Project Canterbury

A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine
with the doctrine of the catholic and apostolic church of the East:
being the longer Russian catechism:
with an appendix consisting of notes and extracts from Scottish and Anglican authorities.

Appendix: Consisting of Notes to the Foregoing Catechism, with Extracts from Public Documents of the Scottish and Anglican Churches, and from the Writings of Some of their Most Celebrated Divines;

Designed to shew that there is in the Anglican Communion Generally, and more Particularly and Pre-eminently in the Scottish Church, an Element of Orthodoxy, Capable, by a Synodical Act, of Declaring Unity and Identity with the Eastern Catholic Church.

by William Palmer [M]

Aberdeen: A Brown, 1846.


"I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father."—Orthodox Catechism, p. 17.

The Creed commonly used by the British Churches both at Baptism and on other occasions is the Creed of the Church of Aquileia, commonly called in the West the Apostles’ Creed. In this the only words relating to the Holy Ghost are these, "I believe in the Holy Ghost." But in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which also is sung or said in all the British Churches during the Liturgy, there are these words, "Which proceedeth from the Father and the Son:" and in the Creed called ‘the Athanasian,’ as it is now said or sung in the English and Scottish Churches on many Festivals during Matins, there is the following verse; "The Holy-Ghost is of the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." And lastly, in the xxxix Articles, which are subscribed by all the British Clergy, we read; "The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, &c." So that it is plain the doctrine and the Creed of the British Churches differ in this point from the doctrine and the Creed of the Easterns. These two questions however, of the doctrine in itself, and of its interpolation in the Oecumenical Creed, are on no account to be confounded together. The former of the two shall be treated at length below, under Section XVI.; where it shall also be shewn that the mere maintenance of the Latin doctrine and phraseology is no necessary impediment to communion with the Eastern Church. Here the formal question only, of the insertion of the word Filioque into the Creed, shall be considered. And with regard to this, there are some signs that the British Churches might possibly be induced to omit the interpolation, if they could do so without seeming to renounce language used by orthodox Latin Fathers, and without endangering any part of the truth.

I. Dean Field, On the Church, writes as follows:—

"This Creed was confirmed in the Council of Ephesus; and all they accursed, that should add any thing unto it; meaning, as it may well be thought, to condemn such addition as might make any alteration, and not such as might serve for a more full and definite explication. But, howsoever, this Nicene Creed thus enlarged in the Council of Comtantinople, without any further addition, was confirmed and proposed to the Christian world for a rule of faith in all the general Councils that ever were holden; and was so publicly received in sundry Christian Churches, in their Liturgies. But in time the Bishops of Spain began to add the proceeding from the Son; and the French, not long after, admitted the same addition; but the Romans admitted it not. Whereupon, Charles the Great in his time called a Council at Aquisgranum, in which it was debated, whether the Spaniards, and after them the French, had done well in adding to the Creed the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from the Son; and whether, supposing the point of doctrine to be true, it were fit to sing and recite the Creed in the public service of the Church with this addition, the Church of Borne and some other Churches refusing to admit it. Besides this, some were sent to Leo the Third about this matter: but he would by no means allow of this addition, but persuaded them that had given way unto it, by little and little to put it out, and to sing the Creed without it. The same Leo caused the Creed to be written out in a table of silver, in such sort as it had been delineated in the Councils, placed the same behind the altar of St. Peter, and left it to posterity ‘amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei,’ as he professed. Neither was this the private fancy of Leo only: for after his time John the Eighth shewed his dislike of this addition likewise: for writing unto Photius Patriarch of Constantinople he hath these words; (vide Pithaeum) ‘That we may give you satisfaction touching that addition in the Creed,’ (And from the Son) ‘we let you know, that not only we have no such addition, but also we condemn them as transgressors of the direct word, that were the first authors of this addition.’ And afterwards he addeth: ‘We carefully labour, and endeavour to bring it to pass, that all our bishops may think as we do; but no man can suddenly alter a thing of such consequence: and therefore it seemeth reasonable to us that no man be violently constrained by you to leave out this addition.’"—P. 53. ed. 1628.

II. M. Antonio De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, Primate of Croatia and Dalmatia, and afterwards (without any abjuration or conversion) Dean of Windsor in the Church of England, in his treatise De Republica Ecclesiastica, has the following passages:—

