Spirit speaks through and according to the Word of God and never contrary to it. [See The Holy Spirit of God, Ch. XXVIII.]

      3.  We use it against Scepticism.  The Bible is a comparatively small book, and yet all that is necessary is found therein.  This is a tremendous claim and the question is whether it is justified.  The answer is obvious: the Bible has molded literature, coloured civilization, affected philosophy, and transformed individuals and races.

      4.  We use it against an extreme Protestantism or Puritanism.  In the sixteenth century men of this type taught that everything is in Scripture, and that nothing else was to be valued in Church life.  But the Bible is a book of principles, not of rules, and presupposes natural law, social law, and civic law. [Hooker, Eccl. Pol., Bk. I.]  As spiritual life is varied it can and must express itself in various ways.  So long as individual and Church life is true to the principles of Scripture all outside authority is to be welcomed.  Scripture as sufficient and supreme is intended to emphasize things essential as distinct from things beneficial.

      5.  We use it against Roman Catholicism, which exalts the Church and Church tradition to the place which our Church gives to Holy Scripture.  When once the Rule of Faith is settled, all else is really detail.  Apart from the Bible as supreme, it is easy to appeal to Church authority and tradition.  In the position of the Article, as laid down at the Reformation and maintained ever since, we find the safeguard of purity and the best guarantee of progress because we possess in Scripture the complete requirement of God for Christian faith and life.

 

Article  VII

 

Of the Old Testament.

      The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.  Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.  Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

 

De Veteri Testaments.

      Testamentum vetus novo contrarium non est: quandoquidem tam in veteri, quam in novo, per Christum, qui unicus est mediator Dei et hominum, Deus et homo, aeterna vita humano generi est proposita.  Quare male sentiunt, qui veteres tantum in promissiones temporarias sperasse confingunt.  Quanquam lex a Deo data per Mosen, quoad caeremonias et ritus, Christianos non astringat, neque civilia ejus praecepta in aliqua republica necessario recipi debeant, nihilominus tamen ab obedientia mandatorum, quae Moralia vocantur, nullus quantumvis Christianus est solutus.

 

Important Equivalents

Who is the only Mediator = qui unicus est Mediator.

Wherefore they are not to be heard = Quare male sentiunt.

            [In the XLII, “Non sunt audiendi”, and hence the English.]

For transitory promises. = in promissiones temporarias.

No Christian man whatsoever = nullus quantumvis Christianus.

            [Translated in Article XIX of the XLII, “No man (be he never so perfect a Christian).”]

Free from obedience = ab obedientia solidus.

 

      This is a corollary to and application of Article VI in regard to the Old Testament and, as such, it constitutes part of the teaching of the Church on the Rule of Faith.  In the Forty-two Articles of 1553 there were two Articles, the sixth and the nineteenth, each dealing with aspects of the Old Testament, and in 1563 they were brought together to form this Article because of their kindred topics.  The first half of this Article (to the word “promises”) formed the sixth Article of 1553, with the title, Vetus Testamentum non est rejiciendum (“The Old Testament is not to be rejected”).  But that Article began thus: Testamentum Vetus, quasi Novo contrarium sit, non est repudiandum, sed retinendum (“The Old Testament is not to be put away, as though it were contrary to the New; but to be kept still”).  The second half of the present Article formed the nineteenth of 1553, with the title, Omnes obligantur ad moralia legit praecepta servanda (“All men are bound to keep the moral commandments of the law”).  That Article began thus: Lex a Deo per Mosen, licet quo ad Caeremonias et Ritus.  But only the first clause of it was incorporated in 1563 to make our seventh Article.  The remainder of Article XIX of 1553 was as follows: Quare illi non sunt audiendi, qui sacras literas tantum infirmis datas esse perhibent, et Spiritum perpetuo jactant, a quo sibi quae praedicant suggeri asserunt, quanquam cum sacris literis apertissime pugnent (“Wherefore they are not to be hearkened unto, who affirm that Holy Scripture is given only to the weak, and do boast themselves continually of the Spirit, of whom (they say) they have learned such things as they teach, although the same be most evidently repugnant to the Holy Scripture”).  This was probably omitted because the difficulty had ceased by the time of Queen Elizabeth.

      The Article is plainly directed against erroneous views rife at the time of the Reformation, and perhaps there are also echoes of similar errors in the early Church.  We know the Gnostics held that the Old Testament is opposed to the New.  Extreme Protestants in the sixteenth century insisted that the ceremonial law was binding,* while from another standpoint the Anabaptists taught that Christians were free from the law.**  Then, again, there were those who held that internal illumination was sufficient without the written Word. [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 99 f., and Notes, p. 374..]  These are referred to in the sentence of Article XIX of 1553, omitted in 1563.

      [*“De iis, qui vetus Testamentum aut totum rejiciunt, aut totum exigunt.  Deinde quomodo priscis temporibus Marcionitarum sordes, Valentinianorum et Manichaeorum fluxerunt, et aliae similes earum multae faeces, a quibus vetus Testamentum ut absurdum malumque, et cum novo dissidens, repudiabatur, sic multi nostris temporibus inveniuntur, inter quos Anibaptistae praecipue sunt collocandi, ad quos si quis vetus Testamentum alleget, illud pro abrogato jam et obsoleto penitus habent, omnia quae in illo posita sunt ad prisca majorum nostrorum tempora referentes.  Itaque nihil eorum ad nos statunt pervenire debere.  Aliorum autem contrarius est, sed ejusdem impietatis error, qui usque adeo vetus ad Testamentum adhaerescunt, ut ad circumcisionem et a Mose quondam institutas ceremonias necessario nos revocent” (Reformatio Legum, De Haeresibus, c. 4).]

      [**“Here I note only one thing, which is the temerity, ignorance, and blasphemy of certain phantastical heads, which hold that the prophets do write only to the people of the Old Testament, and that their doctrine did pertain only to their time; and would seclude all the Fathers that lived under the law from the hope of eternal salvation.  And here is also a note to be gathered against them which utterly reject the Old Testament, as a book nothing necessary to the Christians which live under the Gospel” (Alley’s Poore Man’s Librarie, II, 97; quoted in Hardwick, On the Articles, p. 395).]

 

I – The Essential Unity of the Old and New Testaments

[For the topics of this Article see Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (Second Edition), pp. 44–48.]

      1.  The Article states that the Old Testament “is not contrary to the New”.  There is, of course, no question of exact spiritual equality, which has never really been held.  The two Testaments are united in all essential features of a progressive revelation without exalting the Old to the spiritual level of the New, and the essential principle is taught by our Lord and His Apostles (Matt. 5:17 f., John 5:39).

      2.  The ground of this unity is stated to be the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.  “Both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man.”  It is because Christ is the subject of both Testaments as the Divine Mediator that we can speak of the vital unity between them (Acts 10:43, Rom. 3:21, Gal. 3:24).

      A careful study of the Old Testament will reveal three lines of spiritual teaching.  (a) It is a book of unfulfilled prophecies.  From the beginning to the end (Gen. 3:15 to Mal. 4:1), while there are prophecies of a temporal and temporary nature which find their fulfillment, the bulk of the announcements refer to the Messiah, and the Old Testament closes with the spirit of expectation.  (b) It is also a book of unexplained ceremonies.  On almost every page there are references to sacrifices and offerings, and yet there is comparatively little explanation of the meaning of these elements of worship.  When the entire organization of Levitical sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies comes into view the necessity of their explanation becomes more acute, and yet the book closes with little or no real elucidation.  (c) It is also a book of unsatisfied longings.  From the opening pages to the close there is the frequent expression of desire for God and satisfaction on the part of man.  The heart cries out for the Living God and for the blessings God has promised; and though there is great, there is no perfect satisfaction, for notwithstanding all the references to the King and the Kingdom, and to God in relation to the spiritual life, as recorded in the Psalms, the book closes in incompleteness (Heb. 7:19).  These are the three threads running through it, and they enable us to understand that the Old Testament is almost entirely concerned with the Divine preparation for the redemption of the world; the preparation of the Messiah for the people, and of the people for the Messiah.  It is only when we turn to the New Testament that we find the explanation of all this incompleteness.  On the very first page we have the keynote, “That it might be fulfilled,” and we are soon able to realize that (a) Jesus Christ the Prophet fulfills (in His life) the prophecies; (b) Jesus Christ the Priest explains (in His death) the ceremonies; and (c) Jesus Christ the King satisfies (in His resurrection) the longings.  And so “Jesus, my Prophet, Priest, and King” is the key of the lock, the perfect explanation of the Old Testament and the justification of all its spiritual teaching.  Thus, the Article is strictly correct in emphasizing the unity and pointing to the ground of this oneness between the two Testaments (Luke 24:27).

 

II – The Spirituality of the Old Testament

      The Article goes on to state that the Old Testament is not concerned with transitory matters alone.  “Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.”  The outlook of the Old Testament is quite evidently concerned with an expectation beyond the present life and emphasizes a reality apart from things visible, and yet in the face of this clear statement it is natural to enquire why the Old Testament lays such emphasis on the present, the visible and the temporal.  The answer may be found in connection with God’s purposes with Israel, which were mainly concerned with temporal and national life in preparation for the Divine revelation for the world.  Israel was to be God’s depository of redemption, and, as such, it was to be expected that the work of preparation would be specially prominent, as the people were trained for their position in relation to other nations and to the whole world.  So that it is not surprising that there is comparatively little in the Old Testament with reference to the future life.  But the future life is clearly there; and, indeed, is involved in the very relation of the Jew to God.  The fact of fellowship between the Israelitish believer and God necessarily implied an everlasting relationship.  It never seemed to enter into the consciousness of the godly Jew that this relationship with God was capable of coming to an end.  In spite of all the changes and chances of this mortal life he felt that his union and communion with God would last for ever.  It is this more than anything else that constitutes the real testimony of the Old Testament to a life beyond the grave (Psa. 16:11, 73:24; cf. John 8:56, Heb. 11).  Our Lord’s reference to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and therefore the God of the living, not of the dead, indicates at once the fact of the future life and its obscurity in Old Testament times.  To the same effect are the words of the Apostle when literally rendered: “Our Saviour Jesus Christ who ... hath illuminated life and immortality through the Gospel” (2 Tim. 1:10). [For a fuller discussion see Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, and A. B. Davidson, Old Testament Theology.]

 

III – The Temporary Elements of the Old Testament

      The Article proceeds to state with great care that notwithstanding this unity and spirituality there are features in the Old Testament that are not of obligation among Christian men today.  “The Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth.”  In this statement we have suggested some of the characteristics of the Old Testament which, while necessary and important for the Jews in their relation to God, are no longer of force for the Christian Church.  Although the Article limits its attention to ceremonial and civil laws there is much more in the Old Testament which is now outside the life of Christian people, and the following may perhaps be regarded as a summary of those elements which are purely temporary and not of permanent binding force:

      1.  The Ceremonial Law. – The whole of the Levitical institutions of priesthood and sacrifice are obviously no longer binding, since they were all fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ (Col. 2:17; Heb. 9:11, 10:1, 11, 12).

      2.  The Civil Precepts. – The identity of Church and State among the Jews, and the entire arrangement necessary for the preparation of Israel as the medium of God’s revelation are all things of the past, and now it is impossible to insist upon the civil precepts being “of necessity received in any commonwealth.”

      3.  The Theocracy. – The direct government by God was intended for Israel’s life as the channel of God’s religion of redemption, but even with Israel a pure theocracy proved to be too high and spiritual, and a theocratic monarch was introduced.  It goes without saying that no such theocracy is possible today in connection with the Christian Church or any Christian nation.

      4.  The Legal Spirit and Coercive Attitude. – The Old Testament had for its keynote, “Do, and thou shalt live,” and we know from the New Testament that the keynote of the Gospel is “Live in order to do.”  The whole tendency of the Jewish life was works, and a spirit of coercion is implied in “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not”.  All these features are necessarily removed from the spirit of the New Testament, and form part of the temporary elements to which the Article refers.  It is noteworthy how strikingly true to modern thought on the Old Testament this emphasis on the temporary features is, and a consideration of it will keep us from the two extremes of regarding the Old Testament as entirely on a level with the New and from the opposite standpoint of dispensing with it altogether.  While there are temporary features there are also, as we shall see, other features that are of lasting force and obligation.

 

IV – The Permanent Elements of the Old Testament

      The Article in stating the obligation of the Christian man to the moral law suggests a topic which is much larger than this precise reference, because there are elements in the Old Testament equally permanent, and therefore equally binding.  It will be worth while to consider these.

      1.  The Doctrine of God. – This is of permanent value, because it is not superseded by that of the New Testament.  We are not to understand the revelation of Scripture concerning God as somewhat like the early and later stages of a science, the latter perhaps contradicting and superseding the former.  But rather should it be considered as the progressive record of one continuous and increasing revelation.  Our Lord and His Apostles do not in any way represent the Old Testament view of God as set aside; on the contrary, that doctrine is taken for granted, while it is naturally revised and completed.  Even the manner of communication from God in its twofold characteristic of solemnity and sublimity cannot be said to be superseded by the New Testament.  It has been rightly said that the characteristic feature of the Godhead in the Old Testament is Holiness, and that in the New, Love, so that the complete revelation of the character of God is Holy Love. [Hegel, quoted by Edward Caird, Philosophy of Religion, Vol. I, p. 185, speaks of Judaism as the religion of sublimity as contrasted with the Greek religion of beauty.  Cf. Butcher, Harvard Lectures, I.]  The following special features of the Old Testament doctrine of God should be noted.

      (a) The Existence of God. – The Semitic idea of God as transcendent, which is found in the Old Testament, is a great safeguard against Pantheism.

      (b) The Personality of God. – As already noted, there is no need to be afraid of Anthropomorphism, which is the highest conception of Deity possible to us.

      (c) The Uniqueness of God. – The prophets never tire of emphasizing the truth that Jehovah alone is the one true God (Isa. 44:8).

      (d) The Relation of God to man. – In various forms the Old Testament teaches from the beginning to the end that God and man are capable of fellowship, and that as it was originally, so it is the Divine intention consequent upon sin, that man should be restored to this true relation.

      (e) The Revelation of God to man. – This is a fact in the Old Testament which is at the foundation of everything in the New Testament.  Christ takes for granted this prior revelation and builds upon it (Matt. 5:21, Heb. 1:1, 2).

      (f) The Character of God. – The Old Testament revelation is of God as essentially righteous both in regard to present and future.  There will be a judgment based upon this eternal righteousness.

