Author: SJ Hatch

  • Why Do We Need Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms?

    Why Do We Need Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms?

    As I sat down in the pew waiting for the funeral service to begin, I noticed a laminated page in the rack in front of me, providing a statement of the church’s beliefs in the basics of the Christian faith.  It was neither extensive nor fancy and could be easily overlooked, but as I examined it I realized it was the positive result of a controversy that racked the church years before.  When I first moved to Northern Virginia, I had attended that very church, a conservative church in a mainline denomination. Because the church was large, the denominational hierarchy insisted it have an assistant pastor and nominated an individual who had previously been an Army chaplain.  As he began to teach, however, the lay leaders of the church detected something was off.  Looking into the matter, they discovered that he denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, denied the virgin birth, denied the resurrection, and held to New Age ideas; his seminary degree, in fact, was from a New Age organization.  Even by the most generous allowances, his views on the Christian faith could only be described as heretical.  The discovery touched off a months-long struggle in the church, ultimately successful, to have him removed.  For me, I long had misgivings about the direction the denomination was going, and this case moved me to break with the denomination for good.  That particular church learned the hard way the importance in being up front about what it confessed about the Christian faith.


    The denomination that I grew up in and which I broke with did not use creeds, confessions, or catechisms.  Thus, when I came to the Reformed tradition, I thought it enormously useful to have a short summary of the faith with proof texts that one could look up to see where we found various doctrines in the Bible.  Not everyone, however, shares my appreciation for these symbols, as they are formally called.  Some dismiss them outright saying, “No creed but Christ” and “No confession but the Bible.”  Others, perhaps willing to accept creeds, confessions, and catechisms out of tradition, have a general uneasiness and reticence about it, as if using them would supplant Scripture.  To be sure, such symbols are constraining.  It is one thing to take a handful of verses and say this is my opinion as to what the Bible says; it is quite another to say that this is what the church’s established, collective understanding is on what Scripture teaches.  Such constraint, however, can be a good thing.  It keeps pastors, teachers, and individuals from making the Bible say whatever they want it to say.  Moreover, as we move into a world characterized by rising paganism, honesty toward our neighbor and integrity toward our Lord should compel us to be clear and forthright about the faith we profess as Christians.  Creeds, confessions, and catechisms are vital toward those ends.  What follows in the remainder of this essay is a brief introduction to what creeds, confessions, and catechisms are and why we should use them.

    I.  What Are Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms?

    A creed is a short summary statement of what a church believes about the main contours of the faith.  The most famous creeds in the Christian faith are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.  Both of these creeds go back to the ancient Christian church, at least to the fourth century AD, and in the case of the Apostle’s Creed, possibly as early as the second century.  These creeds are often recited by congregations in the context of the worship service.

    A confession is similar to a creed, but more extensive, typically covering a number of different doctrines outlining in more detail the system of faith.  The Reformation period produced a number of confessions, as the Reformers sought to explain to the peoples of Europe what their views really were, so as to correct popular misunderstandings and to demonstrate the truthfulness and Scriptural basis of what they were holding to and defending.  The most well-known confessions are the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).

    A catechism is a set of material used in instruction, typically in a question-and-answer format.  To catechize (from the Greek verb katecheo) simply means to instruct (and is so used in Luke 1:4, Acts 18:25, 21:21 & 24, Rom. 2:18, 1 Cor. 14:19, and Gal. 6:6).  A catechumen is one who is being instructed in the doctrines of the Faith before being admitted to the Lord’s Supper.  Catechesis is the act of instructing people in the catechism.  Within Reformed circles, the best-known catechisms are the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and the Westminster Longer and Shorter Catechisms (1647).

    All confessional Christian denominations throughout the history of the church have produced catechisms.  In the early church (before Constantine legalized Christianity in AD 313), adult initiates into the faith had to engage in a period of study and preparation before they could become baptized.  These catechumens were admitted to worship, but were not allowed to take communion until they were baptized.  This period could last two or three years and was a time for the church to teach the individual, assess his or her understanding of the faith, and evaluate the person’s character and commitment to walking in the faith.  This system broke down after Constantine legalized Christianity, since there were too many people to go through such a rigorous process.  In the Middle Ages, with a population that was largely illiterate, the church basically expected Christians to have “implicit faith” in the reliability of the church’s teachings.  Just before the Reformation, the church wanted to raise the level of religious instruction among the laity and summaries of church teaching started to make a limited comeback, coming to full flowering in the Reformation.  In the past century, however, the use of creeds, confessions, and catechisms has fallen off, as Christians have eschewed a doctrinal content to their faith in general.