"The Greeks therefore, admitting as they do the Procession of the Spirit from the Father according to the Gospel, and not admitting this procession from the Son, but yet confessing that the Spirit is the Third Person in the Deity, very God, and of the same substance with the Father and the Son, and that the Spirit Himself is also the Spirit of the Son, are not to be condemned as guilty of any heresy; nor can on this account be justly rejected by the Latins from their Communion: and this, not only if they merely stand to a negative, and refuse to admit this article of the Procession from the Son, but even though they positively deny it, and assert that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but from the Father only. For to deny an article, which is not de fide, cannot be heresy. .... Yet neither can the Greeks, on the other hand, lawfully or prudently make a schism, or separate from the Latin Church, for this controversy about the Procession. For though they may allege two grounds, 1. that it is heresy to teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son; and, 2. that the Latins have interpolated and corrupted the public Creed, and also the Confession of Athanasius; still, neither of these grounds is sufficient to justify them for separating from us. The first is not, because the asserting any thing to be de fide which is not really so, is not heresy of itself, unless that which is asserted be contrary to some real article of faith. To make such an assertion is indeed an error, even if the proposition asserted be true, but is not heresy. . . . Let the Latins therefore abound in their own sense; &c.... Nor again can their second ground excuse the Greeks; though I cannot see either how we Latins can stand excused from a huge error, and from the disgrace of being interpolators and falsifiers. First, we do not so much as know, by whom, when, or where, or by what authority, the clause Filioque was added to the two Creeds. .... The Occidental Church might indeed, if she had so pleased, and had judged there was good reason for it, have made a particular Creed or Confession of her own with the Filioque, taking the rest of the words either from the Constantinopolitan, or from any other source; as there have been at various times and in various Churches such particular Confessions. But as it is, our writers pretend either some unknown Council, or the supreme authority of the Pope. But even if this were so, we cannot name the Pope, or the Papal decree which did it, any more than the Council.... As for the Athanasian Creed, it has neither ever been defined, nor could be defined even by the whole Church, that it should be interpolated, and read with the interpolation as the Creed of St. Athanasius. For this is simply an untruth: this is nothing else than to interpolate and corrupt the writings of others; which has never been lawful, nor can be. By all means, then, if we desire what is just, we ought to restore both Creeds to their original state, till such time as there may be a legitimate consultation of the Church concerning the addition, as made, or to be made: that so the Greeks may be invited to union, without this preliminary ground of dissension and pretext for refusal lying in the way. For this restoration of the Creed it was, which the Greeks mainly and repeatedly urged in the Synod of Florence. (Sess. 8. 12.) ‘Even though,’ say they, ‘that position, (of the Procession from the Son) should be acknowledged true, we yet contend that it should be written any where else, rather than in the Creed; as is known to have been done (in similar cases) by General Councils. We judge therefore that it should be removed from the Creed itself; that so there may be a union of all Christians, who are now since so long a time for this cause divided.’ Nor do I see any escape for our side, so that they could avoid this demand.

"Perhaps they may say that the Council of Florence, which did nothing else but discuss this point in presence of the Greeks as well as Latins, has given us a firm and conclusive definition. But neither can I easily say this. I see that in that Council the Greeks disputed most sharply against the Procession from the Son, and were drawn or forced in a manner against their will into, that discussion by our side: as they themselves professed, that they should be satisfied to make peace and union on this condition alone, that the Creed should be restored to its original and proper form, and then the Latins, otherwise than in the Creed, might freely write, read, sing, and believe as they liked best touching this point of the Procession from the Son. But the Latins on our side evaded the difficulty about the restoration, of the Creed, by forcing on a discussion about the Procession itself. In which wholly scholastical dispute when at length the Greeks wearied out, and hoping to obtain temporal aid for the Eastern Empire against the Turks, did yield to the Latins, they did so only thus far (and that against the constant opposition of the Archbishop of Ephesus), as to permit the belief and the assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, on this ground, that the Latin Fathers asserted it, whom they supposed to have been moved and governed by the same Spirit, as moved and governed their own Greek Fathers, who teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But that they were themselves convinced either by Scripture, or authority of antiquity, or legitimate tradition, and so yielded and consented to a joint definition of the doctrine, is more than can with truth be asserted."—Lib. vii. c. 10.

III. Dr. Heylin On the Creed; and Archbishop Laud:—"Robert Grosthead, the learned and renowned Bishop of Lincoln, as he is cited by Scotus, a famous Schoolman, (Scotus in Sent. 1. i. d. 11. qu.) delivereth his opinion touching this great controversy thus: ‘The Grecians,’ saith he, ‘are of opinion, that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, but that He proceedeth not from the Son, but from the Father only, yet by the Son; which opinion seemeth to be contrary to ours. But, haply, if two wise and understanding men, the one of the Greek Church, and the other of the Latin, both lovers of the truth, and not of their own expressions, did meet to consider of this seeming contrariety, it would in the end appear that the difference is not real, but verbal only.’ Azorius the great casuist: goeth further yet, and upon due examination of the state of the question (Azor. Inst. Moral. 1. viii. c. 20.) not only freeth the Greeks from heresy, but from schism also. By consequence the Church of Borne hath run into the greater and more grievous error, in condemning every Maundy Thursday in their Bulla Ccenae the whole Eastern Churches; which, for ought any of her own more sober children are able to discern upon deliberation, are fully as orthodox as herself in the truth of doctrine, and more agreable to antiquity in their forms of speech. .... But, as my Lord of Canterbury (Archbishop Laud) hath right well observed in his learned Answer unto Fisher,’ It is a hard thing to add and to anathematize too.’"—Ed. 1654. p. 361.