      2.  The Experience of Holy Men. – It is significant that there is no Psalter in the New Testament, that being almost the only part of the Old Testament writings without a counterpart in the New.  Perhaps the reason for this is that the experience of believing people is essentially the same in all ages, implying and involving personal union with God.  There is nothing more striking than the Christian use of such Psalms as the 16th, the 23rd, and the 103rd, as expressive of the highest Christian feelings today.

      3.  The Symbolical Teaching. – Although, as we have seen, all the offerings and types found their complete fulfillment in our Lord Jesus Christ, yet their principles abide, and the various characters, institutions, and events have a permanent value for instruction.  They are written “for our admonition” Cor. 10:11).

      4.  The Moral Lessons of History. – The Old Testament stories are not merely beautiful, but true.  God is behind them, and the people of Israel were only instruments in carrying out His purpose.  It is for this reason that St. Paul emphasizes the importance of the Old Testament, as “written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4).

      5.  The Moral Law. – This is the specific feature mentioned in the Article.  “No Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.”  It is sometimes believed that the Reformation led to Antinomianism, but this was emphatically not the case in regard to those who were truly representative of that great movement.  The moral law was clearly understood to convince of sin (Rom. 3:20, 4:15, 5:20, 7:7–13).  But with equal clearness it was taught that the law could not give judicial standing.  It was, to use St. Paul’s words, “the schoolmaster” to lead to Christ (Gal. 3:24).  But when the penitent and believing sinner became united to Christ he realized that he was “under law to Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21), and the Ten Commandments were soon seen to embody and emphasize permanent principles long anterior to Judaism.  While, therefore, the law could not justify, the believer fully recognized and accepted the place of the law as part of his attitude of loyal response to Christ (Eph. 6:1 f.).  In this connection the ethics of the Old Testament call for notice, because they are not really utilitarian.  They emphasize the absolute majesty of the moral law; and while the Old Testament does not hesitate to indicate the present value of obedience to God, yet it is impossible to say that morality and utility are synonymous and identical terms.  Then, too, the Old Testament doctrine of sin contains a principle of permanent validity because it teaches that sin is an offence against God, and not a mere infirmity of nature, or a misfortune, but a positive vice and crime.  Consequently the prohibition of sin in plain terms means a great deal, especially as it is always rooted in the eternal principles of righteousness and law.

      6.  The Element of Prophecy. – Whether we think of that part of the Old Testament which is fulfilled, or of the much larger section dealing with the Messiah, the prophetic parts are of vital value and are as capable of inspiring with hope today as they ever were.

      All this teaches that we must avoid the two extremes: the one of ignoring the Old Testament altogether, the other of regarding it as of equal value with the New Testament.  The former was the error of Marcion, who thought he was able to save the New Testament by throwing away the Old, thinking that the Old Testament was morally defective by reason of its severity.  But it should always be borne in mind that if God is to be thought of at all as directing history and being the Judge of mankind, righteousness must be predicated of Him, whether in the Old Testament or out of it.  The key to the solution of the problem is in the principle of progressive revelation, and every element of moral inferiority in the Old Testament is to be judged by it.  While we are not to be guided today by many of the examples of the Old Testament, it is equally true that in so far as what was said and done at the time was due to the revelation of God, that revelation was perfect at that time, whatever additional truth came afterwards for newer needs.  We have thus to distinguish carefully between the dispensational truth and the permanent truth in the Old Testament; that is, between those elements intended solely for immediate needs and those which are of eternal validity.  To put it in another way, it is essential to remember the difference between what is written to us and for us.  All Scripture was written “for our learning,” but not all was written to us directly, much of it being addressed to the Jews primarily and often exclusively, and therefore only intended for us today by way of application.  Thus, the first Commandment is of permanent value and force, but the introductory words, giving the motive for it (Exod. 20:2) are no longer applicable, except by means of a process of spiritualizing.  This principle of the progress of doctrine is vital to all true understanding of the Old Testament, for thereby it is at once seen that development does not mean contrariety. [A valuable pamphlet on this subject is Progressive Revelation: Its Power on Old Testament Morality (The Bible League, London).]

      The other error of regarding the Old Testament as equal to the New will be safeguarded by considering the one as supplementary to the other.  It is simple truth that the New Testament could not stand alone, and the various doctrines found therein are seen to be the supplement and complement of what is recorded in the Old Testament.  In the Old, God is revealed in history; in the New, in connection with individual redemption.  In the Old, God’s unity is emphasized; in the New, the Divine Trinity.  So that there is profound truth in Beaconsfield’s striking paradox that Christianity is incomprehensible without Judaism, and the authenticity of the Second Testament depends on its congruity with the First. [“It stands to reason, that to describe the ceremonial of Judaism, for example, apart from the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, is like writing a history of the acorn and saying nothing of the oak to which it grows; it stands to reason that the theologian who defines the Christian doctrine of the Atonement without reference to the expiatory features of Mosaism, might as wisely undertake a philosophical biography and ignore the entire story of childhood, and the early display of hereditary tendencies” (Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice, Preface, p. 7).]

 

V – The Problem of the Old Testament Today

      The term “Old Testament Criticism” is often heard today, and it is at once important and inevitable, for no one can use the Bible without being a “critic”; that is, one who exercises his judgment.  There is nothing unlawful in criticism; indeed, it is absolutely essential.  Another term is also very familiar, “Higher Criticism,” and this, too, calls for special attention.  As Lower Criticism is concerned with the text of the Bible and involves the study and comparison of manuscripts and versions, so Higher Criticism investigates the origin, structure and contents of Scripture, being concerned with the historical setting and study of the books in the light of the times when they were presumably written.  There is, however, a tendency to think that our view of the Old Testament has to be materially different from that of our forefathers, and it is sometimes thought that Higher Criticism is so technical as to be possible only for scholars and that ordinary Christians have nothing else to do but accept the decisions of scholarship.  But this is not the case, since ordinary Christians are dependent on scholars for two things only: a true text and a true translation, and when these are obtained every Christian has a right and a duty to test all things for himself.  It is admitted by leading scholars themselves that ordinary Christians can decide the outstanding problems from a careful study of the English Bible alone.  It is, therefore, important to understand in general what is involved in the modern critical discussions of the Old Testament.  It is true and fair to say that the simple but all-important issue is the historical trustworthiness of the Old Testament as it has come down to us today.

      1.  The Critical Problem. – This is both literary and historical.  (a) There are three crucial points in the literary aspect.  (1) The question of documents. – It is generally admitted that the Pentateuch, and to a great extent the rest of the Old Testament, is composed of different strata, but it is quite another question whether the dissection favoured by modern criticism can be proved to be true.  (2) The date of Deuteronomy. – It is allowed on every hand that this is the key to the critical position.  Criticism says that it was not written by Moses, but discovered in the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22), having been composed perhaps a century or so before.  It is perfectly true that if this critical position is correct the ordinary view collapses.  The book is either substantially Mosaic, or else it is not.  This is a definite and direct issue on which the two schools are absolutely at variance.  (3) The date of those parts of Exodus and Leviticus which are connected with a Tabernacle worship, now technically known as the Priests’ Code.  Do these date from the time of Moses or from the age of Ezra?  These elements are practically inclusive of the vital literary issues.

      (b) There are also three crucial points in the historical aspect.  (1) Are the prophets before the law, or may we still use the old term, “the law and the prophets”?  (2) Does the Theocracy as depicted in the Pentateuch date from the time of Moses, or was it not an actual fact before the Babylonian Exile?  (3) Was Israel’s religion of Monotheism in its purity a late evolution or an early revelation?  It will be at once seen that there is a close connection between these two aspects, and it does not seem possible to separate them.  Modern criticism, however, argues that they can be distinguished, while extreme criticism, which is decidedly more logical, says this is impossible.  The difficulty is that extreme criticism, as represented by some of the leading scholars like Kuenen and Wellhausen, approaches the Old Testament with purely naturalistic and rationalistic presuppositions, and on the basis of these dissects the documents.  It is difficult to see how conclusions can be accepted when supernatural premises are denied.  Even moderate criticism is constantly arguing about Israel’s religion, based on the literary grounds of dissection.  So that it seems impossible to say that the problem is literary and not historical, since on the basis of the literary dissection historical conclusions are drawn.  Even admitting to the full literary strata and different authors, this is no argument for placing the earliest documents as late as the ninth century B.C.  So that the real problem facing us today is the trustworthiness of the Old Testament, both as a historical record and as a spiritual revelation.

      2.  The Reaction. – There does not seem much doubt that during the last few years the whole question has been reopened, and matters that were thought to be settled beyond all doubt are being discussed as fully as ever.  In Germany and in England there are leading scholars who have raised the whole question connected with the critical theory, both in regard to its documents and to its presupposition of evolution as accounting for Israel’s religion.  Archaeology is bearing its testimony in favour of the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, and new schools of criticism are rising in which the whole critical hypothesis is subjected to a severe and destructive criticism.  It is being allowed by an increasing number of scholars that the fundamental principles on which the modern criticism of the Old Testament has proceeded are no longer tenable.

      3.  The Claim of the Old Testament. – Meanwhile, it is important to remind ourselves of the actual facts of the case.  The Old Testament, with its thirty-nine books of varied kinds and dates, offers an immense field for study, in which questions arise that cannot possibly be settled without careful critical consideration.  But the book, as it now stands, is marked by three elements, each of which must be faced and explained.  (a) The Old Testament professes to be the record of a supernatural, continuous revelation to mankind in general, and then to Israel.  This, whether right or wrong, is quite obvious, and calls for a proper explanation.  The real question is whether the Old Testament view of religion is the result of a Divine revelation or of a human evolution.  There is no doubt that the Old Testament itself founds everything on a belief in a Divine intervention with “Thus saith the Lord” as its keynote.  (b) The presence of this revelation gives to the book a remarkable unity, which in spite of its variety is patent to all careful readers; indeed, the presence of these two elements of variety and unity is one of the most striking features of the book.  Starting from the earliest period of the human race, the Old Testament proceeds through the patriarchal period to the Mosaic age, and the time of the Monarchy, and at each point there is a development and yet a unity of conception which links later books with the former in the one profound thought of an expected Deliverer, the Messiah.  (c) The revelation and its unity are proved by the claim to inspiration found in the Old Testament.  Whether we think of the earlier portions, or follow the story down through the ages, observing annals, poetry, prophecy, the supreme thought at every point is the presence of an all-pervading power that stamps these books as spiritually vital and ethically efficacious for human life.  It is this threefold claim to a Divine revelation, a Divine unity, and a Divine inspiration that stands out quite obviously in the Old Testament and compels attention and demands explanation.

      4.  How, then, may ordinary students of the Bible test the various critical hypotheses of the present day?  The following are suggested as some of the ways by which an examination can be made and conclusions derived.

      (a) A careful consideration of the historical fact of the Jewish nation.  Modern criticism compels a complete reconstruction of the national life, as recorded in the Old Testament, and as there is nothing whatever in Jewish history to support this reconstruction the question at issue becomes a very vital one. [“The critical hypothesis, as it at present stands, assumes that the Jewish national consciousness was deliberately and successfully falsified, and that what the Jews have always believed to be the beginning of their religious life was really the end of it.  I believe that this is both incredible and impossible” (Dean Wace, Paper read at the Victoria Institute, June 1913).]

      (b) The evidence of Archaeology.  Very few can discuss questions of Hebrew philology, but the evidence of archaeology is available for, and tangible by all.  During the last sixty years a vast number of discoveries have been made in Egypt, Palestine, and Assyria, and not one of these has gone to support the critical position.  Not only so, but a number of leading archaeologists, formerly critics, have abandoned that view and now oppose it.

      (c) The necessity of spiritual work.  No one doubts the blessing of the Spirit of God on those who hold the conservative view.  The seal of the Christian Church is on the books as they are, and the lessons have been brought home to us in their present form, so that any doctrine of the Bible for spiritual men must bear the stamp of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth.  The conservative view has been abundantly blessed in all ages, but it can hardly be said that the critical view has had this seal.

      (d) The witness of our Lord and His Apostles.  This does not mean the invocation of the authority of Christ to close all questions, but simply the adducing of the witness of the Old Testament in support of the contentions of historical scholarship.  The witness of Christ and His Apostles is clearly in harmony with the Jewish and the Church’s view of the Bible, and the only question between our Lord and His opponents was as to the interpretation of that Scripture, the authority of which both sides accepted.

      (e) The testimony of spiritual experience.  There is that in the Bible which defies dissection and analysis because it transcends all historical and literary severances.  The Bible is foremost a spiritual book, brought home to the heart by the Holy Spirit, and it is here that much criticism entirely fails us.  Truth requires verification by the spiritual man, and when the Word of God is allowed to be our “critic” (Heb. 4:12) it soon reveals its true character to the thoughtful, open-minded, spiritual follower of Christ.

      The matter is thus vital and is not merely literary, but historical, theological, and spiritual.  This does not mean that there are no difficulties in the old view, but it does imply that the new view does not remove them.  Nor is there any real standing ground between the conservative and rationalistic positions, for if the modern critical view is correct, not only is the conservative position wrong, but Jewish history, Church history, and experience during the centuries, and even the New Testament are all wrong.  Is it possible that the tradition of centuries is essentially erroneous?  The deepest interests are also involved, for it is proving impossible to stop short with the Old Testament, and the same scholars are now engaged on a dissection of the New Testament, which tends to give a picture of Jesus Christ our Lord scarcely discernible from a naturalistic and Unitarian position.  So that what is required is a threefold criticism: a Lower Criticism, dealing with words and sentences under the guidance of grammar and dictionary; a Higher Criticism, which gets behind the text and endeavours to discover all that is possible of times, circumstances, conditions of various books; and not least of all what may be called a Highest Criticism, which is based on spiritual sympathy, insight, and experience.  This last is often possessed by humble, true-hearted souls, who do not know anything of literary, critical, and historical problems, but who do appreciate the religious and spiritual aspects of the Old Testament, and whose sincere judgment calls for respectful consideration before any merely intellectual conclusions can be regarded as entirely satisfactory.  The musical know what is music.”

      We may rest perfectly satisfied that no criticism of the Old Testament will ever be accepted by the Christian Church as a whole, which does not fully satisfy the following conditions: –

      1.  It must admit in all its assumptions, and take fully into consideration, the supernatural element which differentiates the Bible from all other books.

      2.  It must be in keeping with the enlightened spiritual experience of the saints of God in all ages, and make an effectual appeal to the piety and spiritual perception of those who know by personal experience the power of the Holy Ghost.

      3.  It must be historically in line with the general tradition of Jewish history and the unique position of the Hebrew nation through the centuries.

      4.  It must be in unison with that Apostolic conception of the authority and inspiration of the Old Testament, which is so manifest in the New Testament.

