by Consett, A.D. 1729. And the truth is, that when the respect to be NOTE VI. 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" (λarpela, 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 προσκύνησις, declaring it to be exactly synonymous with ἀσπασμὸς οι píλŋua, salutation, or kiss. It is true, the word роσкúνησis 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 (λarpela) 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 rever

...

NOTE ence, would undoubtedly have been regarded by the Second Nicene VI. 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 роσkúνnσis, 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. Iроσкúvησis, cultus, worship, all express a certain respect, the degree being fixed by the circumstances of the case or the context. Пpookúνnois, 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 "Opos or decree of the Second Nicene Council the meaning of προσκύνειν is fixed by ἀσπάζεσθαι; 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 pixeîv, 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 πроσкʊvéw 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 роσkvvéw occurs in the Second Commandment, but coupled with λατρεύω, which fixes its meaning. Το use προσκυνέω coupled with XaTpeúw 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 Panthea 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.

NOTE

NOTE VII.~

Q. 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.

VII.

NOTE
VIII.

NOTE VIII.

Q. 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.”

NOTE IX.

Q. 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 Censuræ, &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

IX.

life is offered to mankind by Christ.' In Art. xv. 'Christ came to be the NOTE 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