IV. John Pearson, Bishop of Chester, On the Creed:—"After he (Photius) was restored again, in the time of Pope John the Eighth, in the eighth General Council, as the Greeks call it, it was decreed that the addition of Filioque, made in the Creed, should be taken away; as says Marcus Ephesius in the Council of Florence. After this, the same corn-plaint was continued by Michael Cerularius, and Theophylact, in as high a manner as by Photius..... Thus did the Oriental Church accuse the Occidental for adding Filioque to the Creed, contrary to a General Council, which had prohibited all additions, and that without the least pretence of the authority of another Council. And so the schism between the Latin and the Greek Church began and was continued, never to be ended, until these words kai ek tou Uiou, or Filioque, are taken out of the Creed: the one relying upon the truth of the doctrine contained in those words, and the authority of the Pope to alter any thing; the other either denying or suspecting the truth of the doctrine, and being very zealous for the authority of the ancient Councils. This therefore is much to be lamented, that the Greeks should not acknowledge the truth, which was acknowledged by their ancestors in the substance of it; and that the Latins should force the Greeks to> make an addition to the Creed, without as great an authority as hath prohibited it, and to use that language in the expression of this doctrine, which never was used by any of the Greek Fathers."—Ed. 1662. p. 358.

V. As all the British Divines above quoted, as well as others who have treated of the same subject, in common with all Eastern writers, attach great weight to the decision of Pope Leo III., and refer more or less at length to his conference with the Legates of the Council held at Aquisgranum, it may not be amiss to subjoin here some account both of the occasion which led to the controversy at that time, and of the conference itself; the first taken from Father Le Quien's Dissertations prefixed to his edition of the Works of St. John Damascene, (vol. I. viii.) the latter abridged from the relation of the Abbot Smaragdus, as quoted in the Treatise of Adam Zoernikaff:—

"In the year DCCCIX, certain Frankish monks on Mount Olivet at Jerusalem, having been publicly accused of heresy by a Monk of St. Sabba, named John, because they recited the Creed with the addition of the word ‘Filioque,’ and having defended themselves at the time by alleging that they followed the faith of the Roman Church, wrote a long and lamentable Letter of complaint to Pope Leo III.; in which Letter, besides quoting other authorities, they mentioned that they had heard the Creed sung in the Chapel of the Emperor Charles the Great with that addition, and besought the Pope to communicate with the Emperor upon the subject, and to send them a distinct answer. Whereupon the Pope wrote to the Emperor Charlemagne, telling him of the complaint which had been made, and adding, that he had received at the same time a letter from Thomas, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and had sent back a declaration of his own faith to serve them all as a rule: and a copy of this his declaration to the Easterns he sent together with his Letter to Charlemagne." (See below, Section xvi.)

Charlemagne, on the receipt of Pope Leo's Letters, caused a Council to be held at Aquisgranum, A.D. DCCCIX.: and delegates were sent in consequence to Borne, to obtain the Pope's consent to the insertion of the clause ‘Filioque’ into the Constantinopolitan Creed. The following are some passages of the Conference of these delegates with Pope Leo, as related by Smaragdus, Abbot of St. Michael’s in Lorraine. (Tom. vii. Cone. col. 1194.)