      5.  Above all, it must be in accordance with the universal belief of the Christian Church in our Lord’s infallibility as a Teacher, and as “the Word made Flesh”.

      It is not too much to affirm that when modern Higher Criticism can satisfy these requirements, it will not merely be accepted, but will command the universal, loyal, and even enthusiastic adhesion of all Christians.

 

Article  VIII

 

Of the Three Creeds.

      The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

 

De Tribus Symbolis.

      Symbola tria, Nicanum, Athanasii, et quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur, omnino recipienda sunt et credenda: nam firmissimis Scripturarum testimoniis probari possunt.

 

Important Equivalents

Creeds = Symbola.

Of Holy Scripture = Scripturarum.

 

      This Article comes from the Forty-two Articles of 1553, and has remained virtually unaltered except that the words et credenda “and believed,” were added in 1563, the other changes being merely verbal.  It is a special application of Article VI in regard to the Rule of Faith, and no doubt it was placed here to show the adherence of the Church of England to the old faith of England. [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 44.]  At the same time it expresses a view which is fundamental to the position taken by the Reformers, showing clearly why they received the Creeds, that it was not on the authority of the Church, but because of the truth emphasized in Article VI, the supremacy of Holy Scripture. [Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (Second Edition), p. 41.   ]  The language of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum should also be noted.

      “Et quoniam omnia ferme, quae ad fidem spectant Catholicam, turn quoad beatissimam Trinitatem, tum quoad mysteria nostrae redemptionis, tribus Symbolis, hoc est, Apostolico, Niceno, et Athanasii, breviter continentur; idcirco ista tria Symbola, ut fidei nostrae compendia quaedam, recipimus et amplectimur, quod firmissimis divinarum et canonicarum scripturarum testimoniis facile probari possint.” [De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. 5.]

 

I – The Creeds

      The word “Creed” comes from the Latin credo, with which both the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creed commence.  The Athanasian Creed does not begin in this way because it was not originally a personal confession, but a declaratory and expository statement of the true belief.

      1.  The Latin equivalent for “Creed” is Symbolum, σύμβολον.  The suggestion that the word was symbolé, σύμβολή, meaning a collection, the Creed being the work of the Apostles, one sentence to each man, is manifestly incorrect both etymologically and historically, for symbolé, σύμβολή, was never used for the Creed.  The word almost certainly meant “watchword,” or “badge,” referring to the oath or password required before an initiation.  The best illustration of the term is the Early Church custom of repeating the Creed to the Catechumen orally on the eve of baptism, which was called Traditio symboli, and then requiring the repetition of it before the actual baptism, which was called Redditio symboli.

      2.  The number is three, and the order of enumeration is of some interest.  The Nicene Creed probably comes first because it was used at Holy Communion; the Athanasian comes next perhaps because it was used daily at Prime; while the Apostles’ is mentioned last because connected with ordinary use.  And yet in the Articles of 1536 and in the Reformatio Legum the order is Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian.

      3.  The names of the Creeds are, of course, those by which they are usually known, for “as the Apostles’ Creed was not composed by the Apostles, and the Nicene Creed is not the Creed of Nicaea, so the Athanasian Creed is not the work of Athanasius.” [Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 329.]  To the same effect are the words of Burnet: “None of them are named with any exactness.” [Burnet, On the Articles, p. 126.]

 

II – The Acceptance of the Creeds

      The wording of the Article is important.  These confessions of our faith “ought thoroughly to be received and believed.”  The Latin equivalent of “thoroughly” is omnino, “altogether,” emphasizing very much more than mere intellectual credence.  While the form of the Creeds is not strictly Scriptural and Apostolic, the contents are considered to be so, and on this account they call for thoroughness of acceptance.  It is important to see from this where the Church of England stands in regard to the fundamental truths expressed in these formularies.  Nothing could be clearer than this statement in committing the Church of England to a thorough belief in the verities set forth in the Creeds.

 

III – The Ground of Acceptance of the Creeds

      This thorough reception and belief is based upon agreement with Scripture.  “For they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”  It is not therefore the universality of their usage, though that is important, or their antiquity, which is equally noteworthy, but their Scripturalness.  This is the basis of their acceptance in the Church, and the Article thereby subordinates the Creed to the principle laid down in Article VI. Creeds are no exception to this requirement of the sufficiency, supremacy, and finality of Holy Scripture.

 

IV – The History of the Creeds

      [It is unnecessary to state in detail the various points and stages of the history of these documents.  Three modern works are ample for this purpose.  Bishop Gibson, The Three Creeds (Oxford Library of Practical Theology); Dr. A. E. Burn, The Apostles’ Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Athanasian Creed (three volumes, Oxford Church Text Books); C. H. Turner, The History and Use of Creeds and Anathemas in the Early Centuries of the Church.  Earlier works are Maclear, Introduction to the Creeds; Swete, The Apostles’ Creed; Lias, The Nicene Creed.  A fuller bibliography is given in Gibson, ut supra, p. 316.]

      The original germ would seem to have been a simple confession of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:16, Acts 8:37), but the present form of the Creed is evidently an amplification of the baptismal formula (Matt. 28:19, 20).  This order of reference to the Persons of the Trinity is the framework of all later Creeds, and we may perhaps see some justification for this method in certain statements of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 8:6, 1 Tim. 3:16).

      1.  The Apostles’ Creed. – This, though latest in its present form, is the earliest in substance.  In origin it is a Western Creed, and the substance of it can be traced back to the Roman Church about the middle of the second century.  In the Church of Aquileia, 400, such a Creed was in use, and it is here that the phrase, “He descended into hell,” is first found.  The present form is Gallican, dating about 750.  It would seem that the Creed represents a gradual expansion of the baptismal formula.

      2.  The Nicene Creed. – The history of this Creed is, of course, associated with the Arian controversy, and at the Nicene Council, 325, the Creed which was taken as the basis of discussion was a document associated with Eusebius of Caesarea.  As the outcome of the discussions this Eusebian Creed became the basis of the Council’s statement, with the significant and crucial addition of the word Homoousios, to safeguard the Deity of our Lord against Arianism.  In reality a new Creed, founded on that of Caesarea, was issued by the Council.  This ended with the words, “And in the Holy Ghost”.

      But this literal Nicene Creed is not the one which we now use as Nicene, for certain important enlargements took place after the Nicene Council.  Between Nicaea, 325, and Constantinople, 381, controversy became rife in regard to the Deity of the Holy Ghost, and the Creed, as we have it (apart from the Filioque clause), seems to have been based upon the local Creed of the Church of Jerusalem.  It is first met with in a work of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, 373, or 374, and is also found in some lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem.  Dr. Hort has paid special attention to this interesting question, and his conclusion, as now stated, is thus described by a well-known authority, “The proof that he there offered has been accepted by practically all scholars as final, and need never be laboured through at length again.” [C. H. Turner, ut supra, p. 41.]  But Bishop Gibson does not accept this view without certain material qualifications. [Gibson. ut supra, pp. 169–174.]

      How this local Creed of Jerusalem became the Creed of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople is not clearly known, but it is thought that Cyril of Jerusalem, one of the leading Bishops there present, laid his Creed before the Council and it was received as an orthodox document.  At any rate, at Chalcedon, in 451, it was received as the Creed of Constantinople, following immediately on the Creed of Nicaea.  The addition of the Filioque clause is usually associated with the Council of Toledo, 589. [But see Burn, ut supra.]  Although, therefore, the Creed is not strictly Nicene in the sense that it was drawn up at that Council, yet it may be rightly described by this name because “ it contains the great formula which was then inserted in the Creed, and it guards and maintains the faith that was then defined against Arianism. [Gibson, ut supra, p. 115.]  Three matters connected with the English translation are usually noted.

      (a) “By Whom all things were made.” – The original clearly shows that the Son, not the Father, is referred to as the Agent of creation.  “Through Whom all things were made” (John 1:3, 8).

      (b) “The Lord and Giver of Life.” – Attempts are sometimes made to express accurately the original idea, which is “The Lord and the Life-giver,” referring to the Deity of the Holy Spirit in a way that the present English version cannot do.  The new Canadian Prayer Book has a comma after Lord.

      (c) “One Catholick and Apostolick Church.” – It has often been a matter of surprise that there is no English equivalent to the word “Holy,” and if, as is often thought, the omission was originally due to a printer’s mistake, the question naturally arises why it has never been corrected.  There seems no doubt whatever that the word “Holy” ought to be read in order that we may understand the four essential marks of the true Church as “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic”.

      3.  The Athanasian Creed. – The history and authorship of this document are matters of great controversy, because it is neither a Creed, nor does it come from Athanasius as the author.  Waterland argues very ably for the authorship of Hilary of Arles, 429, and there does not seem much doubt that it was due to some author of the fifth century.  Not many years ago a prevalent view was that it consists of two separate parts which were brought together in the present form of the Creed in the eighth century. [In Swainson’s and Lumby’s works on the Creeds.]  But this is now universally rejected, and more recent authorities tend to return to an approximation to Waterland’s view, at least of the date.  It is thought that while verse 34 excludes Eutychianism, yet because that heresy is not formally condemned the Creed must be before 451.  Ommanney argues that it probably arose in South Gaul in the fifth or sixth century.  It was clearly influenced by the writings of St. Augustine.  Bishop Dowden does not think that any evidence yet produced enables us with confidence to assign the authorship to any known writer, though he is strongly in favour of some time in the fifth century for its date. [Bishop Dowden, Further Studies in the Prayer Book, pp. 132–134.]

      Its use as a Creed is peculiar to the Church of England, and was probably due to the desire of our Reformers to emphasize the importance of instruction and the necessity of an intelligent, clear, full faith.  Up to that time the Creed had been used as a Canticle.  Since then it has become definitely a confession of faith.  It should be remembered that it is intended for those who already possess the actual faith.*  The first verse refers to the necessity of holding the faith, meaning thereby to retain what we possess, not to obtain what we have not.  It is not, therefore, for the heathen or those outside the Church, but for the Church’s own members, to safeguard them against error, to prevent them letting go what they have.  As there is a tendency to deflect from the true standard the Creed is a test, a safeguard, like the plumb line or the spirit level.  And so it does not pass any judgment on man, or individuals, but is a declaration of the whole counsel of God on the matters concerned.  It has two parts, dealing respectively with the Christian doctrine of God and the Christian doctrine of the Person of Christ, emphasizing the importance of revelation and redemption.  It means that we must have right thoughts of God and Christ, especially since in Christ alone God is a reality and power in human life.  Mohammedanism separates Him completely from men.  Buddhism loses Him entirely in the world.  Paganism of every sort has no contact of God with men, no mediation, no salvation, no grace, no love.  It is, therefore, essential and important to have true ideas of God, and so it is unfair to speak of the Creed as teaching salvation by correct opinions.  Indeed, it refers to our giving account of our own works, though opinion always governs conduct.  The Creed is to be regarded as an amplification of Scripture, and we only receive it because it can be proved thereby.

      [*“These condemnatory expressions are only to be understood to relate to those who, having the means of instruction offered to them, have rejected them, and have stifled their own convictions, holding the truth in unrighteousness, and choosing darkness rather than light: upon such as do thus reject this great article of the Christian doctrine, concerning one God and Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that other concerning the Incarnation of Christ, by which God and man was so united as to make one person, together with the other doctrines that follow these, are those anathemas denounced; not so as if it were hereby meant, that every man who does not believe this in every tittle must certainly perish, unless he has been furnished with sufficient means of conviction, and that he has rejected them, and hardened himself against them” (Burnet, On the Articles, p. 127).]

      It is urged that the clauses about condemnation are really no stronger than those found in the New Testament (Mark 16:16; John 3:36, 12:48), so that what Scripture means the Creed means.  At the same time it is necessary to distinguish between the acceptance of the doctrines of the Creed and the use of the document itself in public services as a Creed.  There are many who accept the former while thinking the latter inexpedient.  They feel it better to avoid putting on the lips of a general congregation highly technical words and solemn assertions which can only be properly understood in the light of their original purpose and after due interpretation.  It is noteworthy that the Church has never included anathemas in any formulary of public worship, so that our present use of the Athanasian Creed has been rightly described as “a definite and far-reaching change from what had previously been the case.” [“The sense of the Spirit-bearing body, as true and real a thing as its more formal decisions, has always, it would seem, been clear in the end against the exaltation of anathemas into an integral and permanent part of the worship of the Christian people” (C. H. Turner, ut supra, p. 88).]  It is also observable that Bishop Dowden is of opinion that “there is nothing essential to the faith in the retention of the minatory clauses.” [Dowden, ut supra, p. 127.]  Further, it is well known that the American Church has omitted the use of this Creed altogether, while the Church of Ireland, though retaining it in its place in the Prayer Book, has, by omission of the rubric, dispensed with its use in public service. [For various views on the history, meaning, purpose, and liturgical use of the Athanasian Creed, see the valuable works by Dowden and Turner, already mentioned; and Some Thoughts on the Athanasian Creed, by Dean Armitage Robinson; and The Athanasian Creed in the Twentieth Century, by R. O. P. Taylor.]  The Canadian Church has also made its use optional.

 

V – The Use of Creeds

      1.  The Place of the Creeds in our Church needs brief notice.  The Apostles’ Creed is used daily at Morning and Evening Prayer, in the Baptismal Services, and in the Visitation of the Sick.  The Nicene Creed is used at Holy Communion; and the Athanasian Creed is appointed for thirteen times in the course of the Christian Year, when it is ordered to be used instead of the Apostles’ Creed, and is especially associated with the Festivals of Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday.

      2.  The Character of Creeds. – It is usual to distinguish between Creeds in the East and in the West.  The East seems to emphasize ideas, while the West lays stress on facts, and although these are two different aspects of the same Christian verity, yet perhaps the usage indicates something of an essential distinction between the two sections of the Christian Church.  The East was always primarily philosophical and theological, while the West was mainly practical.  It is thought that these features are best seen respectively in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, while perhaps it may be added that the Athanasian Creed partakes of both features. [Westcott.  The Historic Faith, pp. 191–212.]

      3.  The Value of Creeds. – Creeds are useful as conditions of fellowship, tests of orthodoxy, and a subsidiary Rule of Faith. [Litton, ut supra, p. 43.]  They were almost certainly a necessity when Christianity came in contact with the world of Greek thought, and yet their somewhat abstract and even philosophic statements did not involve any essential change of view from that found in Holy Scripture.  The Creeds only state explicitly what is implicit in thy New Testament.  The change was simply one of emphasis, necessitated very largely by heresy.  It is often urged that the Creeds are unwarranted when viewed in the light of the simplicity of early Christian teaching, and it is asserted that they represent a corruption through the dogmatic strength of Greek philosophy.  But this is not the case.

