Divine as an outer robe, and that while He remained one Person-the one eternal Logos-yet He might be said to possess, after the Incarnation, though indissolubly united, both a Divine and a human nature. Yet he would clearly have insisted, as St. Cyril did, that the two natures were to be distinguished only in thought (xar' Tívolav, or, to use St. Cyril's phrase, Oewpią μóvy). The truth of the 'Communicatio Idiomatum' is also emphasized by Apollinarius, who insists on the one hand that God is impassible, and yet on the other that it was really God who suffered in the Flesh upon the Cross. For this he was abused by his contemporaries, who accused him of Sabellianism, but justified by posterity, for in the Theopaschite controversy of the sixth century the Church finally accepted this truth; the monks, it will be remembered, rather questionably asserting the dominant thought of the Church by adding the words' Who wast crucified for us' to the Trisagion.

(3) In the third place, we must give Apollinarius all due credit for his earnest defence of the truth of Christ's Divinity. He assisted St. Athanasius most efficiently in the Arian struggle, and the first part of the Contra Eunomium is practically a treatise on the Divinity of our Lord. Similarly he prefaces his De Incarnatione with the statement that both the infidels and the heretics really went about to prove the same thing, viz. that Christ was only a holy man, in whom God dwelt in larger measure than in other men (äveрwπos Evɛos). And of course the very nature of his heresy, which practically denies the reality of our Lord's human nature, shows that he was strongly opposed to any humanitarian views of Christ. But his zeal carried him too far. Yet it must be allowed that it was better to err on the side of too great reverence for our Lord, than to fall into the opposite

error.

From the general merits of Apollinarius as a theologian, we pass to the character of the man himself. What personal estimate ought we to form of him? From the way in which his friends speak of him, he appears to have been greatly revered for his learning, and for the greater part of his life he was the close friend of St. Athanasius. Epiphanius, when first informed of his heresy, was very unwilling to believe anything against the venerable old man, and wrote to St. Basil for further information. But St. Basil could then tell him nothing more than he knew already. Indeed, he showed

1 Contra Eunomium, 293 C.

2 De Incarnatione, editio Zacagni, p. 130; Dogmatica, xv. 381,

8-12.

an equal indisposition to credit the sinister reports which his monks sent him of the strange doctrine which his old friend was now disseminating, and would take no steps to inquire into the matter, unwilling again to disturb the peace of the Church. But subsequently even St. Basil was obliged to break off communion with one who had departed from the faith. Thus we see that Apollinarius for the greater part of his life was personally most highly esteemed by his friends, and respected by the whole Church. His general orthodoxy appears to have never been called in question till the eighth decade of the fourth century. Indeed, his writings give one the impression not only of an orthodox, but a deeply reverent mind, willing to submit unquestioningly to what is de fide. This appears in such passages as the following:

'In approaching God, to ask "how" is a clear proof of unbelief.' ' 'It is clear to all that mischievous and over-curious inquiries about the Divine Being, especially in a spirit of unbelief, are the offspring of a diseased soul.' 2 For I will not blush to confess ignorance, nay, I will rather boast of it, believing, as I do, in what no tongue can utter, and initiated into mysteries the very conception of which is beyond the powers of reason and intelligence.' But whenever I encounter difficulty in my search after Divine truth, then I exclaim at the wonder of the Christian mystery, how it passes our powers of mind, of reason, of comprehension.' 4

It seems strange that he should have violated his own principles so conspicuously. But we are tempted to think that, in spite of these protestations of intellectual humility, the great reputation which he enjoyed as a teacher insensibly led him to some degree of intellectual pride, and that he came to regard his own expositions of doctrine and Scripture as infallible. He was most certainly grievously wrong, not only in promulgating his own private speculations, but also in originating a schism in the Church. In reply to the anathemas of the Church, he appears to have summoned a Council himself, and to have issued a synodal letter in justification of his views; so that, even if the Gregories and others largely misunderstood his real teaching, there can be no doubt that his universal condemnation was based on just grounds.

In conclusion, we must express our thanks to his German editor for the most interesting study of his life and writings which he has given us. Both the preservation and the rediscovery of his writings are extraordinary. The original fraud by which they were preserved, the chain of circum1 De Trinitate, ch. xiv. 386 B. Contra Eunomium, p. 313C. $ De Trinitate, ch. xi. 382 B. 4 Ibid. ch. xvi. 388 B.

2

stances which in an uncritical age led to the partial discovery of this fraud, and the skill and ingenuity which have enabled scholars of the nineteenth century to reveal still more extensive forgeries than the scholars of the fifth and sixth centuries suspected, are alike remarkable.

ART. VIII. PREPARATIONS FOR THE SECOND PRAYER BOOK OF EDWARD VI.

Some Scarce Published Works of 1549-52.

IN our notice of the scarce publications of the early part of the reign of Edward VI. we had occasion to describe only those which had preceded the publication of the First Prayer Book of 1549 which was intended to be in use in all churches from June 9 of that year. It was designed as a halfway house towards a second Prayer Book, which should be more unequivocally Protestant in tone. And that this was so is abundantly evidenced in the correspondence of the day. Thus Bucer, writing from Lambeth, April 26, 1549, says he will send the First Prayer Book as soon as it is translated into Latin to the ministers at Strasburg, and affirms that some concessions have been made to the prejudices of the laity, which are only to be retained for a time lest the people, not having yet learned Christ, should be deterred by too extensive innovations from embracing his religion. We now proceed to notice some subsequent publications which have not attracted as much attention from writers of history as they deserve.