    II.  Are They Really Biblical?

    The short answer is yes.  In Scripture itself, we have the earliest recorded creed in Deuteronomy 6:4-5: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself recites this creed in a dispute with the Pharisees (Matt. 22:37).  The Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17 and Deut. 5:6-21)—literally the Ten Words—also was treated as a creed.  In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, the Apostle Paul gives a summary confession of the faith he had taught the Corinthians: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

    In addition, summaries of the faith would have been necessary for people throughout most of church history, since it would not be until the invention of the printing press that people would be able to possess their own portable copy of the Scriptures.  Thus, in Ephesians 4:5 Paul speaks of “one faith” and a few verses later he talks about coming into the unity of “the faith,” with the implication that there is one true set of beliefs that Christians were to hold to.  Similarly, in his epistle Jude the Apostle says, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), again indicating there was a set of beliefs which had been handed down and which comprised the essentials of the Christian faith.  Other texts certainly could be added to these.

    Concerns about creeds, confessions, and catechisms do not supplant the primacy of Scripture, and no one in the Reformed tradition who has taken a high view of these summaries has advocated that they should take precedent over Scripture.  Experience has shown that those churches which are seriously confessional also put more emphasis on Scripture, not less.  Conversely, churches that abandon confessionalism or let it become merely pro forma tend to abandon Scripture.  The Westminster Standards do not aspire to supplant Scripture.  Note this from the Confession of Faith (WCF 1.10):

    The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (Matt. 22:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Acts 28:25; 1 John 4:1-6).

    Creeds, confessions, and catechisms, thus, are a summary of Scripture, not a replacement for it.  It should be noted as an aside, that this self-limiting trait of the Confession contrasts with the claims of many popular preachers or teachers who claim that their interpretation of the Bible is definitive or even on par with the Scriptures.  Such claims are, more often than not, accompanied by abusive treatment towards those who disagree.  As Carl Trueman puts it,

    Despite claims to the contrary, the Christian world is not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who just have the Bible.  It is actually divided between those who have creeds and confessions and write them down in a public form, open to public scrutiny and correction, and those who have them and do not write them down. …In fact, and somewhat ironically, it is those who do not express their confession in the form of a written document who are in danger of elevating their tradition above Scripture in such a way that it can never be controlled by the latter.[1]

    III.  Why Should We Embrace Confessional Standards?

    Within the contemporary conservative Reformed community, the major doctrinal standards are the Westminster Standards (the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms) and the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort).  Several reasons can be adduced for using creeds, confessions, and catechisms, but three in particular are worth considering.

    A. They Are Important in Building Up God’s People in Christ

    As the Christian West returns to a pre-Christian pagan culture, and Christian churches are racked by scandal, it may be useful for churches to return to a more rigorous and more doctrinal approach to spiritual formation.  To build people up in the faith, they need to have a framework for reading and understanding Scripture, as well as categories for applying the truths of Scripture to life, both individually and corporately.  Such understanding provides the core for knowing who we are and what we stand for, that enables us to engage non-Christians evangelistically and apologetically.

    It may sound spiritual to say that all we need is the Bible, but the Bible comprises sixty-six books written over 1,500 years in a variety of literary genres, and most printed editions of the Bible are close to two thousand pages.  This can be daunting to absorb and difficult to understand.  Nevertheless, can be intelligible even to ordinary people.  As the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.7 says,

    All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16): yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (Ps. 119:105, 130; Deut. 29:29; 30:10-14; Acts 17:11)

    Reading through the different books of the Bible shows the progressive unfolding of God’s plan, and this gives meaning to our lives by setting the overarching narrative context in which we live.  Systematic doctrines complement this.  Because the doctrines of the faith draw from all of Scripture, they help maintain consistency in understanding the biblical narrative.  As a comprehensive and yet concise summary of the core doctrines of the faith, the confessional Standards are a starting point for grappling with the totality of Scripture.

    Doctrine not only provides a framework for understanding Scripture, but enables us to relate our faith to the different facets of our lives.  Over the last several decades, Christians have become increasingly interested in the notion of “worldview,” recognizing that our faith should inform all aspects of our Christian walk and life.  The literature promoting a biblical world and life view is extensive, and yet for all that has been published, we face greater biblical illiteracy now than we have in previous centuries.  In centuries past, a Christian world and life view did not come into being in the West because of academic studies mechanically merging philosophy with Christian theology.  Rather, it came about organically as Christian pastors and teachers thought deeply about the Scriptures and formulated their reflections into a theology that was confessed in the life of the church.  There was a unity of thought and action, of heart and mind.  Thus, recovering the confessional standards can help us recreate a Christian world and life view.  The doctrines articulated in the confessional standards embody rich theology in pastoral expression, and give us a vocabulary and categories that we can then use for making sense of and engaging the world around us.