      “The truth is just the reverse.  The novel element in the compound was not philosophy, but the Gospel.  The steps which led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity are the steps by which the Christian spirit made for itself a home in the existing intellectual environment.  However speculative in form, every one of them was due to a practical interest. ... Putting ourselves back at the point of view of the men who made the decisions, and imagining ourselves faced with like questions, we should have been obliged to answer them in the same way.” [W. A. Brown, Christian Theology in Outline, pp. 143, 145.]

      In the East the Creeds commenced with the plural, “We believe,” while in the West the change was made to the singular, “I believe”.  It is often said that this expresses a fundamental difference between East and West in the fact that the latter laid greater stress upon individuality, though Dr. Burn believes that this does not represent any such vital difference, but simply the difference between conciliar and baptismal Creeds. [The Apostles’ Creed, p. 4.]

      4.  The Danger of Creeds. – Of course, any such compendium of Christian truth has its peril because it is so obviously incomplete.  Rules of Faith derived from Scripture were never intended to express every element and aspect of the truth, and Creeds are not so much what we are to believe as what we do believe on the doctrines included.  A Creed has been well described as a norma crediti rather than a norma credendi, a landmark, not a goal, a term of communion rather than a statement of truth in its entirety.  When this is understood there need be no hesitation in the use of Creeds.

      5.  The Place of Creeds. – They are intended to lead up to personal reliance, and the intellectual statement of truth is only a guide to the simple yet perfect trust of the soul in God. This is clearly seen from the Church Catechism, which first of all sets out the Articles of Belief, and then leads up to the further question of personal “ Belief in God.” This is in strict harmony with the distinctions drawn in the New Testament between believing a fact (i John v. i), believing a person’s word (John iv. 21), and trusting a person (John iii. 36). The same distinction is found in the Latin: credo Deum esse; credo Deo; credo in Deum. [For a fine treatment of this essential element see The God We Trust, by G. Johnston Ross.  A series of lectures on the Apostles’ Creed.]

      Note. – Versions of the Creeds in Greek, Latin, and English will be found in Turner’s work, already cited; Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 288; and Westcott, The Historic Faith, p. 187.

 

 

III.  The Life Of Faith (Articles IX–XVIII) – Personal Religion

A.  Its Commencement (Articles IX–XIV)

 

Doctrines Connected With Justification

                          9.  Original or Birth-Sin.

                        10.  Free-Will.

                        11.  The Justification of Man.

                        12.  Good Works.

                        13.  Works Before Justification.

                        14.  Works of Supererogation.

 

      At this point a long group of Articles commences, extending from IX to XVIII, wholly different from those preceding it, being concerned with personal religion, not with the verities or the Rule of Faith.  The one topic is the application of truths to personal life.  The group has also a historical significance, for it declares the Anglican position in relation to the great Continental sections of the Reformation movement, the Lutheran or German on the one side, and the Swiss and French on the other, first under Zwingli and then under Calvin.  Of the first division the watchword was Justification by Faith; of the second, Predestination and Election.  Our position, while insular, was not isolated, because insularity was impossible, since Continental thought necessarily affected ours and compelled us to define our position.  This group may therefore be divided into two smaller groups.  The first extends from IX to XIV, and is associated with Article XI on Justification.  This, which forms a compact group, was of very great importance in the sixteenth century, because the Reformation was beyond all else an assertion of personal religion and of the attitude of the soul to God.  The subjects of these Articles were in everyone’s mouth, and the Council of Trent had to give as much care to them as we had to our Articles.  It is significant that the first Article of the Augsburg Confession on the Holy Trinity was immediately followed by one on Original Sin.  On this the Reformation primarily turned.  The Reformers said, as Bradwardine (1290–1349) Archbishop of Canterbury had said three centuries before, that the Roman Church was essentially Pelagian.  In regard to purely controversial questions the prominence of this group is perhaps no longer important either inside or outside the Church, for outside the Church the battle is concerned with the first and second groups of Articles on first principles, while inside controversy has shifted to the fourth group on the Church and Sacraments.  But while from the purely historical and theological standpoints the importance of this group has either passed away or become considerably less, yet spiritually and pastorally it is of permanent truth and value.  The controversy is not and can never be extinct, for the principles are eternal.

      The topics and relationships of these Articles should be noted.  Articles IX and X deal with the actual condition of man in two respects: his original sin, carrying with it the need of atonement (Article IX); and his freedom of will, emphasizing the need of grace (Article X).  These are prefatory.  Then comes Article XI on Justification, declaring what God does for us and how His work in Christ is received.  The three following Articles show our fellow-working with God: Article XII declares our fellow-working as it ought to be, showing the value of works when put in their proper place; Articles XIII and XIV show the perversion of works, the one seeking to make us independent of God, showing the worthlessness of works when put in the wrong place; and the other, dealing with a view which was alleged to provide beyond God’s requirements, is a link of connection between the two groups, having points of contact with Justification and Sanctification, showing that no Christian can attain to God’s requirements.  We can, therefore, see the coherence of this first group, though the second, while somewhat looser, is still in a measure coherent.  They are not quite so compact, but may be associated with the Christian life, and in particular with Article XVII.  Article XV shows that no Christian can fully attain to God’s requirements; Article XVI that none need despair of restoration should he fall; Article XVI denies the possibility of a hell upon earth, as Article XV denied the possibility of a heaven upon earth; and then Article XVII is the goal, of which the earlier Articles were the commencement.  Article XVIII appropriately closes the group with a warning against that spirit of indifference which holds that true faith does not matter.

 

Article  IX

 

Of Original or Birth Sin.

      Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam: whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust bath of itself the nature of sin.

 

De Peccato Originali.

      Peccatum originis non est, ut fabulantur Pelagiani, in imitatione Adami situm; sed est vitium et depravatio naturae cujuslibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter propagati; qua fit, ut ab originali justitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat; unde in unoquoque nascentium, iram Dei atque damnationem meretur.  Manet etiam in renatis haec naturae depravatio; qua fit, ut affectus carnis, Graece φρόνημα σαρκος, quod alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur, legi Dei non subjiciatur.  Et quanquam renatis et credentibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus.

 

Important Equivalents

Of Original (or Birth) Sin = De Peccato originali

Original sin = Peccatum originis

As the Pelagians do vainly talk = ut fabulantur Pelagiani.

In the following of Adam = in imitatione Adami*

Standeth not = non est situm.

Fault and corruption of the nature = vitium et depravatio naturae.

Very far gone = quam longissime distet.

In every person born into this world = in unoquoque nascentium.

Regenerated = renatis.

Infection of nature = naturae depravatio.

The lust of the flesh = affectus carnis.

In them that are regenerated = in renatis.

For them that are baptized = renatis.

[Omitted] = propter Christum.**

Concupiscence and lust = concupiscentiam.

The nature of sin = peccati rationem.

[*The genitive of Adamus, Adami, m. 2.  In Article X the word Adam is Latinized thus: Adam, Adae. 1.  **For Christ’s sake.]

 

      The subject of Original Sin was at the forefront of the Reformation; and as the verbal alterations in the Article are very few, it is clear that there was essential unity among the Reformers on this doctrine.  It is thought by some that the Article, which dates from 1553, is based on the corresponding one in the Confession of Augsburg from the Concordat of 1583. [Hardwick, History of the Articles of Religion, p. 62; Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 237.]  But others think that the resemblance is only slight, and that it indicates little else than the general agreement among all Reformed Confessions. [Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, p. 358; Boultbee, The Theology of the Church of England, p. 77.]  It is also likely, or at least possible, that the Article is so worded as to state the true doctrine on the relation of baptism to original sin. [“In labe peccati ex ortu nostro contracta, quam vitium originis appellamus, primum quidem Pelagianorum, deinde etiam Anabaptistarum nobis vitandus et submovendus est error, quorum in eo consensus contra veritatem sacrarum Scripturarum est, quod peccatum originis in Adamo solo haeserit, et non ad posteros transient, nec ullam afferat naturae nostrae perversitatem, nisi quod ex Adami delicto propositum sit peccandi noxium exemplum, quod homines ad eandem pravitatem invitat imitandum et usurpandum” (Reformatio Legum, De Haeresibus, c. 7).]

      In 1553, after the words “Pelagian do vainly talk” were et hodie Anabaptistae repetunt, “and the Anabaptists today repeat”.  These words were omitted in 1563, probably because the error was not rife then, and also to leave the reference more general and avoid diverting attention from the Roman aspect.  The Latin text is of particular importance in this Article.

      “It is a link of connection with the scholastic phraseology of the Middle Ages, which must to some extent be understood by all who desire to appreciate the doctrinal position assumed by our Reformers.  For they had been trained in the language, and now stood opposed to the system of the schoolmen.” [Boultbee, ut supra, p. 76.]

      In addition to the important equivalents noted above the following points should be specially observed:–

      (1)  In 1553 “former righteousness which he had at creation” was altered in 1563 to the present phrase.

      (2)  In 1553 the word “baptized” was altered in 1563 to “regenerated”.

      (3)  In 1553 studium was altered in 1563 to studium carnis interpretantur.

      (4)  Nascentium, “born,” means at, not after birth (not natorum).

      (5)  Renatis et credentibus, “for them that believe and are baptized”.

      (6)  “And lust,” no equivalent in the Latin.

      (7)  Peccatum originale and Peccatum originis are equivalent terms.

 

I – The Meaning of Original Sin

      Before considering in detail the teaching of the Article, it is necessary to enquire into the nature of sin as moral evil.  For this purpose we must seek to know what is the essential moral characteristic of man.  What is it that constitutes him a moral agent?

      It is, first, his conscious relation to law, emphasis being placed on the consciousness, since, of course, all beings are subject to law.  But man is sensible that in not acting up to it he is imperfect and guilty.  Law applies to inanimate and also to animate natures, and it is in connection with the latter that man’s moral attitude to God and his fellows is seen.  But in proportion as man’s spirit, soul and body form one being, the law has to deal both with inanimate nature and the ordinary animal nature.  In regard to man law is concerned with his relation to the Law-giver, for law is the revelation of man being in contact with another and higher Will.  This is the simplest form of the idea of God in the heart, and on this basis alone arises the duty of natural religion.  Then, too, law concerns man’s relations to his fellows and to the world around him, and it follows from this that the perfection of our own nature is blessedness, since there is such a thing as an ideal for our life as that which is dependent on our true relation to God and man.  Law is either naturally discerned or supernaturally revealed, and the Apostle Paul insists upon both of these (Rom. 1:18, 2:15).

      But it is necessary to take another step.  Men are not only conscious of law, but of responsibility to obey it, and this is the evidence of freedom of will which rests on the double basis of our own consciousness and the collective consciousness of man as seen in language (“you ought”), in institutions (laws), and in all religions.

      Yet again, man not only has this consciousness, but also a conscience, a further and higher faculty, perpetually bearing witness to his obligation to use freedom in obedience to the law of his nature, whether declared by nature or revelation.  Conscience has been called the “Categorical Imperative” (Kant).  But this Imperative must be distinguished in two ways: sometimes it applies to the general principle of doing right; at others to the specific dictates or application of general principles of right and wrong.  In determining this the coordinate faculties come into play, particularly the reason, and so this sense of duty is capable of indefinite enlargement.

      Now these three facts are inherent in man’s nature everywhere.  They are antecedent to revelation and are recognized without its aid.  They may be regarded as the basis of natural religion and ethics, and are the elements of man’s normal state, as it ought to be.

      But when we pass to man’s condition, as it is, we come to the momentous question of moral evil, though here again we are not dependent on revelation for the fact of its existence.  Nothing is so prevalent as this fact in all religions, for there is a universal consciousness, exemplified in history, confessed in literature, and experienced in life, that man is out of harmony with the law of his nature.  The certainty and consciousness of this in man is a characteristic of him in relation to other animals, for of none else can it be said that they are out of harmony with the law of their nature.

      It is striking that testimony is available to show that man acquiesces in the state he finds himself, and thus, original evil is acknowledged by all.  When we say evil, we do not mean in the full sense sin, for there are two aspects of evil to be distinguished, even though they cannot be separated.  Evil may be either an unconscious or a conscious violation of law.  Beings born corrupt, inheriting a certain taint and bias of will are partakers of evil which did not originate with the will.  But another form originates with the act of the will itself, and then we have sin in the proper sense.  Children are born with an evil nature in a state of what is called depravity, and when reason dawns they know something of right and wrong, though they only have a partial responsibility, but in course of time they become fully responsible for the sin of their own will.  Adam was placed under law, and disobedience was sin.  When a further law was given under Moses, disobedience again became sin and involved personal guilt, but with those who were not thus brought into contact with the law sin was not imputed or counted as guilt, though its consequences remained.  So that evil has a double aspect, physical and personal. Physically, wrong-doing entails inevitable consequences; but, personally, it is not imputed as guilt so long as there is no clear revelation of law.  But directly the law is recognized it is imputed.  Human nature, as Butler points out, in its essential idea is a balanced constitution, and he shows that through sin every part is impaired.  It is this that constitutes what the Article calls Original Sin.

      The English word “sin” seems to be allied to the Latin sons, meaning “guilty,” “sinful,” and apparently the origin of the Latin term is “real,” from the present participle of ειμί, “I am.”  “Language regards the guilty man as the man who it was” (Curtius). [See Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary, s. v.]  It is also worthwhile to distinguish between vice, crime, and sin.  Vice is wrongdoing against our own nature; crime is wrongdoing against our fellows; sin is wrongdoing against God.

      At this point it is necessary to observe the more important words found in Scripture for sin.  The most frequent is αμαρτία, “error,” “missing a mark.”  Others are παράβασις, “transgression,” “crossing a boundary and παράπτωμα, “fall,” “to drop by the wayside out of a proper path”.

      It is essential to distinguish between “sin” and “sins,” between the principle and the practice, the root and the fruit.  This distinction is seen in Rom. 1:19 to 5:11 (sins) and Rom. 5:12 to 8:39 (sin), and also in 1 John 1:8, 10; John 1:29 with 1 John 3:5.  Original sin has to do with the former of these, the evil principle, the root within our nature. [Article, “Sin,” Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible; Orr, Sin as a Problem of Today.]

      The phrase “original sin” is not found in Scripture, and is thought to have been due to St. Augustine in the fifth century.  It is not the most accurate phrase to employ, especially because the Article speaks also of “original righteousness,” and there cannot be two things “original”.  Perhaps a better term would be “inborn sinfulness,” referring to that principle of evil which has infected human nature by reason of the original connection of the race with Adam in contrast to actual sins which men themselves have committed.  It is an endeavour to go behind the sinful acts and to explain the fact that all men possess that wrong element which the Bible calls sin.

