Clement VI. says 'to the heap of which treasure the merits of the blessed mother of God and of all the saints add support.'

To one knowing the New Testament it is sufficient refutation to state the doctrine thus fully and broadly. But we add the following observations:

1. If Christ's merits are infinite, how can finite additions increase them? Infinity plus worlds is still only infinity.

2. The root of the error lies in the fundamental heresies noted under the previous Articles, relating to the nature of original sin; salvation by grace; the state of the justified; the works of the justified, &c.

3. The full antidote is to be found in the relation of the Christian to God. Reconciled in Christ he is a son, not a servant. His good works are the outflowing of filial affection, not works of a servant wrought for wages. So far as they are otherwise they are not in him good works at all.

4. The Twelfth Article has taught us that the good works of the justified cannot endure the severity of God's judgment. They can still less supply the deficiencies of other men, even if God had anywhere promised to accept such a substitution.

5. They who scoff at the imputation of Christ's righteousness as an unreal mockery of goodness have accepted the most unreal mockery of all, namely the merits of one sinner applied to the redemption of another sinner, neither being in the least cognisant of the transaction (see Aquinas above).

ARTICLE XV.

Of Christ alone without Sin.

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

De Christo, qui solus est sine peccato.

Christus in nostræ naturæ veritate, per omnia similis factus est nobis, excepto peccato, a quo prorsus erat immunis, tum in carne, tum in spiritu. Venit ut agnus,

absque macula, qui mundi peccata per immolationem sui semel factam tolleret, et peccatum (ut inquit Johannes) in eo non erat: sed nos reliqui etiam baptizati, et in Christo regenerati, in multis tamen offendimus omnes. Et si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XV.

The Latin title is slightly more definite than the English, 'qui solus est sine peccato.' 'Clearly void' is in the Latin 'prorsus immunis.' 'Clearly' must therefore be understood not in the sense of manifestly, but so as to be clear,' entirely void.'

There are only one or two very slight verbal differences between this Article and the fourteenth of 1552. The history of the text presents no feature of special interest.

THE CHIEF DIVISIONS OF ARTICLE XV.

1. That Christ was 'very man ' has been already demonstrated under Article II. This is reasserted, with the addition of the absolute sinlessness of our Lord both in flesh and spirit. 2. This sinlessness made Him the perfect and sufficient sacrifice.

3. No other human being is free from sin.

The proofs from Scripture may be directed to establish these several propositions.

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE XV.

We have noticed already (p. 63) the presumption of some of the Anabaptists, who asserted that they had attained a sinless condition. This will further come under notice in the next Article. Neither need we comment further on the Pelagian notion of the possibility of a man leading a perfectly holy life. The history of the Article will mainly centre in the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. In Field's. learned Book of the Church,' there will be found a full exposition of the novelty of this opinion. It was first definitely discussed by the schoolmen. About A.D. 1300, Duns. Scotus made it part of his system, and thenceforward the Scotists and Franciscans upheld it. On the other hand, the Thomists and Dominicans, following Thomas Aquinas,. opposed it.

1

Early in the sixteenth century, the imposture practised by some Dominicans at Berne on the young monk Jetzer made this contest notorious.2 In the age of the Reformation the Roman Church was about equally divided on the subject. Cardinal Cajetan, well known in the history of Luther, presented a treatise to Leo X., controverting the doctrine as novel and untrue. From this treatise, Field (ut supra) gives the following extract:

'St. Augustine, writing upon the thirty-fourth Psalm, saith

1 Append. III. 6.

2 Sec D'Aubigné, 'Hist. of Ref.' viii. 2.

K

that" Adam died for sin; that Mary who came out of the loins of Adam died for sin; but that the flesh of the Lord, which He took of the Virgin Mary, died to take away sin.” And in his second book, “De Baptismo Parvulorum,” “He only, who ceasing not to be God became man, never had sin, neither did He take the flesh of sin, or sinful flesh, though He took the flesh of His mother that was sinful." And in his tenth book, "De Genesi ad literam," he saith: "Though the body of Christ were taken of the flesh of a woman that was conceived out of the propagation of sinful flesh, yet because He was not so conceived of her as she was conceived, therefore it was not sinful flesh, but the similitude of sinful flesh." And St. Ambrose, upon those words, Blessed are the undefiled, hath these words: "The Lord Jesus came; and that flesh that was subject to sin in His mother performed the warfare of virtue." And St. Chrysostom, upon Matthew, saith: "Though Christ was no sinner, yet He took the nature of man, of a woman that was a sinner." And Eusebius Emissenus (about 350), in his second sermon upon the Nativity, hath these words: "There is none free from the tie and bond of original sin, no, not the mother of the Redeemer." St. Remigius (about 850) saith: "The blessed Virgin Mary was made clean from all stain of sin, that the man Christ Jesus might be conceived of her without sin.' St. Maximus, St. Bede, St. Bernard, and other Romish saints, are in like manner quoted.

Scotus himself propounded the doctrine of the immaculate conception cautiously, whilst Thomas Aquinas, following Lombard and the earlier doctors of the Church, absolutely denied it.

At the Council of Trent the two conflicting doctrines on the immaculate conception came into open collision.

The matter was referred to the Pope, who suggested a middle course. There was therefore the following rider attached to the first decree of the fifth Session :

'This Holy Council, however, declares that it is not their intention to comprehend in this decree, where it treats of original sin, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the

mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the penalties contained in these constitutions, which the Council renews.'

These constitutions also were neutral. In 1476 Sixtus IV. forbad the Franciscans to be accused of heresy on this point. But though he favoured the Franciscans, he did not pro nounce any decision on the doctrine.

Since the era of the Reformation, mainly perhaps through the dominant influence of the Jesuits, the belief in the immaculate conception has more and more widely prevailed in the Roman Church. Finally (December 9, 1854), Pius IX. issued his bull, declaring the belief in that doctrine to be a matter of faith, almost without opposition.

The notion of the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary will be found in an earlier form than that which has ultimately prevailed in the Roman Church. Many who held that she was conceived in sin, thought that she was either sanctified in the womb, or at least from her birth, so as to be without sin. These ideas will be found in some of the quotations in the extract given above from Cajetan. Augustine thought it more reverential to abstain from discussing the question. Origen and Chrysostom, commenting on her history in the Gospels, distinctly attribute sin to her. For fuller details on this subject the student is referred to Field (ut supra).