‘Delegates. But since, as you say, this is most certainly to be believed, and most firmly held, and in case of necessity most constantly defended, must it not be right to teach it to all who as yet know it not, and on those that know it to impress it still more? The Pope. Even so. D. If so, suppose any one be ignorant of this, or believe it wot, can he be saved? P. Whosoever by his more subtle understanding is able to attain unto this, and, being able, refuses to know it, or knowing to believe it, he cannot be saved. For there are many things, and this among others, which are of the deeper mysteries of our holy faith, to the searching out of which many have sufficiency, but many others, being hindered by defect of age or understanding, have not sufficiency. And therefore, as I have said already, he who can and will not, he cannot be saved. D. If then it is so, or rather, since it is so, and this is to be believed, and not kept back in silence, why may it not be sung, and be taught by being sung? P. It may, I say, it may be sung in teaching, and be taught by being sung: but neither by writing nor by singing may it be unlawfully inserted into that, which it is forbidden us to touch. D. Since then we both know that for this reason ye think or declare it unlawful to insert those words as to be sung or written in the Creed, that they who made the same Creed did not put them in like the rest, and the subsequent great Synods (i. e. the Fourth of Chalcedon, and the Fifth and Sixth of Constantinople) forbade that any man under any pretext of necessity or devotion for the salvation of men should make any new Creed, or take away, add, or change any thing from the old, we must not waste time any longer on this point. But this I inquire: this I beg you to declare: since this thing is good to be believedjj if they had inserted it, would it in that case have been good to sing too, as now it is good to believe? P. Good, assuredly, and very good, as being so great a mystery of faith, as no man may disbelieve, who can attain unto it. D. Would not those same makers of the Creed have then done well, if by adding only four syllables they had made clear to all following ages so necessary a mystery of faith? P. As I dare not to say that they would not have done well if they had done so, because, without doubt, they would have done with it as with the rest which they either omitted or put in, knowing what they did, and being enlightened not by human but divine wisdom, so neither do I dare to say that they understood this point less than we: on the contrary, I say that they considered why they left it out, and why, when once left out, they forbade either it or any thing else to be added afterwards. Do thou consider, what ye think of yourselves: for as for me, I say not that I will not set myself up above (those holy Councils), but God forbid that I should either equal myself to them. D. God forbid, O Father, that we either should think or say any thing of such a kind, either of pride, or through desire to be praised of men in divine things, as if we either preferred or equalled ourselves to them; but it is only from a sense of the quality of these times, and from a charitable compassion for the weakness of our brethren :..... For if your Fatherhood knew how many thousands now know it, because it is sung, who would else have never known it, perhaps ye would hold with us, and even let it be sung with your own consent. P. Suppose for the moment that I consented, still, I pray, answer me this: Are all such like mysteries of faith, which are not contained in the Creed, and without which whoever hath sufficiency thereto cannot be a Catholic, are all such, I say, to be put into the Creed, and added at will, for the compendious instruction of the more simple? D. By no means: for all points are not equally necessary. P. If not all, yet certainly there are very many of this kind, that they who are capable must believe them, or cease to be Catholics. D. Will ye mention any one, I will not say higher, but at least such as may be compared with this, which is wanting in the Creed? P. In truth that I will, and without any difficulty. D. Mention first one, and if need be, then add a second. P. Since what we now do, we do by way of friendly contention, and what we seek is for the spiritual good of both sides, (and would that in all such questions, whether lesser or greater, pertaining to the interests of the Church and Catholicism, inquiry were always carried on in this way, with a mind for peace, and without perverseness!) lest we should chance to say any thing rashly concerning such venerable mysteries, ye shall let us have space to consider, and then we will give you whatever the Lord shall have given us on this point." And the delay of a night having been allowed as sufficient, the Pope said thus: "Is it more to salvation to believe, or more dangerous not to believe, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, than it is to believe that the Son is Divine Wisdom begotten of Divine Wisdom, that He is Divine Truth begotten of Divine Truth, and yet that Both are but One and the same Divine Wisdom, and One and the same Divine Truth, essentially One God? while yet it is certain that this has not been put by the holy Fathers into the aforesaid Creed? If then these two truths which I have alleged are enough to satisfy you, as they should satisfy wise men, and make you agree with us, and acknowledge that all those Catholic Fathers our elders, who either put not your clause into the Creeds, or forbade the putting of it or of any thing else into them, left it not out, nor forbade its insertion, either from ignorance at the time, or from negligence in providing for the future,—if so, I say, I will very gladly omit to heap up further testimonies. Ye must know however, that not only with respect to the Divine essence, but also with respect to the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation, we have by God's help, and from the authority of the same Fathers, so many and so signal points to instance, as are enough not only to satisfy wise men, but also to confound the unwise.... D .... Yet... it is one tiling, by arrogant overstepping to despise what is good, another thing of good will to make what is good better. P. That too, though sometimes good to do, yet needs caution, and is not to be done every where; as might be proved by many testimonies: but it is clear of itself, how much better it is, that every one should take care that what is good be also so, as is profitable: or if ever he strive to make that which is good better, let him look first and take great heed, lest by presuming beyond his duty he make even that which was salutary in itself hurtful by corrupting it. Unless, may be, any one will pretend of this present or other similar points, which he may without any danger to himself teach and learn, that the lawful order of teaching is to be left, and they are to be then and so introduced, that never afterwards either the teacher or the learner shall be innocent, but both shall always and deservedly be judged blameable of the crime of transgression. Which, perhaps, if thou dost not disdain to listen to me, touches thee not undeservedly, who art for bringing it to pass that whereas hitherto every one who had wisdom in the Church of God might know this truth for himself and teach it to them that had not wisdom without thought of any fault, now, for the future, I say not only the simple shall be unable to learn it, but even he that hath wisdom shall not be able to sing it without transgression, or teach it, as ye would have done, to any other; and while ye choose to seek to profit many by an unlawful road, ye leave none, in this point at least, whom, if he follow you, ye shall not hurt. For as for what ye said before, that he who should do any such thing of devotion, seeking; edification, is not to be taken or judged of in the same way as he, who should presume to make a contumacious order of so doing; this excuse, or rather, if ye will let me say it, this subterfuge, makes not to the point: it is not to your purpose. For the Fathers made no such distinction as this in their decree: nor did they allow the well-intentioned, and forbid only the ill-intentioned to do this; but simply and absolutely forbade, that any should do it. D. Hast thou not thyself given the permission to sing that same Creed in the Church ? Or is it from us that this custom of singing it hath: proceeded? For it is from hence that the custom of singing it came to us; not from us hither: and so we sing it even to this day. P. I gave permission to sing it; but not in the singing to add, take away, or change any thing. And to speak somewhat more expressly, since ye compel me, as long as ye were content in this point with what the holy Roman Church holds, as to singing or celebrating in such holy mysteries as these, there was no manner of need that either we should trouble ourselves in such matters, or force upon others occasion of trouble. But as for what ye say, that ye sing it thus for this cause, that ye heard others in those parts so sing it before yourselves, what is this to us? For we do not sing that Creed at all, but read it only, and use to teach it by reading: and yet we presume not in reading or teaching to add any thing by way of insertion to the same Creed. But whatever truths are understood to be wanting from the said Creeds though all but fit to be there, these we presume not, as I have repeatedly said, to insert into them; but at fit time and place we take care to minister and teach them to those who are capable. D. So then, as I see, this is the judgment of your Fatherhood, that first of all these words on which our question turns, be taken out of the Creed, and then afterwards it may freely and lawfully, whether by singing or delivery, be learned and taught of all. P. Such doubtless is our judgment: and we by all means urge that ye for your parts adhere to the same.’