      The Article makes no reference to original guilt, and this is sometimes said to be due to the fact that guilt is personal, while sin is in the race.  But it should not be overlooked that the phrase “original guilt” occurs in Article II, and something like this seems to be the truth of Holy Scripture.  Indeed, a modern writer holds that the phrase “original guilt” balances the language of the Ninth Article, and represents much more nearly the dominant idea of the New Testament, and that guilt rather than sin “emphasizes the fact that Christ’s relation to sin in its social aspect is precisely the same as in its individual manifestations” [Simpson, Fact and Faith, pp. 107, 101.]  It is probably more correct to say that both guilt and sin are true, the former being imputed and the other imparted.  Certainly the force of Rom. 5:12 (Greek) seems to indicate this.  And if it should be said that the imputation of guilt is unreal and impossible, it may be shown to be met by the imputation of righteousness, which on any ground is part of our Lord’s redemptive work on our behalf.  There is, therefore, no injustice, or even unreality in speaking of original guilt, since it is met and more than met by the provision of Divine righteousness in Christ.  If one is true so is the other.  Adam’s posterity stands just where he stood after the Fall.  The “probation” of the race was at an end when its first parent fell.  And now Christ, the last Adam, meets and more than meets the sin and guilt of the first Adam (Rom. 5:12–19, 1 Cor. 15:22).

      The Article first defines original sin negatively, as not consisting in copying Adam’s example.  “Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam.”

      Then it is defined positively as the defect and corruption of the nature.  “But it is the fault and corruption of the nature” (vitium et depravatio).  This inborn sinfulness is not only deviation, but deliberation; not mere absence of ethical vitality, but the positive presence of disease.  As such, it is therefore unnatural in the sense that it was originally no part of human nature. [A striking testimony to this truth is seen in the words of Lord Morley, quoted by Dr. Simpson in Fact and Faith (p. 104), in which that statesman, writing an Introduction to a work of Emerson, criticizes the American philosopher because he takes no account of “That horrid burden and impediment on the soul, which the Churches call sin, and which, by whatever name we call it, is a very real catastrophe in the moral nature of man” (p. 105).]

      Thus sin, while primarily a matter of the will, is very much more.  No doubt in the strict sense of the word “sin” means “voluntary surrender to evil,” but the fact goes very much deeper.  It is “the propensity to evil in individuals which seems to be inexplicable from anything falling within the individual’s own life.” [Webb, Problems in the Relations of God and Man, p. 118.]  It is this that the Article emphasizes as something far deeper than either act or volition.  It is the presence of a moral disturbance in our nature, and concerns the dispositions and tendencies before the will begins to act.  The tendency is there antecedent to our consciousness, and can rightly be called sinful.

      “By Original Sin then seems to be meant the solicitations of the lower nature conceived of proleptically as sin, because, as present in the nature of a rational or moral being, they constitute the potentiality of the sin, which consists in such a being’s yielding to them, despite the consciousness that to do so is wrong.” [Webb, ut supra, p. 127.]

 

Pelagianism

      The Article refers to the Pelagians, and it is essential to know a little of what Pelagianism means.  During the first four centuries theological controversies were concerned with the Nature of God and the Person of Christ, and it was only after these questions were practically settled that Christian thought became directed to the personal aspects of truth.  All along, however, the results of the Fall and the necessity of grace had been emphasized, but it was only in the fifth century that the subject of sin came into prominence in connection with the heresy of Pelagius.  In order to emphasize free will he denied the ruin of the race and the necessity of grace.  This was not only something novel, it was really opposed to vital Christianity, and the struggle was soon seen to be one for the very life of the Gospel.  The fundamental principle of Pelagianism is the assumption of human ability to do all that righteousness requires, and thus to provide not only its own salvation, but even its own moral and spiritual perfection. [“This is the core of the whole theory; and all the other postulates not only depend upon it, but arise out of it.  Both chronologically and logically this is the root of the system” (Warfield, Two Studies in the History of Doctrine, p. 6).]  From this general position the following results of the teaching of Pelagius were soon seen:–

      (1)  Adam was created mortal and would have died if he had not sinned.  Contrast “lest ye die” (Gen. 2:17, 3:3).

      (2)  The sin of Adam hurt only himself.

      (3)  Infants are, therefore, just as Adam was before his fall.

      (4)  Man is able to keep God’s commandments if he will.

      (5)  And so, all men may be sinless if they choose, and many saints even before Christ actually lived free from sin.

      Thus, Pelagius denied the whole doctrine of inborn sinfulness, and with it the belief that man needed supernatural help for the purpose of obeying the Divine commands.  The tendency of Pelagianism was twofold: (a) to make sin a matter of isolated acts, and therefore entirely separated from what preceded and followed.  But it is impossible to ignore the continuity of life and to reduce man’s nature to a number of disconnected voluntary acts.  It is obvious that if sin is nothing more than the assertion of the will and the will remains intact after each act, the individual act of an individual man cannot possibly affect the acts of men as yet unborn.*  (b) To disparage the need of Divine grace as a help to man’s weakness through sin.  It has been well described as the anthropological side of Arianism in separating man from God.

      [*“Our life is all of a piece, and the most seemingly isolated actions have both their antecedents and their consequents.  The will is not a mere form of choice, which remains unaffected by the actual choices which a man makes; it is affected by them; it gains contents, character, we might almost say nature, from them.  If the atomic theory of sin were true – that it consisted only in separate actions – there could be no such thing in man as moral character, either bad or good; for such character is produced by the abiding and cumulative effect of precisely such actions” (Denney, Studies in Theology, p. 81).

      Warfield (ut supra, p. 10) quotes from Matheson in illumination of the essential nature of Pelagianism: “Dr. Matheson finely says (Expositor, I–IX, 21) – ‘There is the same difference between the Christian and Pagan idea of prayer as there is between the Christian and Pagan idea of sin.  Paganism knows nothing of sin, it knows only sins: it has no conception of the principle of evil, it comprehends only a succession of sinful acts.’  This is Pelagianism too.”]

      Although Pelagianism did not issue in any schism, and was perhaps a serious tendency rather than formally a distinct heresy, yet its consequences were absolutely vital to true Christianity.

      “It is simply the Christianity of human nature, or that reconstruction of the Gospel scheme which approves itself to natural reason and superficial worldly observation; hence its constant reappearance in the Church.” [Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology (Second Edition), p. 153.]

      It is true that the Pelagians spoke of grace, but they did not mean by it that supernatural provision in Christ which is intended to meet human sin.  The universality of sin was, as our Article suggests, accounted for by Adam’s example and the power of habit, and no corruption of nature even by the growth of habit was allowed.

      The teaching of Pelagianism found its antagonist and conqueror in St. Augustine, for when this novel explanation of man’s nature and needs was set forth, it compelled a reconsideration of the entire teaching of Christianity as to human nature and the work of our Lord Jesus Christ. [For the external history of the Pelagian controversy and of St. Augustine’s part in it, see Warfield, ut supra, pp. 13–139; Bethune Baker, Early History of Christian Doctrine Ch. XVII; Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises.]

 

Roman Catholic Doctrine

      Notwithstanding the efforts of St. Augustine, Pelagianism continued in the form of semi-Pelagianism, and seriously affected the thought of the Middle Ages, and the result was the full Roman Catholic doctrine seen in the sixteenth century.  It was taught that original righteousness was not connatural with man, but a superadded gift which, when removed, leaves no detriment behind.  The result was that original sin was regarded as the loss of this original righteousness, and the effects of the Fall were simply corporeal, the difference being between a ship in a calm and the same ship in a storm through no fault of the ship.  The Council of Trent differs from us in asserting that in Baptism all is removed which is sin, and that though concupiscence remains it is not sin, but is called so because it proceeds from and leads to sin.

 

Reformation Doctrine

      This Roman doctrine with all its practical consequences led the Reformers to make definite and strong counter-statements.  The Roman Catholic doctrine of “mere nature” was held to be a figment and inconceivable because against experience.  The loss of original righteousness was therefore held to be a change involving a corruption of nature.  Deprivation must include “depravation”.  In opposition to Rome, we add that concupiscence is “of the nature of sin,” meaning as the Article teaches, an infection of nature which is essentially sinful.  It has been well remarked, “How the Council could define a thing which is both the effect and the cause of sin not to be in itself sin, or sinful, is not easy to perceive.” [Litton, ut supra, p. 164, Note 5.]  Further, the question of this concupiscence in the unbaptized was not faced by the Council, which was “prudently silent on this point; for it is evident that a thing which is not sin in the baptized, and yet is common to them and the unbaptized, cannot be sin even in the latter.” [Litton, ut supra, p. 164.]  It is well to remember that the New Testament deals with sin as a principle before it deals with sins as the aggregation of transgressions or omissions.  Following the New Testament in this respect, the Reformers mainly emphasized the depravatio and its source.

      The fact is that the Roman Catholic doctrine grew from Pelagianism and was essentially Pelagian in its features.  There is no power in nature to enable man to do good, and his greatest need is the grace of God.

 

II – The Extent of Original Sin

      “Of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam.”  This statement of the universality of sin has two implications of great importance connected with the word “naturally,” for thereby Christ is excluded because He was engendered, but not naturally, and the mother of our Lord is included because she was naturally engendered. [Litton, ut supra, pp. 149–151.]

      The Article clearly associates the inborn sinfulness of man today with the first transgression.  There was something in Adam which rendered sin possible and which was influenced by an appeal from without.  Adam had the liability to sin, but not the tendency.  He was innocent, but not in the strict sense virtuous, and somehow or other the effect of sin upon his nature led to its propagation among his descendants.

      When we seek to understand the cause of all this we naturally think of the historic connection of man today with the first man, the head of the race, for inborn sinfulness in the individual is a testimony to the racial unity of mankind.  The Fall is a fact, account for it how we may, a case of arrested development, and the causal connection of sinfulness today with the primeval sin is clear, even though we may not know exactly what was the nature of the latter.  There are three elements in human life that together account for sin; heredity, environment, and freedom, and it is impossible to overlook any one of them.  Those who endeavour to explain sin merely as a matter of environment and of freedom fail at the vital point, which seems to imply hereditary tendencies.  There is still an inscrutable fact which compels attention and calls for explanation.  There seems to be no doubt that St. Paul in his great passage in Rom. 5:12–21 derives inborn sinfulness from the Fall as recorded in the story in Genesis, and argues that the sin of Adam has affected all mankind with an inherited tendency to evil.  It is impossible to overlook the significance and vital importance of this passage, and no exegesis worthy of the name can avoid the implication of the Apostle’s teaching that “by one man sin entered into the world.” [“If you wish to know whether a man is a theologian, turn to his Greek Testament, and if it opens of its own accord to the fifth chapter of Romans, and you find the page worn and brown, you may safely set him down as a devotee of the sacred science” (Stearns, Present Day Theology, p. 321).]  Nor is the force of this really affected by any theory of the precise character of the story in Genesis, for it is essential to distinguish between the fact of the Fall and its literary form.  Even though we may regard the story as pictorial, yet, nevertheless, figures of speech embody and even intensify the facts which they symbolize. [Martensen, Dogmatics, p. 155; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 146.]  To the same effect is the Apostle’s teaching in 1 Corinthians, in which the twofold connection of Adam and Christ with humanity is clearly pointed out.  “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). [Modern criticism admits that with the abandonment of the historical character of Genesis 3 we are left with “no account in the Bible of the origin of sin, thus excluding the subject from a strictly Biblical theology” (Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, p. 24).]

      The Pelagian view of sin has found several modern advocates who, speaking of the Old Testament, say that there is no evidence that any connection between human sinfulness and Adam’s transgression had as yet occurred at all to the human mind. [So Tennant, Sources of the Doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin, and Origin and Propagation of Sin.]  But it has been well pointed out that the Old Testament bears ample proof of the universality of human sinfulness, e.g. Gen. 6:12, Psa. 14:1, 51:5; Job 14:4, 15:14, 25:4, and the belief in human descent from Adam who was made without sin and afterwards became sinful “at least suggests connection between the common descent and the common sinfulness of man as cause and effect.”  Further, it has been shown that we are compelled to attempt to discover the sources of St. Paul’s teaching, and if we regard these as arising outside the Old Testament it only puts the problem further back, and compels the enquiry as to whence these writers who influenced St. Paul derived their teaching. [Eck, Sin, p. 14, Note.]  If, moreover, it be said that the doctrine of the Fall, found in Genesis and again in the teaching of St. Paul, is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament, the answer is that “the whole tenor of the Scriptural representation of man” points in the direction of sinfulness as due to its entrance at the beginning of the race, for “at no point in Scripture history does man appear as standing in right of normal relation with God.” [Orr, God’s Image in Man, p. 198.]  So that the only conclusion that seems reasonable and possible is that “if a Fall were not narrated in the opening chapters of Genesis, we should still have to postulate something of the kind to account for the Bible’s own representation of the state of man.” [Orr, ut supra, p. 201.]

 

III – The Result of Original Sin

      “Whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit.”

      The first effect of inborn sinfulness is stated negatively in the form of deprivation (privatio); “man is very far gone from original righteousness.”  The Latin equivalent is particularly noteworthy; quam longissime; that is, “as far as possible,” meaning thereby as far as he can, consistent with essential human nature.  This is in entire harmony with the Scripture record of man’s condition (Gen. 6:5, 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 7:18, 8:7).  It is at this point that we may understand the meaning of St. Paul’s words: “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1).  It seems impossible to limit this statement to the result of voluntary action, it must apply to something far deeper.  The word “dead” when used metaphorically in the moral realm refers, of course, to moral inability, not moral insensibility.  It means that man has been so thoroughly deprived of moral and spiritual power that he is incapable of doing the will of God.

      “The doctrine of spiritual inability, as consequent upon the corruption of man’s nature by sin, remains and will always remain to represent the great truth that there is one thing which man cannot do alone.  He cannot bring his state into harmony with his nature.” [Denney, Studies in Theology, p. 85: “It is a mistake, in all probability, in discussing this subject, to enter into metaphysical considerations at all; the question of man’s inability to any spiritual good accompanying salvation is a question as to matter of fact, and is to be answered ultimately by an appeal to experience.  When a man has been discovered, who has been able, without Christ, to reconcile himself to God, and to obtain dominion over the world and over sin, then the doctrine of inability, or of the bondage due to sin, may be denied; then, but not till then” (Denney, ut supra, p. 85).]