It was observed in the preceding article that one John Mardeley had been made the scapegoat of the Council for publishing a treatise which they thought it expedient to disavow. Accordingly, on August 13, 1549, it was resolved that if John Mardeley or any others should publish any book that should not obtain the licence of the Protector and Council, they would be punished; and on the same day An order was taken that from henceforth no printer should print or put to vent any English book but such as should first be examined by Mr. Secretary Peter, Mr. Secretary Smith, and Mr. Cicill, or the one of them, and allowed by the same.' Thus it appears that all the books we have now to notice are authoritative,

1 Zurich Letters, ii. 534.

and show what were the belief and intentions of the Protector, the Archbishop, and the Lords of the Council..

There were many other publications which preceded the First Prayer Book which want of space obliged us to pass by unnoticed. There is one, however, which has been erroneously attributed by Lowndes to the year 1555, but which in all probability belongs to the year 1549. The volume is addressed as follows: To the (right) Congregation of God, of which your grace is supreme head next immediately under God, to which those only are admissible who are baptized through the Holy Ghost, and become one body, who are holy, no longer earthly-minded, and who crucify the flesh.' And the principal point of doctrine contained in it is the figurative explanation of the words of institution: It is convenient that Christ called the bread His body and the wine His blood, because that we should remember thereby His death and passion.'

It is by one Thomas Lancaster, and is entitled, 'The ryght and trew Understandynge of the Supper of the Lord and the Use thereof.' That it was printed after August 13, 1549, though probably written before that date, seems plain from the words of the writer that he should be glad to print it if it should be licensed, and from his request that it may be examined by God's word. We need not make extracts from it. The tone is thoroughly Zwinglian and of a piece with all the other publications we have noticed. It contains the strong assertion that those eat to themselves damnation who attend the abominable blasphemy of the daily sacrifice, who receive in one kind only, and are such beastly heretics as to believe the abominable doctrine that bread can be very flesh, and receive the supper of anti-Christ in one kind only.'

With regard to the proper minister the author says: 'The supper of the Lord must be ministered of him that is called of a Christian congregation compelled through the Holy Ghost to come into the Lord's vineyard or heavenly harvest, that is found without fault according to the declaration of God's word both in his life and learning.' The passage seems worth quoting from its suspicious resemblance to the words of the Twentythird Article.

There is one important point dwelt upon alike by Catholic and Protestant writers of the period, viz. the extreme deterioration in the morals of both ecclesiastics and laymen during the whole of the reign of Edward VI. This is testified to

1 Bodleian, 8vo, B. 8, Med. B. S. A copy is also in the British Museum (3932, a. 29).

by most of the writers of the period, e.g. Bradford, Hutchinson, Veron, and others. So also Traheron, writing to Bullinger, June 12, 1550, says: 'Religion is indeed prospering, but the wickedness of those who profess the gospel is wonderfully on the increase. Later, on September 10, 1552, he asks Bullinger about Predestination, most people adopting Calvin's views. There was concurrently with this a remarkable increase in what even the authorities of the time designated as heresy. The increase of Arianism was attributed by one of the speakers at the great meeting held in St. James's Hall twenty years ago to the immigration of Anabaptists from the Continent, and to this he also attributed the necessity felt for the one alteration in a Catholic direction which appears in the order of the Second Prayer Book of 1552, that the Athanasian Creed should be said thirteen times a year in churches, instead of six, which had been the limit fixed in the First Prayer Book. And there is a remarkable publication of the end of the year 1549, which strikingly falls in with the suggestion. It is entitled, The Fal of an Arrian, written by John Proctour.' In it the writer describes his argument with an Arian, who had been summoned to answer for his heresy before the Council. The Arian avows that he had drawn his belief, not from Sarcerius or Conrad Pellican, but from the sacred fountains, from which he argues that God is represented as infallible, Christ as ignorant, and so far from being of the same substance, that he is spoken of as inferior to the Father. He will only admit that Christ is the most elect vessel, more than a prophet, the first-begotten, but among many brethren. There is little of novelty in the reply to these assertions, but it is remarkable that the colophon bears the date December 9, 1549, and that the work ends with a copy of the Athanasian Creed, which had so lately been reduced from being part of the Service at Prime for every day, to being ordered to be said only six times in the year. But the book is chiefly remarkable for its preface, which extends over the first four sheets, and describes both the lamentable increase of heresies and deterioration of morals. After congratulating his readers on Henry VIII. having got rid of the peevish Pope, and the light of the Gospel put into the hands of people by the young Josiah, he says. that, in spite of all this, people who were half-blind before now saw nothing, and whereas they formerly sought pardons on paper for sins, now they sinned without repentance in their 2 Ibid. p. 326.

1 Zurich Letters, p. 324.

3 Bodleian, Tanner, 73.