"The same Pope further set up two silver tablets having the Creed engraved on them in Greek and Latin without the addition in the Church of St. Peter, with a notice in these words, ‘Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei:' that all might know that the Roman Church agreed not to those, who altered this common Confession of the faith by any addition or explanation."—Tract. Zoernikavii, vol. i. p. 381. ed. 1774.

VI. In accordance with the above judgment of Pope Leo, those British Bishops who treated with the Eastern Patriarchs and with the Russian Synod between the years 1716 and 1725, distinctly offered to restore the Creed to its Canonical form. For in the MS. copy of their Liturgy, which they sent in Greek to the Easterns, and which is still preserved in the Archives of the Russian Synod, there is a marginal note added at the words 'kai ek tou Uiou’ in the Creed, to this effect:—

"These words shall be left out, as soon as ever by the grace of God the union of the Churches shall be declared."



. Whence have we this Creed? A. From the Fathers of the First and Second Councils. Q. How many Oecumenical Councils have there been? A. Seven.—Orthodox Catechism, p. 17.

I. Proposals of the British Bishops to the Easterns, A.D. 1716:—"We agree in the twelve Articles of the Creed, as delivered in the First and Second General Councils, which we take to be sufficient for faith."

II. With regard to the number of the Oecumenical Councils, there can be no doubt that the first six have ever been received by the British Churches. Without multiplying quotations, it is enough to give the words of the British Bishops in their Reply to the Easterns:—

"We willingly declare, that we receive the Faith decreed in the Six General Councils."

But with regard to the Seventh General Council, commonly called, the Second of Nice, it seems to have been rejected by a great Council held at Frankfort in the West A.D. 794. And although the Gallican and British Churches, which then agreed in rejecting it, came gradually to acquiesce in its decisions, yet upon the schism between England and the Pope of Rome in the sixteenth century, the British Bishops, and indeed the British Church, seemed to reject it again, and that strongly, and to return to their former mind, pleading against it the decrees of the Council of Frankfort never yet, as they contend, formally abrogated by those Western Churches which concurred in them when they were first made.

Notwithstanding this difference, there may be found signs in the writings of later British Divines, that upon explanations being made, abuses guarded against, and misconceptions removed, there would be no real difference of opinion between the British and the Easterns on this point, nor any real obstacle to the acknowledgment of the Second Nicene Council.

III. Thorndike writes thus of this Second Council of Nice:—"That the decree of the Council enjoins no idolatry, notwithstanding whatsoever prejudice to the contrary, I must maintain as unquestionable. So far is it from leaving any room for the imagination of any false Godhead, that it expressly distinguisheth that honour done to the image of our Lord Christ to be equivocally called worship, i.e. to be only so called, but not to signify the esteem of God. He that believes the Holy Trinity, can no way attribute the latter; and therefore, if he puts off his hat, and bows the knee to the image of our Lord, it shall be no idolatry."—Epilogue, iii. p. 363.

IV. The British Bishops themselves, in their Proposals to the Easterns, seem to concede, that with some explanation, they could bring themselves to receive the Council:—

"We propose therefore, that the ninth article of the Second Council of Nice concerning the worship of Images be so explained the wisdom of the Bishops and Patriarchs of the Oriental Church, as to make it inoffensive."

Now in point of fact, no Protestant writers can go farther than the Doctors of the Eastern Church, and indeed the Church herself has gone, in explaining the Nicene decree, and in guarding against all superstitious and idolatrous worship of Images. The reader may consult the Russian Catechisms; both those now published in English, and that published at London in the reign of Peter I.': also the Orthodox Doctrine of Platon, published at Edinburgh in 1810; and the Spiritual Regulation, as given by Consett, A.D. 1729. And the truth is, that when the respect to be paid to sacred pictures or images is so taught and explained, as it is by the Eastern Church, there is no Protestant who must not confess upon reflection, that he himself both allows and pays the very same kind of respect, both inward and outward, to various inanimate representations and substances, for the sake of the associations which belong to them.