    Because the confessional standards are a summary of the Christian faith, if you were asked by others outside the faith to explain what you believe, then you could use them to provide a response.  You would not need to invent a response out of whole cloth, as the standards reflect the best understanding of the church through time.  The standards can also be important in helping newcomers know if our church is where they are to be.  There should be truth in advertising, so to speak.  In this regard, the confessional standards not only help define what we believe, but also who we are in Christ.  That said, that does put a burden on us to make our practice of faith and grace to be consistent with our profession of faith and grace.  If outsiders know where we stand doctrinally and if we are not consistent with what we profess, they will see that too, to our shame.

    B. They Protect God’s People

    One cannot tell what is counterfeit if one does not know in the first place what is true.  The Standards make accessible to the average layperson the sum of the Scripture’s teaching about the Christian faith as understood by the collective received wisdom of Christian teachers through the ages.  This democratic aspect often goes unnoticed, even by laypeople.  It gives the laypeople the same standards as their elders and teachers and allows the laypeople to hold their elders and teachers accountable to the truth.  To diminish the Standards makes congregants dependent on whatever interpretations their elders and teachers present.  That would not be appreciably different from the notion of “implicit faith” that the medieval Catholic Church required and which the Protestant Reformers rejected.  In American religious history, liberalism has historically crept into churches by first dismissing catechisms and other creedal standards, and then by undercutting or dismissing the Scriptures proper.  Church leaders then impose on a congregation what amount to private judgments that are at odds with both Scripture and the doctrines of the faith historically understood.  Those who object to the imposition of such judgments are then often ostracized and alienated as rebellious, mean-spirited, and/or unloving.

    This underscores a more basic point.  Building people up in the doctrines of the faith is not a matter of making smarter sinners.  False teaching hurts people.  This is seen best in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.  Paul’s sarcasm, angry words, and harsh tone to his letter are not the result of a desire to make the doctrine of justification nice and neat, but because the Galatians were trading love for each other for pride and self-accomplishment.  Paul acknowledged that he had personally seen and benefited from their love for each other and their grace (Gal. 4:12-20), and he was livid that false teachers took that from them in ways that caused them to attack and undermine each other.  As we are seeing in a number of denominations today, false teaching is causing pastors to become abusive, congregants to feel persecuted, and churches to split—much of which ends up in the secular courts to sort out.  To stand for the truth may entail costs now, but to not grow in or stand for the truth will entail much higher spiritual, relational, and emotional costs later.

    C. They Enable Us Bear with Each Other in Love and Truth

    These days, Christians from different denominations often partner together in the workplace or in social witness and as a result there is a concern that identifying doctrinal distinctives could undermine such cooperation.  The first thing that needs to be addressed in answering this concern is the fundamental question of whether we really do have fellowship if we have radically different views on matters that we will not talk about.  If we are not taking seriously what another believes, then are we taking that person seriously enough to really love them?  It would be a like a husband and wife having deep-rooted disagreements that they will not air because they do not want to “harm” their marriage.  As has been often shown, the fact that such views are suppressed results in eating away the marriage in the long run.

    It should be admitted that while there are people in every denomination who are self-appointed “heresy hunters,” they reflect more of a twisting of a legitimate interest in doctrine rather than the natural expression of it.  Creeds, confessions, and catechisms in fact do help promote peace between denominations and even unity.  In particular, we can more clearly discern what we have in common and more precisely define where we disagree so as to not overstate or minimize our differences.  In addition, we can put our differences into the proper context.  Some doctrines, in fact, are more important than others—our understanding of the natures of Christ, for example, are more important than our understanding of the different millennial views in Revelation chapter 20.  It is partly to bring the English, Scottish, and Irish people together in the 1640s that the English Parliament sought to devise the Westminster Standards in the first place.

    Within churches, unity in doctrinal essentials contributes to bearing with one another.  If we know that we and those with whom we disagree are united in the essentials then we know that we need to keep our disagreements on the secondary issues in perspective.  Where there is doctrinal fuzziness, then there is fundamental uncertainty in what it may be that we do have in common.  In such cases, disagreements are more—not less—likely to become personalized, rending the church asunder.  Lack of clarity on what doctrines are key and how they have been rightly understood through the years leads to fighting over secondary issues that become proxies for fundamental issues.  Moreover, if we are not transparent about what we believe, then how transparent will we be about other things?  One can see the ugly fruits of schism that have come about in the mainline churches that are the result of personal opinions and agendas stepping into the void of doctrinal indifference and fuzziness.  It has often been said that fences make for good neighborliness; in a similar way, confessional standards can foster love for our fellow Christians by establishing boundaries.

