4. Tridentine Decision. So the case stood until for the Latin Communion the controversy was decided by a majority of the Tridentine Fathers. Ignoring the opinions of early writers eminent for their learning and piety, and the belief of the orthodox Eastern Branch of the Catholic Church: ignoring also the fact that the additional books were confessedly wanting in the Canon which our Lord Himself received and acknowledged, the Council not only admitted these books to an authority absolutely equal with that of the undoubted word of God, but anathematised all persons who should venture to hold the contrary opinion1.

It is but fair to add that some eminent Romanists have sought to modify the severity of the Tridentine decree: Du Pin, for instance, was willing to accept for the Apocryphal books the title "Deutero-Canonical "." In making this admission however there is little doubt that (if it is to be regarded as of any real worth) he was contravening the plain language of the Council and exposing himself to its anathema.

5. Anglican use of the "Apocrypha "." A word S. John Damascene (VIII), Nicephorus (IX), Hugo of S. Victor (XII).

1 "This fatal decree, in which the Council, harassed by the fear of lay critics and 'grammarians,' gave a new aspect to the whole question of the Canon, was ratified by 53 prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity." Westcott, Bible in the Church, p. 257.

Pusey, Eirenicon, p. 217.

=

3 The term Apocrypha ["secret"- 'spurious" writings] has been employed throughout this section in conformity with modern usage and the authority of S. Jerome. It belongs more properly to the forged books of heretics: "ecclesiastical" or "disputed" is the usual title of the uncanonical books in the writings of the Fathers.

must be said as to the Anglican use of the Apocryphal writings. The Church of England, after ejecting these books from the Canon, does not proceed with some bodies of Protestants to eject them from the office of teaching. If the Apocryphal books cannot establish doctrine, they can and do teach much salutary truth. As forming a link of connection between the Old and New Testaments; as composed by men whose style of thought and feeling was cast in the mould of the Old Testament Scriptures; as the product of an age in which it may have been that the last throbbings of inspiration were not yet extinct: finally, as accepted in this lower sense by the judgment of the whole Primitive Church of Christ, the Ecclesiastical or Apocryphal books are still by the English Church deemed worthy of study and regard. Whether our Reformers acted wisely in retaining them in the public lectionary of the Church, may perhaps be matter of opinion even among loyal members of the Anglican Communion; that they were right in not expelling them altogether from the catalogue of sacred books cannot be questioned. The Church

of England does but speak the language of the purest Christian times, when with S. Athanasius she says of her present canon, "These are the wells of salvation; in these alone is the doctrine of godliness taught1:" and yet holds with S. Epiphanius, “that the ecclesiastical books are useful and of profit though they fall not within the number of the Canonical."

1 Fest. Ep. XXXIX.

2 De Mensuris, p. 162.

CHAPTER II.

OF ORIGINAL SIN.

actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." Office for Public Baptism.

"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....But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Article XV.

Under this head there are two points of differences, the first, perhaps chiefly verbal: the second, of importance in many points of view. These relate to

(1) The removal of Original Sin in Baptism.

(2) The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

§i. Removal of Original Sin in Baptism.

1. Statement of Difference. The English Church teaches that one effect of Baptism in the case of believing adults and of all infants who die before they commit actual sin is to remit the condemnation attaching to original sin. The Church of Rome adds that the infection of original sin is also removed; for the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate or baptized is not in itself sinful, although it tends to sin and practically issues in acts of sin.

2. Grounds of the Anglican View. The Council of Trent confesses that S. Paul calls concupiscence

sin (Rom. vii. 7). But it proceeds to explain that sin is here equivalent to that which comes from sin and leads to sin. Our Anglican divines preferred to adhere to the plain teaching of the Apostle's words. A tendency to sin, they reasonably thought, is in itself the symptom of spiritual disease; that which is the parent of all human sin (S. James i. 14, 15) cannot itself be free from the nature of sin1.

The Tridentine view seems in fact to rest upon an imperfect theory of original sin. From the history of the Council' it appears that the proposition that “original sin is a corruption of the whole man in his will soul and body," was tolerated only on the understanding that this corruption is solely privative. It would seem as if the Synod, though it shrank from giving an exact definition of original sin, inclined toward the view of the Schoolmen, who taught that original sin is simply the loss of original righteousness, a negative rather than a positive evil, a defect rather than a fault. This defect was thought to be sufficiently supplied by the justifying grace of Baptism, and hence the assertion of the Council that Baptism eliminates the sin as well as the condemnation which is derived from Adam.

But such a view of original sin appears to fall far short of the teaching of Holy Scripture. Scripture describes human nature, in so far as it is unrenewed, as "corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. iv. 22), "enmity against God" (Rom. viii. 7), "evil from [its] youth" (Gen. viii. 21); and though it exempts from condemnation those that believe and are baptized

1 Dr Pusey thinks that the English Reformers were perfectly at one with the Council on this point (Eirenicon, p. 18, and note). Bp. Forbes holds the same view (Articles, 1. p. 150). The reader will be able to form his own judgment from the documents laid before him on p. 20.

Sarpi (transl. Brent), p. 175.