V. The following quotation is to the point. It is from a little book entitled An Apology for the Greek Church, by Edward Masson, one of the Judges in the Supreme Court of Areopagus, and formerly Attorney General for the Morea. (London, 1844.) The Author is a Scottish Presbyterian, and an admirer of what is called the Free Kirk:—

"The Greek Church expressly declares all worship" (latreia, or divine worship, the author means) "of pictures to be idolatry. On the principle that the sight of the portrait of a venerated or beloved individual awakens the respectful or affectionate remembrance of the absent or deceased original, she permits in her members a simple expression of respect for the originals at the sight of the portraits of such distinguished fellow Christians, as by their lives and deaths have glorified God. Any thing beyond this she condemns. The decree of the Seventh Council, which authorized the admission of pictures into Churches, distinctly limits the signification of the word proskunhsiV, declaring it to be exactly synonymous with aspasmoV or filhma, salutation, or kiss. It is true, the word proskunhsiV is applied also to God; and hence the necessity of fixing its meaning, as taken in connection with pictures. The same word is in use at the present day in Greece to express various degrees of respect, from the worship of God down to the ordinary salutation of a friend or neighbour."—P. 31.

And again: "It is a remarkable fact that the decision of the Second Nicene Council was at the time misunderstood by most of the Churches of the West; and by most historians is still entirely misrepresented. The Council of Frankfort and the British Churches condemned what they erroneously supposed to be the import of the Nicene decree; and unconsciously but explicitly sanctioned its real purport. They condemned the worship (latreia) of images, but deprecated the fury of the Iconoclasts. ‘The Churches of France, Germany, England, and Spain,’ says Gibbon, ‘steered a middle course between the adoration and the destruction of images, which they admitted into their temples, not as objects of worship, but as lively and useful memorials of faith and history.' Now this 'middle course' certainly comprehends all that the Nicene decree was really intended to convey. . . . The declaration of the English (British) bishops to the Synod of Russia (and the Eastern Patriarchs,) that they distinctly rejected the opinion of the Iconoclasts, admitted the use of pictures in Churches, and by no means denied that pictures, like all other things connected with religion, ought to receive a certain respect and reverence, would undoubtedly have been regarded by the Second Nicene Council as a full and satisfactory adhesion to what good Archbishop Usher calls the Second Nicene Council's 'base decree:'. . . .All misconceptions of the principle adopted in the Second Nicene Council, and held by the Greek Church, have arisen partly from the ambiguity of the terms proskunhsiV, cultus, worship, and partly from various gesticulations in religious worship, peculiar to the East, and emanating from the lively imagination of Orientals, and not unconnected with the humiliating (that is, Christianizing) political despotism to which the Eastern nations have always been subjected. ProskunhsiV, cultus, worship, all express a certain respect, the degree being fixed by the circumstances of the case or the context. ProskunhsiV, when used by the Greek Church in reference to Saints or their pictures, is exactly equivalent to the now antiquated meaning of the word worship, 'Your Worship,’ . . ‘The right Worshipful’ &c. To assert that the Greek Church actually sanctions picture-worship, is in fact as absurd, as it would be to accuse the Church of England of enjoining wife-worship, because every Anglican, when married, solemnly promises to 'worship' his wife. In the OroV or decree of the Second Nicene Council the meaning of proskunew is fixed by aspazesqai; and in the Epistle which the Council addressed to the Empress Irene and her son, both these words are declared to be exactly synonymous with filein, in reference to the ordinary expression of mutual regard, 'the salutation with a holy kiss,’ of the ancient Christians. The same Epistle points out many passages of the Septuagint, in which proskunew signifies to make a bow, to do reverence. Abraham bowed to the children of Heth; Jacob and his family bowed to Esau; David to Jonathan; &c. &c." (In the Latin the word is ‘adorare;’ as also in the passage ‘And all the people worshipped God and the King.’) "The word proskunew occurs in the Second Commandment, but coupled with latreuw which fixes its meaning. To use proskunew coupled with latreuw in reference to the pictures of Saints, would be regarded by the Greek Church as revolting blasphemy. To imprint a kiss on the memorial of a beloved object may be a harmless expression of natural feeling. The Turk, who abominates the admission of pictures into places of worship, never takes a Firman of the Sultan into his hand, without putting it to his lips, and then on his brow. Xenophon's representing Punthea as kissing the departing chariot of her gallant husband, appears natural and touching. Prostrations in worship are used by Orientals in general, by Turks, by Armenians, as well as by Greeks, whether in the presence of pictures or not."—Ib. p. 83.

See also Section XLII., and Sections xix., and xli., on this same subject, of the reception of the decrees of the Seventh General Council.


. Has each one of us his Guardian Angels? A. Without doubt. (Matt, xviii. 10.)—Orthodox Catechism, p. 24.

I. So also the Scottish Catechism of Bishop Jolly printed at Aberdeen in the year 1837 teaches, referring to the same text:—

"We are assured of the ministering aid of those Angels, who behold the face of our Father who is in heaven."—P. 54.

II. And in the Offices of the British Church, for the Day of St. Michael and all Angels, there is the following Collect:—

"Almighty God, who hast ordained and constituted the services of Angels and men in a wonderful order; mercifully grant, that as Thy holy Angels alway do Thee service in heaven, so by Thy appointment they may succour and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." .... And the Gospel which is read on that day in the Liturgy is taken from St. Matthew, ch. xviii. 1; and ends with those words referred to in the Russian and Scottish Catechisms; "For I say unto you that their Angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven" . . And in the Matins for the same day a Lesson is read, (from Acts 12, to v. 20.) in which, after the account of the delivery of Peter from prison by an Angel, it is related, that they who were gathered together praying in the house of Mary the mother of John, upon hearing that Peter stood before the gate, believed not that it was so, but said "It is his Angel."

