Browne both appear to hold that it was aimed against the belief in the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin. This does not, however, appear probable for the following reasons:—

1. The Blessed Virgin is not mentioned in the Article. As a rule the Articles are perfectly direct and plain spoken in their condemnation of erroneous views, and if their compilers had had this doctrine in view it is most unlikely that they would have contented themselves with so indirect a condemnation of it.

2. Much of the Article is on this hypothesis unnecessary. Why was it needful to say so much about Christ's perfect humanity and atonement in order to condemn the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception?

3. The expression in the Article is, "all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ," etc., and it would be perfectly open to a Romanist to hold that the Blessed Virgin was never baptized, and that, therefore, her case is not considered in the Article at all! 2

4. At the time when the Articles were drawn up there was no need to condemn the doctrine, as it was not held de fide in the Roman Church.3

A far more probable view is that this Article (like the following one) was aimed against the errors of some

1 Articles, p. 347.

2 This is actually the view taken by Francis a Sancta Clara (Davenport), a Franciscan, who wrote a Commentary on the Articles in 1633, endeavouring to reconcile them with the Tridentine decrees. See his Paraphrastica Expositio, p. 20.

3 The doctrine was first definitely discussed by the schoolmen, the Franciscans upholding it, the Dominicans (including Aquinas) denying it (see Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, vol. ii. p. 260). The Council of Trent managed to remain neutral and to avoid a condemnation of either party, merely stating that it was not intended to include the Blessed Virgin in the decree on original sin (Session V.). It was reserved for Pope Pius IX. to declare the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be an article of faith by his Bull of December 9, 1854.

among the Anabaptists. in it tells, for among these fanatics were some who revived docetic notions of our Lord's humanity, some who denied His atonement and asserted His sinfulness, and others who had the hardihood to maintain that the regenerate could not sin. Nowhere do we find a clearer statement of their errors, or a better commentary on this and the following Article, than in the letter of Bishop Hooper, which has been already quoted in the first volume of this work.1 Similarly, in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum we meet with a condemnation of the very same errors.2 And in the light of these passages we may safely conclude that the real object of the Article was to condemn in plain and direct terms the heresies of those who denied our Lord's true humanity, sinlessness, and atonement, while maintaining their own entire freedom from sin.

On this hypothesis every word

and

Since the doctrines of our Lord's human nature and of His atonement were considered under Article II., that of human depravity came before us in connection

1 See p. 22.

...

De Hares. cap. 5. "De duabus naturis Christi. Alii eum sic Deum judicant ut hominem non agnoscant, et de corpore nugantur de cœlo divinitus assumpto, et in virginis uterum lapso, quod tanquam in transitu per Mariam quasi per canalem aut fistulam præterfluxerit.

"Cap. 8. De perfectione justificatorum, et de operibus supererogationis. Illorum etiam superbia legibus nostris est frangenda, qui tantam vitæ perfectionem hominibus justificatis attribuunt, quantam nec imbecillitas nostræ naturæ fert, nec quisquam sibi præter Christum sumere potest; nimirum ut omnis peccati sint expertes, si mentem ad recte pieque vivendum instituerint. Et hanc volunt absolutam morum perfectionem in hanc præsentem vitam cadere, cum debilis ipsa sit, et fragilis, et ad omnes virtutis et officii ruinas præceps, etc.

"Cap. 9. De casu justificatorum et peccato in Spiritum Sanctum. Etiam illi de justificatis perverse sentiunt, qui credunt illos, postquam justi semel facti sunt, in peccatum non posse incidere, aut si forte quicquam eorum faciunt, quæ Dei legibus prohibentur, ea Deum pro peccatis non accipere."

with Article IX., and will require to be noticed under Article XVI., it is unnecessary to say more upon them here. The only point touched on in this Article on which nothing has so far been said directly, is that of our Lord's sinlessness. On this matter the evidence of Scripture is clear and precise. (a) Not only is there no hint or indication of sin in any word or action attributed to Him, but His challenge to the Jews, "Which of you convinceth Me of sin?" (S. John viii. 46), and His declaration on the eve of His Passion," the prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me" (S. John xiv. 30), are clearly the utterances of one who was absolutely free from all taint of sin.1 (b) Reference should also be made to the definite statements of the apostles. S. Peter, S. Paul, S. John, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews all agree in directly asserting His sinlessness.

"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," 1 Pet. ii. 22. "Him who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf," 2 Cor. v. 21.2 "He wa manifested to take away sins, and in Him is no sin," 1 John iii. 5. "One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," Heb. iv. 15. "Such an high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this He did once for all, when He offered up Himself," Heb. vii. 26, 27.

Such passages as these are amply sufficient to justify 1 Cf. Liddon's Bampton Lectures, p. 23.

* Cf. Rom. viii. 3: ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας. "The flesh of Christ is 'like' ours inasmuch as it is flesh: 'like,' and only 'like,' because it is not sinful: Ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati, Filium vero Dei similitudinem habuisse carnis peccati, non carnem peccati (Orig.-lat.).” -Sanday and Headlam in loc.

the statement of the Article that Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which He was clearly void, both in His flesh and in His spirit.. and sin (as S. John saith) was not in Him.2

1

..

1 Lat. prorsus. Clearly thoroughly, completely, unreservedly. It is so used in Piers the Plowman, "Thei shul be clensed clereliche and wasshen of her sinnes in my prisoun purgatorie" (B. xviii. 389), and later in Fitzherbert's 'Surveyinge' (A.D. 1525): "Lette a man make a castell, towre, or any maner of newe buildings and finysshe it clerely." Other instances of a similar use of the word are given in Murray's New English Dictionary, s.v.

2 On the subject of our Lord's absolute sinlessness (the "non posse peccare" as well as posse non peccare"), and its compatibility with liability to real temptation, see an article on "Our Lord's Human Example" in the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xvi. p. 282; Gore's Bampton Lectures, p. 165; Liddon's Bampton Lectures, Appendix; Mill's Sermons on the Temptation, p. 24; and R. L. Ottley's Doctrine of the Incarnation, vol. ii. p. 293.

ARTICLE XVI

De peccato post Baptismum.

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

Of Sin after Baptism.

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

THE title of this Article in the first edition of 1553 was De peccato in Spiritum Sanctum ("Of Sin against the Holy Ghost"). This was altered in 1563 into De lapsis post Baptismum ("Of Sin after Baptism "); and at the final revision of 1571 the Latin was made to correspond more. closely with the English by the substitution of the present phrase, "De peccato post Baptismum." In two other expressions in the body the Article slight changes have also been made. "Lotifs pœnitentiæ" was in 1553 translated in the English version by "place for penitentes," and place for penitence" in 1563; "grant of repentance" being inserted in 1571; at which time "locus venia" in the last sentence was substituted for "locus pœnitentiæ.”