      Then the positive aspect of inborn sinfulness is stated in the Article: “Is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit.”  This is more than deprivation, for it implies the actual existence of an evil principle (depravatio).  There is a constant conflict of flesh and spirit with an unholy dominance of the former.  It is also noteworthy that this is said to be so “always”.  It is in entire harmony with this doctrinal statement that the devotional language of our Prayer Book has such phrases as, “There is no health in us”; “From whom all holy desires ... do proceed”; “We have no power of ourselves to help ourselves”; “Can do no good thing without Thee”.  It is important to notice that in the Eastern Church the main emphasis was upon the aspect of deprivation (privatio), while in the West the emphasis was invariably upon the depravity (depravatio).

      This necessitates a careful consideration of the phrases “total depravity” and “total corruption,” because there is not a little confusion in regard to them.  It is a case where usage fixes the meaning, because “total depravity” is not to be regarded as identical with “total corruption”.  The distinction between the two has well been stated, that “total depravity” means the condition of the nature in which the will refuses to obey the conscience in everything, while “total corruption” is the condition in which the will refuses to obey the conscience in anything and chooses evil in everything.  It expresses the extent, not the degree of man’s corruption.  Thus, “total depravity” does not mean the absolute loss of every vestige of good, but that evil has affected every part of the nature and that nothing has remained untouched.  The illustration has been used of a watch which may be of gold, and yet because it does not keep time it is of no use as a watch, notwithstanding the fact that it is made of gold.  Or a cup of water with a few drops of poison is poisonous throughout, but not as poisonous as it could be.  In like manner, “total depravity” does not for a moment mean that man has lost every vestige and trace of the Divine image in which he was made (Gen. 9:6, 1 Cor. 11:7, Jas. 3:9).  But it does mean that sin has so affected his nature that he cannot do anything that is good without the grace of God. [“What it means is not that every individual is as bad as he can be, a statement so transparently absurd that it should hardly have been attributed to any one, but that the depravity which sin has produced in human nature extends to the whole of it.  There is no part of man’s nature which is unaffected by it.  Man’s nature is all of a piece, and that which affects it at all affects it altogether.  When the conscience is violated by disobedience to the will of God, the moral understanding is darkened, and the will is enfeebled.  We are not constructed in watertight compartments, one of which might be ruined while the others remain intact; what touches us for harm, with a corrupting, depraving touch, at a single point, has effects throughout our nature none the less real that they may be for a time beneath consciousness” (Denney, ut supra, p. 83).]

      So that it is altogether inadequate to speak of sin as merely human deprivation of God.  The Biblical idea is much greater and deeper, involving separation from God though the separation is not the sin itself, but one of its consequences.  Sin is defiance, revolt, and implies a deliberate, voluntary breaking away from the Divine will and a violation of the Divine order.  “Sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4).  Thus, sin at its deepest is the rejection of God and disobedience to His will.  This involves a distortion of man’s life, nature, and relationship with God, involving inability to do good and responsibility for what is evil.  Sin is, therefore, much more than something merely negative and privative.  Just as pain is a positive experience and not the mere absence of pleasure, so sin is both negative as the refusal to will what is good, and positive as implying the attitude of the will towards unrighteousness.

      This view of sin is in harmony with universal experience.  It is a fact to be accounted for.  Man was created innocent, with no imperfection or flaw in the material, and it was God’s purpose that he should develop from an innocent into a virtuous and perfect man.  Modern science, not being concerned with moral realities, is unable to recognize anything abnormal in human development, and speaks only of the process of evolution, but the Bible and the Christian Church assume a very definite interruption of the process of development.  Man’s self-will has been exercised in opposition to the will of his Creator, and this constitutes the Fall, the marring of God’s creative work and the thwarting of His Divine purpose.  No one can say that the evolution of the human race has been normal in the moral sphere, for while on every other hand the universe indicates the presence of order and harmony, in human life there is just the opposite of disorder, lawlessness, and discord.  It is, therefore, impossible to avoid connecting human sin to-day with the sin of our progenitors, for otherwise God would be made the author of evil.  There is nothing more certain in the realm of physical science than the order of nature, and yet there is nothing more certain in the realm of morals than the presence of disobedience to law.  Everything, therefore, in the Bible, in history, and experience testifies to the fact that man is not one who is merely imperfect and gradually making progress towards a state to which he has not yet attained, but that he has fallen from a primeval condition of innocence by reason of his self-will.

 

IV – The Condemnation of Original Sin

      “And therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation.”

      The wording of the English Article is very significant in its clear distinction between person and nature, between the sinner and his sin.  “Every person born ... it deserveth.”  This is sometimes charged with being philosophically incorrect, but it is certainly true spiritually, for while everyone is born into this world with the evil principle within derived and inherited, it is only as the individual asserts himself and does what is wrong that he is personally subject to the Divine condemnation.

      “Is it not, in fact, the nature and not the person that is regarded in all such statements?  Sin may be considered abstractedly from the person in whom it resides: in its own nature it is αμαρτία, or a missing of the mark, and ανομία, or contrariety to the Divine Law.  In whomsoever, therefore, it is found, even as a latent potentiality, it must in itself be an object of God’s displeasure; but it does not follow that the person must be so, still less that the sentence on sin will in such a case be actually inflicted.  The fomes, or tendency, which if the infant lives will assuredly give birth to actual sin, cannot in God’s sight be a thing indifferent; but as it is only an objective guiltiness (to which the will has not consented, because the subject is incapable of will), it may be covered from God’s sight by an objective atonement (not appropriated by an act of will); so that the infant himself, if he dies as an infant, is not, and never has been, an object of God’s wrath.” [Litton, ut supra, p. 162.]

      The word “deserveth” is also important, expressing the Divine justice and emphasizing what sin is entitled to receive.  It does not for a moment say that every case of inborn sinfulness actually receives the Divine judgment, but only refers to its essential nature in the sight of God.  It is a profound truth that while Scripture does not hesitate to emphasize in the strongest way the actual fact of inborn sinfulness and its essential blameworthiness in the sight of God, yet on the other hand, “in no case does original sin, considered in and by itself, carry with it the penalty of eternal condemnation.” [Litton, ut supra, p. 163.]

      Some little explanation of the phrase, “God’s wrath and damnation” seems necessary.  The New Testament statement, “the wrath of God” (οργη θεου), always means His judicial displeasure against sin.  There is, of course, nothing personal, arbitrary, and vindictive, but always and only that which is righteous in the Divine attitude towards that which is wrong.  Sin, to use a Bible phrase, is “the abominable thing which God hates” (Jeremiah 44:4).

      This reference to the Divine condemnation of inborn sinfulness is a definite reminder, as we have already seen, of man’s conscious relations to law, and of his conscious responsibility to obey that law because of his possession of a conscience.  Sin is the abuse of human freedom, and there is nothing more fundamental in the universe than the eternal distinction between right and wrong as it appears and appeals to man.  No view of evolution can ever be allowed to destroy this basis of moral life.  This at once introduces the question of guilt, for Scripture invariably associates sin and guilt.  Whether we think of inborn sinfulness or personal transgression, sin is always regarded in Scripture as absolutely inexcusable and involving man in Divine condemnation. [“Sin in its broadest and most comprehensive sense is inexcusable, incurs the wrath of God, entails guilt and punishment, and therefore, whether original or actual, is equally ethical, equally personal.  There is no warrant in Scripture for regarding it under any circumstances as a pathological condition” (Simpson, ut supra, p. 116).]  By guilt is to be understood responsibility for sin and as a consequence the danger of God’s righteous displeasure.  Of course, as there are degrees of guilt in sin, so there will be degrees of punishment, but we are now concerned with the fact that the sinner whose conscience is awake invariably admits his responsibility and guilt.  There is nothing more distinctive of human nature than the action of conscience in charging the soul with responsibility.  This fact cannot possibly be explained away, for it is one of the fundamental realities in the universe.  Nor is it merely the consciousness of actual disobedience, but the realization of a spiritual state which is opposed to the will of God.  The guilt of sin is invariably associated with the consciousness of a personal relation to God, and in that a consciousness of the breach of those relations.  Whatever qualifications may be made, and however we may attempt to explain or even palliate sin, this consciousness of guilt remains.  “The objective fact of evil is accompanied by the subjective side of moral condemnation.” [See J. Scott Lidgett, The Christian Religion, p. 437 f.]  This sense of guilt in man is thus an instinctive but very real confession that he has fallen, and as Coleridge has said, “A fall of some sort or other is the fundamental postulate of the moral history of man.” [“This witness of the conscience is confirmed by everything we read in Scripture.  A bad conscience is never treated there as a groundless fear of God; it is a reflection, all too feeble at the best, of God’s awful judgment upon sin.  A great mass of modern theology denies this. ...  But to make sin unreal is to make redemption unreal also; it is to cast the shadow of illusion over the whole extent of man’s relations with God.  There is nothing, I believe, which at the present time needs more to be insisted on, in theology and in gospel preaching, than the objectivity and reality of guilt” (Denney, ut supra.  pp. 93. 94).]

      This consideration of sin in the light of law is essential to a true understanding of the problem.  Evil is a mystery in any case, but it would be absolutely inexplicable if God were supposed to place man under a law of development, which makes sin a necessity of his progress.  This would altogether banish moral guilt.  The animal impulses which we are to overcome are not sin in the lower creation, and it is impossible to identify sinful propensities with animal powers since in such a case there would be no moral responsibility.  It must never be forgotten that human sins have no prototype in the lower creation.  Thus, it would be impossible to speak of such things as pride and avarice among animals.  Evolution fails to account for the present moral state of mankind, [Orr, ut supra, pp. 158, 209, 298.] and it is obviously incorrect to say with Matthew Arnold that sin is not a monster, but only an infirmity.  It is impossible to assert that sin is merely a survival of the brute in man, for, as we have seen, its characteristic is moral, not physical.  Besides, when we examine our own heart our conscience at once testifies to the fact of moral responsibility.  Whence then has man this moral sense?  Nothing can rid him of it, and any denial really means the denial of life itself, to say nothing of Christianity.

      Nor can we be satisfied to call sin inherited temperament, and still less is it to be explained simply by environment, for, if this were all, then it is obvious that, as we are often not responsible for our environment, we could not be responsible for our sin, and such a position is really indistinguishable from the Pelagianism of old days, since Pelagius “ never denied that our environment is a source of temptation.” [Simpson, ut supra, p. 120.]

      A familiar modern explanation of sin is that it is identical with selfishness, and here again we are conscious of inadequacy, for our life involves very much more than ourselves and our brothers.  There are three circles of life: our relation to self; to our fellows; and to God.  And when this is realized it is at once seen that sin and selfishness are not synonymous.  Selfishness is, of course, one of the consequences and manifestations of sin, but it is not sin itself.  Sin involves something fat more than this.  The New Testament definition of sin is not selfishness, but “lawlessness”.  Law is as real in the moral world as in the physical, and no definition of sin is adequate that does not regard it as a violation of the law of God, whether of conscience or Scripture.  Without the conception of law there is no place for forgiveness, and, indeed, no need of it, for apart from law and responsibility to it the sinner is only in error and needs instruction alone.  But we know that information is not redemption, and the deepest element that satisfies man is the Divine judgment on sin and deliverance from it.  It must never be forgotten that our views of sin and salvation are related and inextricably bound up.  As is the one, so will be the other.

      We therefore hold that sin in its fullest sense is (a) an act; (b) an attribute of the nature; and (c) an attitude of the spirit.  Scripture sometimes emphasizes one and sometimes another of these.  As such, sin is the corruption of the stock by race connection.  The fact of propagated tendencies can hardly be denied, and this is a factor when the time of choice comes.  Yet transmission and propagation do not lead to excuse or palliation.  If it be said that this thought of the unity and solidarity of the race in sin and guilt is an impossible position, the reply is that there need be no difficulties in view of the fact that Christ died for the race.  As sin has affected the whole of humanity, so the death of Christ meets and more than meets this universal fact.  Since by man came death by man came also the resurrection of the dead.”*

      [*As modern writers seem to think that this doctrine of inborn sinfulness can only be based on separate texts of Scripture, and that these texts do not warrant the exegesis often given to them, it is well to remember that the truth of original sin does not depend upon any isolated texts of Scripture, but on the whole trend and tendency of the Biblical revelation concerning man and redemption.

      “The appearance of strength in Dr. Tennant’s attack upon the biblical argument for the doctrine of original sin is chiefly due to his giving a negative turn to the proof-text method.  He rests his case in this direction upon what the proof-texts do not prove, that is, when separately considered.  He ought to have reckoned with the contention that catholic doctrine affords an explanation of all the relevant phenomena of revelation, inductively considered” (Hall, Evolution and the Fall, p. 140, Note).]

 

Modern Theories of Sin

      The various views held on this subject have been helpfully distinguished as follows:– [Orchard, ut supra.]

      (1)  Theories which trace sin to the will of man (represented by Kant, Coleridge, and Muller).

      (2)  Theories which regard sin as a necessity (represented by Schelling, Weisse, and Hegel).

      (3)  Theories which seek to explain sin by confining it within the bounds of religion (represented by Schleiermacher and Ritschl).

      (4)  Theories which seek to explain sin from empirical observation (represented by Pfleiderer and Tennant).

      The conclusion drawn by the author of the book now referred to is that most of these modern theories “tend to reduce largely the circle of human conduct to which sin in the strict sense can be applied, and to cast serious suspicion upon the alleged consciousness of guilt, in that they fail to confirm its judgment by the philosophical, religious, or empirical methods, at least in its depth and extent. [Orchard, ut supra, p. 102.]

      Speaking of Dr. Tennant’s theory, which is best known as the latest and ablest attempt in English theology to solve the problem, the same writer adds, “It is doubtful whether an empirical account really gives us an origin of sin at all.” [Orchard, ut supra, p. 91.]  There is no doubt that the fact of guilt is the key to the position, and no explanation of sin which ignores this or sets it aside can be regarded as true, because with the guilt is associated the need and provision of an atonement, and the two may be said to stand or fall together.  It is, therefore, pretty certainly true that “on the basis of current anthropological theories we can never have anything but defective and inadequate views of sin.” [Orr, ut supra, p. 11.]  And anything defective and inadequate in this respect will assuredly bear upon the question of redemption, for superficiality in our consciousness of the nature and power of sin will tend not merely to a superficial statement of the Atonement of Christ, but to the destruction of the idea of atonement itself. [Orr, ut supra, p. 11.]