III. Richard Montague, Bishop of Norwich, in his Treatise on the Invocation of Saints, as quoted by Forbes the First Bishop of Edinburgh, has the following passage:—

"It is an opinion received, and hath been long, that if not every man, each son of Adam, yet sure each Christian man regenerate by water and the Holy Ghost, at least from the day of his regeneration and new birth unto God, if not from the time of his coming into the world, hath by God's appointment and assignation an Angel Guardian to attend upon him at all assayes, in all his ways, at his going forth, at his coming home .... ‘Parum est fecisse Angelos tuos, fecisti et Custodes parvulorum,’ who continually behold the face of their Father in Heaven . . .This being supposed to be so,... I see no absurdity in nature, no incongruity unto analogy of faith, no repugnancy at all to Sacred Scripture, much less impiety, for any man to say, ‘Sancte Angele Custos, ora pro me.'"—Consid. Modest, p. 327.



. Why was Eve made from a rib of Adam? A. To the end that all mankind might be by origin naturally disposed to love and defend one another.—Orthodox Catechism, p. 26.

I. Besides this reason, another and a higher is signified by the Apostles and by the Fathers in those passages of their writings, in which they notice the analogy which was designed between the two Creations of Nature and of Grace, and the subordination of the first to the second. This higher reason is, that the formation of the first woman Eve, the mother of all living, from the first man Adam, and their union in matrimony, might be a type as well as an instrumental preparation for the creation of the Spiritual Eve from the side of the Second Adam, and her mystical union or marriage with that Husband, who is the Uncreated Image of the Father. So in the English Office for Matrimony we find the following words:—

"O God, who by Thy mighty power hast made all things of nothing; who also (after other things set in order) didst appoint that out of man (created after Thine own image and similitude) woman should take her beginning.... O God, who hast consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent Mystery, that in it is signified and represented the Spiritual Marriage and Unity betwixt Christ and His Church, &c."



. How does the Church speak of Predestination? A. Thus: ‘As He foresaw that some would use well their free will, but others ill, He accordingly predestined the former to glory, while the latter He condemned’ ... Q. In what sense is it said, that the Son of God came down from heaven ‘for us men?’ A. In this, that He came ‘for us men’ universally.—Orthodox Catechism, p. 27. 30.

I. George Bull, Bishop of St. Asaph, in his "Examen Censurae, &c.:"—"Let us listen to the learned Bishop Overall: ‘Concerning the death of Christ,’ he says, ‘so plain and consistent is the opinion of our Church that our Lord Jesus Christ died for all men whatsoever, or for all the sins of all men, that it is wonderful how any have dared to controvert this point.’ In Art. VII. (of the XXXIX.) ‘Both in the Old and New Testament everlasting is offered to mankind by Christ.’ In Art. XV. ‘Christ came to be the Lamb, who should take away the sins of the world.’ In Art. XXXI. ‘The offering of Christ is that perfect propitiation for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.’ The same is taught in the common Catechism, as the plainest meaning of the Second Article of the Creed, in which every one is to believe in God the Son,’ who redeemed him and all mankind.’ So in the Nicene Creed, ‘Who for us men, and for our salvation, &c.’ And in many places of our Liturgy; as in the Consecration of the Eucharist, . . . ' God, who didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there by His one oblation ... a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world,’ &c."—Ed. 1843. p. 331.

And again: "Granting these two positions, 1. that Christ has truly redeemed even those who perish; and, 2. that it is possible for those who really believe in Christ and have been justified by Him, thoroughly to fall away from faith and justification, and to perish everlastingly; and these are plain and undoubted doctrines of our Church; the whole system and machinery of what is called Calvinism falls to the ground.... It is of no use to refer here to the Article on Predestination; nor shall I enter into any controversy with any one on any predestination of God so maintained, as not to overturn these two fundamental points clearly laid down by our Church. I contend for this one thing only; that on account of the uncertain and various ideas and speculations of God's secret predestination, we must not deny such clear and established doctrines both of Scripture and of our own, and of the Catholic Church, as these are; but rather believe that these secret things are so to be explained by what is revealed and plain to us, that the one may be consistent with the other. Our Church in her Seventeenth Article has so cautiously given the doctrine of Predestination, that no Catholic can have any cause for rejecting the Article. But even after she has so prudently and cautiously explained this doctrine, she altogether draws away her sons from any speculation respecting it, and disallows that our life is to be directed by any conception concerning Predestination, as by a rule. On the contrary, she teaches, 'that God's promises must be received in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared to us in the Word of God.’ (Art. XVII.) In truth, for the first four centuries no Catholic ever dreamed about that Predestination, which many at this day consider the basis and foundation of the whole Christian religion.... Touching the providence of God, they were satisfied in believing, that God knows beforehand all the actions of all men, and that He also rules and disposes the same as seemeth best to His wisdom, justice, and goodness, saving always that liberty which He has given to man ever continuing unencroached upon. Whether from those more minute definitions of the predestination of God, which were made in the heated controversy of St. Augustine with Pelagius, any gain accrued to Catholic truth, Christian piety, and the peace of the Church, or whether we have not rather thence to lament over schism, and very grievous errors, (as those of the Predestinarians), and a falling off in the morals of men, let those well taught in the history of the Church decide."

