one for an opportunity of changing a former decision, so that the consequences no longer follow. It occurs in Latin writers, e.g. 4 Esdr. ix. 12, as well as the Jurists 1 and others, being used in Pliny's famous letter to Trajan on the Christians, where he expresses a hope of their improvement if a "locus pœnitentiæ" is granted to them.2 The Greek equivalent, τόπος μετανοίας, is also found in Wisd. xii. 10, as well as in early Christian writers, by whom it was probably taken from Heb. xii. 17, where the Vulgate renders it by "locus pœnitentiæ." "Locus venia" does not seem to be of such frequent occurrence. It is used, however, by Tertullian in De Pudicitia, c. xviii.

II. The Possibility of Falling from Grace.

On this subject the teaching of the Article is clear and decided. 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. These statements are primarily aimed against the teaching of the Anabaptists, who maintained that a man who is regenerate cannot sin. Such teaching is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. The Lord's Prayer, which was surely meant to be a prayer to be used by all men, recognises the need of forgiveness for all; and the language of the Apostles addressed to believers throughout the Epistles assumes that all have sinned and come

1 Bishop Westcott (on Heb. xii. 17) quotes Ulpian, ap. Corp. J. C., Dig. XL. tit. vii. 3, § 13.

2 Pliny, Epp. x. 97.

8

E.g. Clem. Rom. ad Cor. I. vii.; Tatian, c. Græc. xv.; Const. Apost. II. xxxviii., V. xix.

short of the glory of God. There are, however, some words in the First Epistle of S. John to which the Anabaptists and others who maintained a theory of perfection could point in support of the statement that the regenerate cannot sin, namely, 1 John iii. 6, 9: "Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither knoweth Him. . . . Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because His seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God" (cf. also c. v. 18. "Whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not "). Strong as these words are, it must be remembered that the writer who uses them has already in an earlier passage of the same Epistle said emphatically: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." These words are perfectly general, and seem quite incompatible with the notion that S. John teaches that any man can claim total immunity from sin and the possibility of sinning here on earth. How, then, is the later passage, previously cited, to be understood? It must certainly be qualified by what has already been said by the writer, and therefore we need feel no hesitation in pressing the present tenses, οὐκ ἁμαρτάνει, ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, and saying that they refer to a habit and practice rather than to isolated acts. It is true that the believer often falls into sin, yet sin is not the ruling principle of his life, and in so far as he is really born of God and abides in Him, "he sinneth not." If it be urged that thus to interpret the words is to explain away the language of Scripture, it may fairly be replied that "the only possible escape from such modification is

1

by asserting the possibility of sinlessness, which contradicts i. 8, or else by asserting that none of us have seen God, and none of us are children of God, which contradicts the whole Epistle ";1 and as there are no other passages of Scripture which give any countenance to the theory of sinless perfection in this life, the Article is perfectly justified in its assertions, that "after we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin," and that "they are to be condemned which say they can no more sin so long as they live here."

It will be noticed that after laying down that we may depart from grace, the Article says further, "We may arise again and amend our lives." It is important to notice that the word is may, not must, for herein lies a marked difference between the teaching of the Church of England and the Calvinistic tenet of "indefectible grace"; for Calvin and his followers, while rejecting the Anabaptist notion that the "regenerate" cannot sin, nevertheless taught that those who were once made Christ's own, though they might fall away for a time, could not permanently and finally lose His grace. Thus the statement of our Article has always been a stumbling-block to them. So early as 1572 the authors of the Second

1 Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 434. See also Westcott, Epistles of S. John, p. 101. "Sinneth not. The commentary on this phrase is found in ch. i. 6. It describes a character, 'a prevailing habit,' and not primarily an act. Each separate sinful act does as such interrupt the fellowship; and yet so far as it is foreign to the character of the man, and removed from him (ii. 1), it leaves his character unchanged." Reference may also be made to Dr. Plummer's note in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. 124.

2 See the fifth and sixth of the "Lambeth Articles." "A true, living, and justifying faith-the Spirit of God sanctifying—is not extinguished, does not fall away, does not vanish in the elect either totally or finally." "A truly faithful man, that is, one endowed with justifying faith, is certain by the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and his eternal salvation through Christ."

Admonition to Parliament were forced to admit that "the book of the articles of Christian religion speaketh very dangerously of falling from grace, which is to be reformed because it savoureth too much of error." And at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 a suggestion was made that after the statement that we "may depart from grace given," there should be added the qualifying words, "yet neither totally nor finally." Happily no notice was taken of these criticisms, and the sober statement of the Article remained unqualified. The whole tenor of Scripture implies the possibility of falling from grace; and if S. Paul had reason to fear lest, when he had preached to others, he himself "should be rejected" become reprobate” (ådóriμos), 1 Cor. ix. 27, it is hard to understand how men can be found to deny the same possibility in the case of others. The subject is closely connected with the whole doctrine of Predestination, and will therefore come before us again in connection with the Seventeenth Article, where something will be said on the Calvinistic system in general. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the matter more fully here.

or

1 See p. 53 seq.

ARTICLE XVII