    IV.  Conclusion

    The confessional standards do not supplant Scripture, but are an important resource in our spiritual formation as Christians.  They give us a framework through which to consistently understand Scripture, are foundational for establishing a Christian world and life view, and enable us to define our identity in Christ, especially in the midst of our increasingly darkening culture.  They establish limits on the authority of our church leaders, unite us to fellow believers, and enable us to better love one another by helping us to discern what is core in our beliefs from what is peripheral.  Our forebears in the faith were willing to stake their lives on these truths and these symbols have stood the test of time.  In a day and age when contrary views are all too easily dismissed as one’s “personal opinion” there is comfort in knowing that one is not alone in either our day or in the stream of history in holding to the truths summarized by the standards.

    V.  Recommended Resources

    On confessionalism:

    R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008)

    Samuel Miller,  “The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions” (Philadelphia PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1839) [Typeset and reprinted by A Press, Greenville SC, 1991]

    J. I. Packer and Gary A. Parrett, Grounded in the Gospel; Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books, 2010)

    Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2012)

    Carl Trueman, “Why Christians Need Confessions” (Willow Grove PA: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2013)

    On Creeds and Confessions:

    Chad Van Dixhoorn, Creeds, Confessions, & Catechisms; A Reader’s Edition (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2022)

    Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vols. 1-3 (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Books reprinted 1983)

    James T. Dennison,ed. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, vols. 1-4 (Grand Rapids MI: Reformation Heritage Books)


    [1] Carl R. Trueman, Why Christians Need Confessions (Willow Grove PA: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2013), 3.

  • On the Feast of the Nativity

    On the Feast of the Nativity

    Leo the Great, the bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope) from AD 440-461, gave a series of sermons during his administration on the Feast of the Nativity (i.e., Christmas). The Christian church at the time was wrestling through the issue of understanding how Christ could be both fully man and fully God, producing what came to be known as the Definition of Chalcedon in AD 451. Leo’s Christmas sermons were not simple pietistic homilies on the Baby Jesus in the manager. Instead, they combined deep theological reflection with rich devotion to teach people the mystery of Christ’s human and divine natures. The sermon below is the third of his Christmas sermons.

    On the Feast of the Nativity, III.

    I. The truths of the Incarnation never suffer from being repeated

    The things which are connected with the mystery of to-day’s solemn feast are well known to you, dearly-beloved, and have frequently been heard: but as yonder visible light affords pleasure to eyes that are unimpaired, so to sound hearts does the Saviour’s nativity give eternal joy; and we must not keep silent about it, though we cannot treat of it as we ought.  For we believe that what Isaiah says, “who shall declare his generation?” applies not only to that mystery, whereby the Son of God is co-eternal with the Father, but also to this birth whereby “the Word became flesh.” And so, God, the Son of God, equal and of the same nature from the Father and with the Father, Creator and Lord of the Universe, Who is completely present everywhere, and completely exceeds all things, in the due course of time, which runs by His own disposal, chose for Himself this day on which to be born of the blessed virgin Mary for the salvation of the world, without loss of the mother’s honour. For her virginity was violated neither at the conception nor at the birth: “that it might be fulfilled,” as the Evangelist says, “which was spoken by the Lord through Isaiah the prophet, saying, behold the virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us.” For this wondrous child-bearing of the holy Virgin produced in her offspring one person which was truly human and truly Divine, because neither substance so retained their properties that there could be any division of persons in them; nor was the creature taken into partnership with its Creator in such a way that the One was the in-dweller, and the other the dwelling; but so that the one nature was blended with the other. And although the nature which is taken is one, and that which takes is another, yet these two diverse natures come together into such close union that it is one and the same Son who says both that, as true Man, “He is less than the Father,” and that, as true God, “He is equal with the Father.”