And he quotes thereupon the following passage from St. Prosper: "Ancient opinions on this matter being reviewed, nearly all were found to agree upon the way in which they should understand the purpose and predestination of God according to His foreknowledge, namely, that God had made some vessels to honour, some to dishonour, for this reason, because He foresaw the end of each, and foreknew what would be his will and actions under the help of His grace."—Ib. p. 341.

II. The difference between the (Presbyterian, or Calvinistic) Kirk and the (true) Church of Scotland exemplified, by the Rev. Robert Calder:—

"The Presbyterians are great perverters of the holy Scriptures, which may be proved by many instances. . . . They make no scruple of charging God with their own sins, by their Turkish doctrine of Predestination.... We, on the other hand, do adhere to the holy Scriptures in their own genuine sense. As for Predestination, we hold that there being neither first nor second as to time in God, who seeth what is past, present, and to come with one view, therefore there is no such thing as Predestination strictly taken; and that the words in holy writ, from which they infer the Calvinistic Predestination, are only ad captum nostrum; just as God is said to have eyes, ears, or to repent. We hold that men may fall from grace finally; and that sin does always pollute the sinner; and that nothing less than the blood of Christ can wash it off. Also we hold that faith to be naught, which does not produce good works: and that faith is a giving credit to God’s revealed will, as it is a body of divine laws, fitly adapted to the promoting of God’s honour and glory by us, and our own salvation."—P. 19. Reprint of 1841, from the ed. of 1712.

III. The difference stated between the Presbyterian Establishment and the Episcopal Church of Scotland by the Rev. James Milne, Priest of St. Andrew's Chapel, Banff: —

"The Presbyterian Establishment professes Calvinism, and teaches, that ‘none are redeemed by Jesus Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only; that the Holy Spirit, in drawing the elect out of a state of sin and death, exerts His influences on subjects altogether passive, and by His Almighty power determines them to what is good; that the elect can neither totally nor finally fall away from a state of grace; &c.’ On the other hand, the Church teaches, that ‘God has predestinated to life all who perform the conditions of the Gospel Covenant; &c.’ The system of the Presbyterian (or Calvinistic) Establishment is built on the doctrine of absolute irrespective Predestination; whereas, the system of the Church is built on the doctrine of universal Redemption, and conditional salvation."—Ed. of 1811. p. 41, 44.

IV. Ford, on the XXXIX Articles, A.D. 1720:—

"And besides that, as we thus see, our Church is quite averse from the doctrine of absolute Predestination, we know well that all antiquity is contrary to this opinion: there being none to be found of all the old Fathers, who wrote before Augustine, who has ever any where interpreted God's decrees of the salvation and condemnation of man in any other sense than this, that God has decreed everlasting rewards or punishments for each according as He had foreseen that their lives would be holy or wicked; and had also foreseen the cause: teaching distinctly, that the cause that any miss eternal happiness and fall into the torment of hell is not in God, but in the men themselves: nor did Augustine himself differ from the rest in this, at least before he had waxed warm in the Pelagian Controversy. 'Nemo eligitur, nisi jam distans ab illo qui rejicitur. Unde quod dictum est, quia elegil nos Deus ante mundi constitutionein, non video quomodo sit dictum, nisi praescientia scilicet meritorum, i.e. fidei, et operun pietatis.'" (Aug. ad Simp. ix. 2.)—P. 143.

V. A Friendly Address on Baptismal Regeneration, by Alexander Jolly, late Bishop of Moray in Scotland, A.D. 1826:—

"Redemption, then, is universal, the accomplishment of an absolute promise. But salvation is conditional, to be enjoyed upon terms; and by failing to comply with them, we may come short of it. Our Lord, of His boundless love, would have all men to be saved; but although He made and redeemed us without ourselves, He will not save us without ourselves. Having made perfect our redemption by His death, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him. ‘Blessed, then, are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.’"—P. 8. ed. 1841.

VI. The Scottish Catechism of Aberdeen, A.D. 1829:—

"Q. Did Jesus Christ die for all mankind, or only for a few? A. He died for all mankind. Q. But are there not some conditions required on man’s part, in order to his being saved by the death of Christ? A. Yes; there are several conditions, &c."—P. 7.

And the Catechism of the Diocese of Brechin:—

"A. The Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, for our recovery from sin and death, took upon Him our nature, and by His meritorious righteousness and sufferings obtained for us the pardon of our sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. Q. Are these blessings freely offered to all? A. Yes; in the Gospel they are freely offered to all, who truly repent and believe in our blessed Saviorir."—P. 7.

Project Canterbury