      Reviewing the entire subject, it is clear that human sinfulness consists on the one hand of an inborn tendency to evil, and on the other in the free choice of the individual man.  The fact of an inherited tendency to sin cannot well be denied, a propensity which, while it leads to actual guilt, is not in itself culpable.  But beyond this, voluntary choices which a person makes after the stage of moral responsibility are, of course, affected by the developed natural tendency, and it is impossible to conceive of conscious moral corruption which does not depend upon inherited tendencies.  It is this combination of the evil principle and the evil act that constitutes sin in its completeness, and at the same time provides the problem of human sinfulness.  Each attempt to solve the problem contains an important element of truth, and the subject is undoubtedly two-sided, according as man is considered either as a member of the race or as a distinct individual.  It is impossible to disregard either side, though in our endeavour to include both it is easy to conceive of difficulties and contradictions.  The prevailing tendency of modern thought is to ignore the former element of inborn sinfulness, and to concentrate attention solely upon human acts.  But no such partial view will suffice to meet all the facts of the case, and whatever difficulties and contradictions exist it is our duty to emphasize the facts on both sides, to adjust them to one another to the best of our ability, to recognize that there is an inscrutable element which at present is beyond our ken, and to believe that there will be an adjustment which will enable us to understand the awful fact of sin in God’s universe.  Meanwhile, it will be our safety to give attention to the conclusions stated by the great German writer, Julius Müller, in his Preface to The Christian Doctrine of Sin.

      “That everything in Christianity is connected more or less directly with the great facts of Sin and Redemption, and that the plan of Redemption, which is the essence of Christianity, cannot be rightly understood until the doctrine of Sin be adequately recognized and established.  Here, certainly, if anywhere, Christian theology must fight pro aris et focis.”

 

V – The Permanence of Original Sin

      The rest of the Article is concerned with teaching that this “infection of nature” remains in the regenerate, and that although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet that this infection of nature “hath of itself the nature of sin.”

      The Character of Original Sin. – It is here described as “infection of nature”.  It answers to the former phrase, “fault and corruption of the nature”.  It is further spoken of as “the lust of the flesh” and its Greek equivalent is given; φρόνημα σαρκος (Rom. 8:6).  The effort of the Article to interpret this term is particularly interesting: “Which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh.”  It is probable that all these aspects are rightly included in the full meaning of the term, which suggests the general bent of the entire nature, thought, feeling, will.  The principle of the idea is best understood from a reference to the passages where the word and its cognates are found: Matt. 16:23 (φρονεις, “thou savourest”); Rom. 8:5 f. (φρόνημα της σαρκος, the minding of the flesh); 8:27 (φρόνημα του πνεύματος, the minding of the Spirit); 12:16 (φροόνουντες, mind); Phil. 3:19 (φροόνουντες, mind), Col. 3:2 (φρονειτε, set your affection).  It is further said, following the teaching of St. Paul, that this lust of the flesh is not subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7).

      The Permanence of Original Sin. – “Doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated.”  It is clear that whatever happens in connection with regeneration this evil principle of sin remains.  Nor is there any distinction between the “regenerated” and the “sanctified,” as though it were possible for this “infection of nature” to be removed by some Divine act subsequent to regeneration.  Any distinction of this kind may safely be said to have been altogether outside the view of the Reformers; indeed, it cannot be said to exist in reality, but is only used in certain quarters as a distinction by which it is attempted to justify a theory of the entire removal of the evil principle.

      The Safeguard. – The Article clearly shows that no one will be condemned merely for the possession of inborn sinfulness.  “There is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized.”  The Latin equivalent here is particularly noteworthy: renatis et credentibus nulla propter Christum est condemnatio.  Here the Article translates the Latin renatis (born again) by the English “baptized,” and also omits to translate the Latin propter Christum.  This use of renatis for “baptized” seems to show clearly that in the minds of the Reformers Baptism refers to birth, not life, to the introduction of an already living being into a new sphere, not the bestowal of the primal germ of life.

      It is sometimes said that Baptism removes the “taint” of original sin.  But at once the question arises, What is this “taint”?  It can only mean guilt or principle, [“In baptism the guilt is pardoned” (Gibson, ut supra, p. 374).] and if guilt is personal and cannot be said to exist in an unconscious child, there remains only the principle which, according to the Article, continues to exist in the regenerated.  What, then, are we to understand by “taint”?  The question shows how necessary it is to be quite clear as to the meaning and fact of Baptism. [The Church Catechism is sometimes understood to mean that Baptism makes us the children of grace: “A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.”  It should be noted, however, that the Latin version of Dean Durel, 1671, renders “hereby” by hac ratione, which can only refer to “a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,” rendered by Durel mori peccato et denuo nasci justitiae.  To the same effect is an old paraphrase of the Catechism, 1674.  By contrast, Bright and Medd in their modern Latin version render “hereby” by per Baptismum, which is, of course, the ex opere operato view.]

      The Sinfulness of Original Sin. – The closing words of the Article are that “the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.”  In sese rationem peccati.  It is sometimes said that this phrase does not really mean that concupiscence is essentially and inherently sinful, but only that “it leads to sin.” [Gibson, ut supra, p. 376.]  It is also urged that it is difficult to say exactly what the Article means on this point, and that its ambiguity was probably designed to emphasize the truth that while not in itself sinful, concupiscence is so closely connected with sin that if unchecked sin will be its result. [Gibson, ut supra, p. 376.]  On this view a distinction is based between our Article and certain other Protestant formularies, which speak of concupiscence as “true and proper sin,” and special attention is called to the proposal of the Westminster Assembly to substitute “is truly and properly sin” for the milder statement of our Article. [Gibson, ut supra, p. 376.]  But there seems to be some confusion here, because the paragraph in the Article is concerned with what is “true and proper sin in the regenerate,” since “concupiscence and lust” must, of necessity, mean the same as “this infection of nature”.  Either, therefore, it is sin or it is not, and it is noteworthy that the first Commentary on the Articles, by Rogers, dated 1587–1607, clearly teaches that concupiscence is sin, and opposes those who teach otherwise. [Rogers, On the Articles, pp. 101–103.]  There can be no doubt that our Article is clearly against the Council of Trent on this point, which declares that concupiscence is not of the nature of sin.  In remission of sins there are two things: (a) guilt; (b) punishment, and in original sinfulness there are two elements: (a) penalty; (b) disposition.  The sinful condition is twofold: negative in the absence of grace to maintain union with God; positive in the corruption of nature, and (throughout) the sinful characteristic.  Nature and person in this connection are inseparable, because the nature involves the will, and the will is the most distinct personal characteristic and is disinclined to obey God.  Remission affects the person, but not the nature.  Men are forgiven personal punishments, but the depravatio and its effects remain and are still subject to such results as death.  It is this positive habit and disposition which is concupiscence.

      The important point of this statement is that it is directed towards the Roman Catholic theory of what is called sacramental justification.  Whatever we may say about Baptism, if there still remains in our souls something that has “of itself the nature of sin” we must continually need the love and mercy of God to pardon our transgression, and His grace to overcome the power of inborn sinfulness.  The distinction, therefore, which is made between that which “hath of itself the nature of sin” and that which is “sin” is really baseless, more particularly as the phrase “nature of sin” comes directly from the Council of Trent, and is evidently intended to contradict the official Roman Catholic doctrine.  In 1546 the Council said:–

      “If one denies, that through the grace of Jesus Christ which is conferred in Baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted, or even asserts that all of that which hath the true and proper nature of sin (peccati rationem habet) is not taken away, but only cut down and not imputed, let him be accursed.”

      It is hardly possible to doubt that the statement of our Article, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere, was intended to be a definite reply to Rome.  Rome’s view is really a recurrence to the erroneous view of original righteousness, which regards concupiscence as a consequence of nature, both in the unregenerate and the regenerate.  Further, it should be remembered that the same phrase occurs in Article XIII, where there is practically no doubt that the meaning is something essentially sinful.

      This question of the permanence of original sin in the regenerate is important on two grounds: (a) in its opposition to all forms of what is called “sinless perfection”; (b) on the other hand, against any yielding to defeat and accepting it as inevitable.  Something must be said on each of these two points.

      (a) It is important to consider the relation of sin to our nature.  The ultimate capacity in human nature is the capacity for feeling, for vivid impressions of pain and pleasure.  These are called the primary sensibilities and have been disordered through sin, and are never entirely rectified in this life, though the Atonement covers their defect.  Then come secondary sensibilities, leading to desires on the one hand and aversions on the other.  It is at this point that Divine grace comes in.  If the will does not consent there is no personal sin, but there is a disorder below the will which is sinful and needs to be dealt with.  Personal responsibility is concerned only with that which the will determines.  Atonement covers the rest, including incapacity and defect.  It is also important to note the distinction between Adam and ourselves.  He had the liability, but not the tendency to sin.  We have both, and the tendency is what the Article calls the “corruption of the nature,” “infection of nature,” “concupiscence”.  The weakness of what is known as the Methodist doctrine of “Perfect Love” is that it teaches that grace meets all the needs of human nature in the sense of eradication.  But it does not.  Scripture continually distinguishes between sin and sins, between the root and fruit, but though the root remains, as stated by the Article, there is no need for it to bring forth fruit.

      (b) But the presence of inborn sinfulness in the regenerate, while real and powerful, is no excuse, still less justification for sinning.  The Apostle clearly teaches that the redemptive work of Christ was intended to render inert or inoperative the evil principle within (Rom. 6:6, Greek).  And thus we may say that while Scripture teaches something that is very near eradication, in order that we may not be satisfied with anything less than the highest type of Christian living, on the other hand, it as clearly teaches that the evil principle has not been removed.  It loses its power over the believer, though the believer does not lose its presence.  To the same effect is the Apostle’s word: “Reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin” (Rom. 6:11).  He thereby teaches that while we are to be dead to it, it is not dead to us.  Sin is not dead, but we are to keep on reckoning ourselves to be dead to it.  Such language would have been impossible if sin had been entirely removed.  It is impossible to avoid noticing at this point the striking affinity between the Roman Catholic and Methodist doctrines of making sinfulness inhere in the will only. [“Such are the difficulties in which the Council involved itself in its attempts to transfer the seat of sin from the affections to the outward manifestation, and yet to avoid coming into open collision with Scripture and Christian feeling” (Litton, ut supra, p. 170).]  Our Article, in harmony with the Protestant Confessions of the sixteenth century goes much deeper, and shows that sin has affected the nature long before the will commences to act.

      The question is vital to many of the most practical and important aspects of living, for if we are wrong here we are liable to be wrong everywhere.  Superficial views of sin inevitably tend towards superficial views of the redemptive work of Christ.  We must, therefore, be on our guard against the two extremes: on the one hand we must insist that even in the regenerate the evil principle remains and will remain to the end of this life; on the other hand, we must be clear that this evil principle need not and ought not to produce evil results in practice, since the grace of God has been provided to meet and overcome it. [More will be said on this subject in connection with Articles XV and XVI.]

 

Article  X

 

Of Free Will.

      The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God.  Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

 

De libero Arbitrio.

      Ea est hominis post lapsum Adae conditio, ut sese, naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus, ad fidem et invocationem Dei convertere ac praeparare non possit.  Quare absque gratia Dei, quae per Christum est, nos praeveniente ut velimus; et cooperante dum volumus, ad pietatis opera facienda, quae Deo grata cunt et accepta, nihil valemus.

 

Important Equivalents

 

Of Adam = Adae

By strength = viribus

By Christ = per Christum

That we may have a good will = ut velimus

When we have that good will = dum volumus

Good works = pietatis opera

 

      The title is not quite correct, and would be better as “The Limitations of Free Will,” or “The Need of Grace”.  Free will is not mentioned at all, but only assumed, its limitations being the special subject of the Article.  This is really a corollary of Article IX, an enlargement of that Article in regard to the “corruption of the nature”.  The first clause of the present Article was introduced in 1563 from the Wurtemberg Confession. [“Quod autem nonnulli affirmant homini post lapsum tantam animi integritatem relictam, ut possit sese naturalibus suis viribus et bonis operibus, ad fidem at invocationem Dei convertere ac praparare, haud obscure pugnat cum vero Ecclesiae Catholicae consensu” (De Peccato).]  The latter clause is almost exactly from Augustine’s work, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio. [“We have no power to do good works without God working that we may have a good will, and cooperating when we have that good will.”  “Sine illo vel operante ut velimus vel cooperante cum volumus, ad bonae pietatis opera nihil valemus.”]  It would seem as though the teaching were directed against the extreme views of the Anabaptists on the subject of grace. [Similiter nobis contra illos progrediendum est, qui tantum in libero arbitrio roboris et nervorum ponunt, eo solo sine alia speciali Christi gratia recte ab hominibus vivi posse constituant” (Reformatio Legum, De Haeresibus, c. 7).]  But it is more than likely that Archbishop Parker’s object in prefixing the clause from the Confession of Wurtemberg was intended to deal with the theory of Meritum de congruo, which, however, is to be specially considered under Article XIII.

 

I – The Teaching of the Article

      It will help to understand the entire situation if we analyze the Article first of all and see precisely what it teaches.

      1.  The Spiritual Helplessness of Man. – “The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God.”  The Roman doctrine of Original Sin as merely a state of deprivation would naturally lead to the view that man can cooperate with Divine grace in preparation for Justification.  The right exercise of free will was regarded as giving man a claim to Divine help, and this, as we shall see, was the scholastic doctrine of “congruous merit”.  The view taken in the Article is that man is free, but powerless to do God’s will. [“And so likewise although there remain a certain freedom of will in those things which do pertain unto the desires and works of this present life (cf. Augsburg Confess., XVIII), yet to perform spiritual and heavenly things free will of itself is insufficient: and therefore the power of man’s free will, being thus wounded and decayed, hath need of a physician to heal it, and an help to repair it; that it may receive light and strength whereby it may see, and have power to do those godly and spiritual things, which before the fall of Adam it was able and might have done” (Necessary Doctrine and Erudition, “Article of Free Will,” pp. ;360, 361).]

      2.  The Divine Provision against Human Helplessness. – “Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ.”  Here the Article emphasizes the need of grace, and when it speaks of good works as “pleasant and acceptable,” it obviously refers solely to those who, within the Christian revelation, are capable of considering the Divine requirements.  All references to the heathen and any works of theirs are naturally ruled out in view of the historical circumstances that gave rise to the Article.  The statement is concerned simply with an aspect of the spiritual life which was unduly and incorrectly emphasized in the Middle Ages.

      3.  The Primary Working of Divine Grace. – “The grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will.”  The technical phrase implied here is “prevenient grace,” and was possibly suggested by the Latin of Psalm 19:10: “The God of my mercy will pre-vent me.”  The truth is also seen in St. Paul’s words: “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).  The reason why grace is thus emphasized as necessary is “that we may have a good will,” and the truth is found very frequently in Holy Scripture (John 6:44, Acts 16:14).