    II. The Arians could not comprehend the union of God and man

    This union, dearly beloved, whereby the Creator is joined to the creature, Arian blindness could not see with the eyes of intelligence, but, not believing that the Only-begotten of God was of the same glory and substance with the Father, spoke of the Son’s Godhead as inferior, drawing its arguments from those words which are to be referred to the “form of a slave,” in respect of which, in order to show that it belongs to no other or different person in Himself, the same Son of God with the same form, says, “The Father is greater than I,” just as He says with the same form, “I and my Father are one.” For in “the form of a slave,” which He took at the end of the ages for our restoration, He is inferior to the Father: but in the form of God, in which He was before the ages, He is equal to the Father. In His human humiliation He was “made of a woman, made under the Law:” in His Divine majesty He abides the Word of God, “through whom all things were made.”  Accordingly, He Who in the form of God made man, in the form of a slave was made man. For both natures retain their own proper character without loss:  and as the form of God did not do away with the form of a slave, so the form of a slave did not impair the form of God. And so, the mystery of power united to weakness, in respect of the same human nature, allows the Son to be called inferior to the Father: but the Godhead, which is One in the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, excludes all notion of inequality. For the eternity of the Trinity has nothing temporal, nothing dissimilar in nature: Its will is one, Its substance identical, Its power equal, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God; because it is a true and inseparable unity, where there can be no diversity. Thus, in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by “ours” we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning, and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in, and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour; nor because He partook of man’s weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: for that “emptying of Himself,” whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power.

    III. The Incarnation was necessary to the taking away of sin

    In order therefore that we might be called to eternal bliss from our original bond and from earthly errors, He came down Himself to us to Whom we could not ascend, because, although there was in many the love of truth, yet the variety of our shifting opinions was deceived by the craft of misleading demons, and man’s ignorance was dragged into diverse and conflicting notions by a falsely-called science. But to remove this mockery, whereby men’s minds were taken captive to serve the arrogant devil, the teaching of the Law was not sufficient, nor could our nature be restored merely by the Prophets’ exhortations; but the reality of redemption had to be added to moral injunctions, and our fundamentally corrupt origin had to be re-born afresh. A Victim had to be offered for our atonement Who should be both a partner of our race and free from our contamination, so that this design of God whereby it pleased Him to take away the sin of the world in the Nativity and Passion of Jesus Christ, might reach to all generations: and that we should not be disturbed but rather strengthened by these mysteries, which vary with the character of the times, since the Faith, whereby we live, has at no time suffered variation.

    IV. The blessings of the Incarnation stretch backwards as well as reach forward

    Accordingly, let those men cease their complaints who with disloyal murmurs speak against the dispensations of God, and babble about the lateness of the Lord’s Nativity as if that, which was fulfilled in the last age of the world, had no bearing upon the times that are past. For the Incarnation of the Word did but contribute to the doing of that which was done: and the mystery of man’s salvation was never in the remotest age at a standstill. What the apostles foretold, that the prophets announced: nor was that fulfilled too late which has always been believed. But the Wisdom and Goodness of God made us more receptive of His call by thus delaying the work which brought salvation: so that what through so many ages had been foretold by many signs, many utterances, and many mysteries, might not be doubtful in these days of the Gospel: and that the Saviour’s nativity, which was to exceed all wonders and all the measure of human knowledge, might engender in us a Faith so much the firmer, as the foretelling of it had been ancient and oft-repeated. And so, it was no new counsel, no tardy pity whereby God took thought for men: but from the constitution of the world He ordained one and the same Cause of Salvation for all. For the grace of God, by which the whole body of the saints is ever justified, was augmented, not begun, when Christ was born: and this mystery of God’s great love, wherewith the whole world is now filled, was so effectively presignified that those who believed that promise obtained no less than they, who were the actual recipients.

    V. The coming of Christ in our flesh corresponds with our becoming members of His body

    Wherefore, since the loving-kindness is manifest, dearly beloved, wherewith all the riches of Divine goodness are showered on us, whose call to eternal life has been assisted not only by the profitable examples of those who went before, but also by the visible and bodily appearing of the Truth Itself, we are bound to keep the day of the Lord’s Nativity with no slothful nor carnal joy. And we shall each keep it worthily and thoroughly, if we remember of what Body we are members, and to what a Head we are joined, lest anyone as an ill-fitting joint cohere not with the rest of the sacred building. Consider, dearly beloved, and by the illumination of the Holy Spirit thoughtfully bear in mind Who it was that received us into Himself, and that we have received in us: since, as the Lord Jesus became our flesh by being born, so we also became His body by being reborn. Therefore, are we both members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost: and for this reason the blessed Apostle says, “Glorify and carry God in your body:” for while suggesting to us the standard of His own gentleness and humility, He fills us with that power whereby He redeemed us, as the Lord Himself promises: “come unto Me all ye who labour and are heavy-laden, and I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls.” Let us then take the yoke, that is not heavy nor irksome, of the Truth that rules us, and let us imitate His humility, to Whose glory we wish to be conformed: He Himself helping us and leading us to His promises, Who, according to His great mercy, is powerful to blot out our sins, and to perfect His gifts in us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.