      4.  The Continuous Working of Divine Grace. – “And working with us, when we have that good will.”  There was one slight alteration made in the English in 1571, when “working with us” was put for “working in us” as the equivalent of cooperante.  The technical term for this is “cooperating grace,” and again we may refer to Holy Scripture: “The Lord also working with them” (Mark 16:20).  The need of this grace is equally clear, for whether we consider the beginning, or the course, or the end of the Christian life, our Lord’s words are true: “Apart from Me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5); and St. Paul may be said to have delighted in referring everything in his life to the grace of God.  “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10, Gal. 2:20).  Our Prayer Book has many similar references to this need of Divine grace.  Thus, at Daily Prayer we ask: “ O God, make clean our hearts within us.”  In the Collect for Easter Day: “As by Thy special grace pre-venting us ... so by Thy continual help.”  The Collect for the Ninth Sunday after Trinity: “We, who cannot do anything that is good without Thee.”  Collect for the Fourteenth Sunday after Trinity: Make us to love that which Thou dost command.”  Collect for the Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity: “The frailty of man without Thee cannot but fall.”  Collect for the Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity: “Thy grace may always pre-vent and follow us.”  Collect for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity: “Without Thee we are not able to please Thee.”  Collect after Communion Office: “Pre-vent us ... with Thy most gracious favour, and further us with Thy continual help.”  The Homilies teach the same truth.

      “It is the Holy Ghost, and no other thing, that doth quicken the minds of men, stirring up good and godly motions in their hearts, which are agreeable to the will and commandment of God, such as otherwise of their own crooked and perverse nature they should never have.”

      “As for the good works of the Spirit, the fruits of faith, charitable and godly motions, if he have any at all in him, they proceed only of the Holy Ghost, who is the only worker of our sanctification, and maketh us new men in Christ Jesus.” [Homily for Whitsunday.]

      “We are all become unclean, but we are not able to cleanse ourselves, nor to make one another of us clean.  We are by nature the children of God’s wrath; but we are not able to make ourselves the children and inheritors of God’s glory.  We are sheep that run astray, but we cannot of our own power come again to the sheepfold, so great is our imperfection and weakness.” [Homily on the Misery of Man.  See also Third Homily for Rogation Week.]

      The question of the will was debated centuries before Christianity, and the subject was forced on the Church and could no longer remain a matter of mere philosophic discussion.  A new element arose in connection with the Fall of man, and the problem was raised as to how far that affected the will.  The subject is not clearly set forth in the Apostolic Fathers, mainly because there were no controversies to colour opinions, though the freedom of the will is definitely taught by Justin Martyr.  Early heretics like the Gnostics were fatalists, but Origen emphasized human freedom.  The Pelagians insisted upon absolute freedom of will, and Augustine was the first to face the problem fully.  After him came the Semi-Pelagians, who taught that man had free will sufficient to enable him to turn to God, but not to persevere.  The Semi-Pelagians taught that so much good will remains as to wish to be healed, velle sanari, quaerere medicum, but later came the idea that even this velle sanari was the result of a general action of grace on mankind, God’s Spirit giving the initial impulse.

      In the Middle Ages there was a perpetual tendency towards Semi-Pelagianism, due to the erroneous idea of original righteousness, for if man is only deprived of superadded grace, the natural powers were capable of good motions of themselves.  But thought divided itself into two schools.  The Dominicans, as represented by Thomas Aquinas, 1274, were substantially Augustinian, and taught the need of grace before the will could incline towards God.  On the other hand, the Franciscans, represented by Duns Scotus, 1308, taught entire freedom of will and were virtually Pelagian.  It was in this connection that the doctrine of grace de congruo arose, which meant that man’s endeavour to attain to godliness deserved this congruous grace.  They thought that some element of goodness was to be attributed to man’s unaided efforts towards the attainment of holiness, and that in some way this effort merited the bestowal of Divine grace.  The Council of Trent was divided on the subject, though generally through the Jesuits the Church of Rome tended towards the Scotist view.  It is well known that on these subjects the Roman view is essentially Pelagian, or at least semi-Pelagian.

      On the other hand, Luther and Calvin favoured the Thomist view, and of course opposed the very idea of the doctrine of “congruous merit”.  Our Article meets these points without entering into the subtleties of controversy as to how far man’s will has been affected by the Fall.  It is sometimes said that the second clause of our Article, dating from 1553, was before the time when Calvin was known in England, and that therefore it represents our own independent view.  This is true, but it is not the whole truth, since all our Reformers were what may be called Augustinians.  In 1553 this Article was followed by one “Of Grace,” to oppose the fatalism of the Anabaptists.  This was omitted in 1563, probably because the error was no longer of serious importance, and also, it has been suggested, to make it easier for strong Calvinists to accept the Articles, since they believed in irresistible grace.  During the Marian persecution many English Divines were brought into contact on the Continent with foreign Reformers, and afterwards came back strongly in favour of more extreme Calvinistic views.

      Later on came the controversy at the beginning of the seventeenth century connected with the Dutch theologian, Arminius, who, by a natural rebound from the extreme Calvinism of his time, took the Scotist view.  The result was the calling of the Synod of Dort, or Dordrecht, at which the Arminians were excommunicated and definite Calvinistic views were promulgated.  After the Council of Trent the Church of Rome continued to be divided on the subject; the Jesuits maintaining a Pelagian view, while the followers of Jansenius, known as Jansenists, upheld the Augustinian and Dominican position.  At length the Jansenists were condemned and the Jesuits gained the upper hand in the Church of Rome. [For the history, of which the above is a brief outline, see Harold Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, pp. 252–264; the question will receive further attention under Article XVII.]

 

III – The Question Stated

      There are few things on which clearness is more needed than on the subject of free will.  For our present purpose it does not mean the absence of restraint from without, or perfect freedom of action, nor does it refer to the liberty of the believer, his freedom in Christ (Rom. 8:2. Gal. 5:1).  In the present connection it means the power of choice which enables a man to determine the course of his action.  Man sees certain ends and chooses between them.  Motives impel, but do not compel.  The man selects what he desires, so that he is free to use his liberty aright, and the abuse of his freedom constitutes a sin.  There are two functions of the will: (a) choice, and (b) volition.  The former refers to selection, and by itself accomplishes nothing; the latter refers to energy, by which the thing selected is accomplished.  Human freedom belongs primarily to choice, because volition may be impracticable, yet even so choice has its limitations and loss.  Freedom does not mean ability to choose anything at any time.  Free will therefore means the freedom of the soul in choosing, enabling it to determine conscious action.  The doctrine of the will as to the choosing is equivalent to the doctrine of the man.  In this sense our freedom is real and the Fall has not affected it.  We are conscious of it by our sense of responsibility.  All denial of free will in this meaning must lead either to fatalism, which ends in materialism, or to an extreme mysticism, which involves such a contemplation of God as to leave for self a sort of Christian pantheism, or absorption into God.  Fallen man has the faculty of will, as he has other faculties, and if he is free from external compulsion he must will what he pleases to do.  But this does not prove that he has the power to do anything and everything that comes before him.  Man’s receptivity is real, but it needs to be purified and quickened by grace before it can fully discharge its functions.  We have a capacity for redemption, but not the capability to redeem ourselves.  It is not the bare capacity to receive, but the positive desire to do so that is needed.  Freedom is thus opposed to servitude and implies the apprehension of various courses of action.  It consists in choosing between possible alternative acts.  Reason is, therefore, at the root of liberty, and as far as the reason discerns the good (or what is thought good) the will by nature chooses it.  Vole ergo sum, “I will, therefore I am,” is decidedly truer than cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am.”  Freedom is thus an ultimate fact.

      “Freedom is a point upon which we can allow no shuffling or juggling in argument.  It is unique, but it is self-evident; and every attempt to explain it away can be shown to involve a petitio principii.” [Illingworth, Personality Human and Divine, p. 107.]

      Our full freedom is limited to a few cases.  There seem to be three main choices: (1) ultimate choice, the selection of an end which becomes permanent for life; (2) subordinate choice, the choice of means towards ends; (3) supreme choice, the choice of the highest ultimate, either God or self.  Freedom is exerted mainly in regard to the first and third of these.  To the first belongs character, which introduces the element of fixity into human life.  It is in our character that our sins are rooted.

      And yet will is not self-originating, but only chooses what it thinks is good and possible.  It only reflects the το αυτεξούσιον of the Creator, and it was in this respect that the Reformers felt led to deny freedom.  Free will is a mode, not a source of action. [“Since the Fall, man is free to choose, and for that reason is accountable. ...  He is free to choose, in so far as no foreign will can irresistibly constrain him to will against his own will.  He is not free, in so far as within his own personality the sin which has been allowed by himself rules and enslaves his will (Delitzsch, Biblical Psychology, p. 193).]  Behind the will is the nature, and as is the nature so is the will.  Moral inability is thus due to the corruption of nature.  Yet even so, on these motives, the will has certain powers of self-determination, and it is this that makes corruption possible.  This corruption may be (1) the obscuration of the reasonable apprehension of good; (2) the succession of acts which tend to establish habit.

      It is, of course, a great mystery how God knows and orders everything and yet leaves man free.  These, however, are the two facts which need to be emphasized and kept ever in view even though they cannot be reconciled.  Meanwhile, because of the provision of Christ there is no moral injustice, since Divine grace more than meets human weakness and inability.

      Grace is perhaps the greatest word of the New Testament and of God’s revelation in Christ, because it is the most truly expressive of God’s character and attitude in relation to man.  The root seems to mean “to give pleasure,” and then it branches out comprehensively in two directions: one in relation to the Giver; the other in relation to the receiver of the pleasure.  Grace is, first, a quality of graciousness in the Giver, and then, a quality of gratitude in the recipient, which in turn makes him gracious to those around.

      But the idea has two distinct yet connected aspects even when applied only to God the Giver.

      1.  It expresses the Divine attitude to man as guilty and condemned.  Grace means God’s favour and good will towards us (Luke 1:30).  So the Mother of our Lord is described as “permanently favoured” (“ graced,” Luke 1:28).  This favour is manifested without any regard to merit; indeed, grace and merit are entire opposites.  Grace is thus spontaneous (not prompted from outside); free (no conditions are required); generous (no stint is shown); and abiding (no cessation is experienced).  It is also (as favour) opposed to “wrath,” which means judicial displeasure against sin.  Further, it must be distinguished from mercy, even though mercy is one of the methods of its expression.  Mercy is related to misery, and to those who are (negatively) non-deserving.  Grace is related to redemption and to those who are (positively) undeserving.

      2.  It then expresses the Divine action to man as needy and helpless.  Grace means not merely favour, but also help; not only benevolence, but also benefaction; not simply feeling, but also force; not solely good will, but also good work.  It is Divine favour expressed in and proved by His gift; attitude shown by action.  Thus from grace comes gift, which invariably implies a gift of or by grace (Rom. 5:15, 1 Cor. 4:6, Rom. 12:6).

      These two ideas are thus connected and united as Cause and Effect.  They tell of God’s Heart and God’s Hand.  Etymologically, therefore, Grace is a term that refers to the beautiful, which gives delight.  Theologically, it means God’s favour as seen in His gift.  Practically, it implies God’s presence and redemptive power in human life.  Blending all these aspects we may think of Grace as God’s spontaneous gift, which causes pleasure and produces blessing.  Hort defines grace as “free bounty,” and, as such, it produces “joy and is the cause of actual power in daily, living.”

      In relation to the will, grace implies (1) the illumination of the moral nature; (2) a counteractive power against habit; (3) new motives; (4) by contact, healing, and strength.  It is at this point that we may perhaps regret the omission of the Tenth Article of 1553, “Of Grace,” which was omitted in 1563, as presumably not required.  But it may be well, however, to quote it in order to see more definitely what grace does in relation to the human will.

 

Of Grace

      The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost by Him given doth take away the stony heart, and giveth an heart of flesh.  And although, those that have no will to good things, He maketh them to will, and those that would evil things, He maketh them not to will the same: yet nevertheless He enforceth not the will.  And therefore no man when he sinneth can excuse himself, as not worthy to be blamed or condemned, by alleging that he sinned unwillingly or by compulsion.

 

De Gratia

      Gratia Christi, seu Spiritus Sanctus qui per eundem datur, cor lapideum aufert, et dat cor carneum.  Atque licet ex nolentibus quae recta sunt volentes faciat, et ex volentibus prava, nolentes reddat, voluntati nihilominus violentiam nullam infert.  Et nemo hac de causa cum peccaverit, seipsum excusare potest, quasi nolens aut coactus peccaverit, ut eam ob causam accusari non mereatur aut damnari.

 

      The question of the relation of the human will to the Divine is one of great difficulty and profound, mystery, but the following points seem to be fairly clear: (1) God at the beginning created man and endowed him with a will, so that although man acts as a “first cause” he is not one absolutely, for he is a first cause only in a secondary way.  (2) God created man a holy being and with a will inclined to Him only.  Then the weakness of a finite nature rendered man fallible, and under the influence of temptation Adam fell from his estate of holiness, sinfulness thus entering the world as the perversion of a life originally upright.  (3) While Divine grace never compels souls, it frequently changes them for the better, for God creates man anew in righteousness.  Such a transformation is altogether consistent with free agency, because it does not destroy, but only renews and thereby aids man’s will.

      This question of grace in relation to human life is of particular importance today, because from two separate quarters its need and power tend to be questioned and even denied.  On the one hand, science tends to deny the possibility of grace.  On the other, fiction either idealizes human life or else leads men to despair by emphasizing the impossibility of forgiveness.  So that emphasis on grace is of special value against science with its teaching of a gradual evolution and improvement of human nature, and also against fiction, which idealizes human nature and thereby denies the need of grace.  In reality modern thought can find no fault with the teaching of this Article, since everything tends to show the continuity of individual life and to lay stress on the importance of heredity.  The Article is of particular value in opposition to the really shallow conception that “a man can reform himself at any time if he will only make up his mind.”  To say this is to ignore some of the plainest facts of human experience, and in particular the real power of habit.  The statement sometimes made that a child just entering upon a vague sense of right and wrong is able to stem the current of his innate impulses is not worthy of serious consideration.  Everything tends to show that the doctrine of original sin has a solid foundation in the facts of human nature.  There is in every human being a tendency to sin antecedent to the act of the conscious and mature man.  It is at this point that Christianity comes in with its message of grace, and it is that the Article emphasizes both in regard to what is called “prevenient grace” and “cooperating grace”.  Whatever mystery there may be in theories and philosophies, when we approach the subject through personal experience we see abundant evidence of the truth of those statements, already quoted from our Collects, that “we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves,” and for this reason “without Thee we are not able to please Thee.”

 

Previous Section    Home    Next Section