BT 21 . H3313 1867 v.2 Hagenbach, K. R. 1801-1874. A text-book of the history of doctrines — _ __ _ ; _ ... , n/v a. J Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/textbookofhistor02hage f ' L t ! I A TEXT-BOOK OP T H IS HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. BY DR. K. R. HAGENBACH, FB0FE880R OF THEOLOGY IN THE IT N I V E R 8 I T Y OF BAgLK. * THE EDINBURGH TRANSLATION OF C. W. BUCH, REVISED WITH LARGE ADDITIONS FROM THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION, AND OTHER SOURCES. By HENRY B. SMITH, D.D., FBOFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. VOLUME II. NEW YORK: SHELDON & COMPANY, 500 BROADWAY, BOSTON: GOULD & LINCOLN. 18 6 7 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1862, by SHELDON & COMPANY, la the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, STEREOTYPED BY Smith & MoDougal, 82 & 84 Beekman-st. PRINTED BY George Russell T9 John-street. PREFATORY NOTE. In preparing this revision of the second volume of Hagenbaclr s History of Doctrines, the same plan has been pursued as in the first volume. The translation has been corrected throughout. All the additional matter of the fourth German edition, which was very considerable in the later periods, has been translated. The references to English and American literature are made as full as the limits of the text-book allow. In addition to this, new sections have been added, on portions of the History of Doctrines not fully handled, or wholly neglected in the original, viz. The German Re¬ formed Theology, pp. 175-177 ; The French School of Saumur, and Theology in England and Scotland, pp. 180-194 ; The English Deism, pp. 223-229 ; and five sections, pp. 416-451, on the History of Theology and Philosophy in England, Scotland, and our own country. — The literature of English and American theology is given with disproportionate fulness, in the hope that this may be a con¬ venience to ministers and students, as it is not elsewhere collected in a compendious form. h. b. a . . ' i I . ' ' ■■ >* ■ - ■ . s, ■ / X CONTENTS THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. (continued.) THIRD DIVISION. ANTHROPOLOGY. FAGS §173. General Definitions..... . . . 13 174. The Immortality of the Soul . 16 175. Man in his State of Innocence prior to the Fall . 17 176. The Fall of Man, and Sin in General . 22 177. Consequences of the First Sin. Original Sin. Freedom of the Will . 25 178. Exception to the Universal Corruption of Mankind. The Immaculate Concep¬ tion of the Virgin . 29 FOURTH DIVISION. CHRISTOLO GY AND SOTERIOLOGY. § 179. The Greek Church on Christology. The Adoption Controversy in the West Nihilianism. . . 35 180. Redemption and Atonement . 41 181. Further Development of the Doctrine of Redemption and Atonement. . . 46 182. The Connection between Soteriology and Christology . 51 FIFTH DIVISION. THE ORDO 8ALUTIS. § 183. Predestination. The Controversy of Gottschalk . 56 184. Further Development of the Doctrine of Predestination. . 60 185. Appropriation of Divine Grace . 63 186. Faith and Good Works. The Meritoriousness of the latter . 67 vi Contents. SIXTH DIVISION. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS. § 187. The Church . . . 71 188. The Worship of Saints . 74 189. The Sacraments . 76 190. The same Subject continued . 80 191. Baptism . 84 192. Confirmation . 87 193. The Lord’s Suppper . 89 1. The Controversy respecting the Eucharist previous to the Rise of Scholasti¬ cism. — Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn. — Berengar . 89 194. 2. The Scholastic Development of the Doctrine. Trccnsubstantiation. The Sac¬ rifice of the Mass . 95 195. The Withholding of the Cup from the Laity. Concomitance- . 102 196. Dissenting Opinions . 104 197. The Greek Church.. . 107 198. The Sacrament of Penance . 109 199. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction . 112 200. The Sacrament of Orders . 114 201. The Sacrament of Matrimony . . . 116 SEVENTH DIVISION. ESCHATOLOGY. § 202. Millennarianism. The approaching End of the World. Antichrist . 119 203. The Influence of the Mediaeval Tendencies and of Christian Art, upon Escha¬ tology . 121 204. The Resurrection of the Body . 122 205. The General Judgment . 124 206. Purgatory . 12S 207. The Sleep of the Soul . 129 208. The Localities of the Future World. (Heaven, Hell, and Intermediate State.) 130 209. The State of the Blessed and the Damned . 132 210. Eternity of the Punishment of Hell. Restitution of all Things . 138 FOURTH PERIOD. FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE RISE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF LEIB¬ NITZ AND WOLF IN GERMANY; FROM THE YEAR 1517 TO ABOUT 1720. THE AGE OF POLEMICO-ECCLESIASTICAL SYMBOLISM ; THE CONFLICT OF CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FOURTH PERIOD. §211. Introduction . 139 212. The Principles of Protestantism . 140 213. Relation of the History of Doctrines in the present Period to that of former Periods (Symbolism). . 142 Contents. vii 1. The Lutheran Church . PAGS § 214. Luther and Melancthon . 143 215. The Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church . 146 216. The Systematic Theology of the Lutheran Church . 150 2 It. Lutheran Mysticism, Theosophy and Asceticism . 154 218. Reforming Tendencies. John Yalentin Andrea, Calixt, Spener, Thomasius. 157 2. The Reformed Church. §219. Zwingle and Calvin . 159 220. The Symbolical Books of the Reformed Church . 162 221. a. Symbolical Writings prior to the Time of Calvin . 163 222. b. Symbolical Writings under the Influence of Calvin . 164 223. The Systematic Theology of the Reformed Church . ItO 223. a. [The G-erman Reformed Theology.] . 175 224. Mysticism in the Reformed Church . 177 225. Influence of the Cartesian Philosophy. More Liberal Tendencies . 178 225, a. [The French School of Saumur.] . 180 225, b. [Theology in England and Scotland.] . 182 3. The Roman Catholic Church. § 226. The Council of Trent, and the Catechismus Romanus . 195 227. The Theologians of the Roman Catholic Church . 197 228. Jansenism. . 201 229. The Mysticism of the Roman Catholic Church . 203 230. Liberal Tendencies in Criticism and Systematic Theology. Transition to the following Period . 206 4. The Greek Church . § 231. The Greek Church . 206 5. Minor Religious Parties (Sects). § 232. Minor Religious Parties (Sects) . 208 233. a. Anabaptists (Mennonites) . 208 234. b. Unitarians (Socinians) . 210 235. c. Arminians (Remonstrants) . 214 236. d. Quakers. . 21b 237. Attempts at Union (Syncretism) . 218 238. Influence of Philosophy. Deism. Apologetics . 220 238, a. [The English Deism.] . 223 239. Division of the Material . 228 Vlll Contents. B. THE SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FOURTH PERIOD. FIRST CLASS. THE CHARACTERISTIC DOCTRINES OF ROMANISM AND PROTESTANTISM. (INCLUDING THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN LUTHERANS AND CALVINISTS, AND THE OPINIONS OF THE MINOR RELIGIOUS PARTIES AND SECTS.) FIRST DIVISION. THE DOCTRINES CONCERNING THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. (formal principle.) PAGE 240. Romanism and Protestantism . 230 Divergent Views of various Sects . 236 241. a. The Mystical Principle 242. b. The Rationalistic Principle (Socinians) . 239 243. The further Development of the Doctrine concerning the Holy Scriptures, In¬ spiration, and Interpretation . 240 244. Relation of Scripture to Tradition . 248 SECOND DIVISION. ANTHROPOLOGY, JUSTIFICATION, AND THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION a. ANTHROPOLOGY. § 245. Man Prior to the Fall. . . 251 246. The Fall and its Consequences (Original Sin) . 255 241. Antagonisms within the Confessions themselves . 261 248. Further Development of the Doctrine concerning Man, in Theory as well as in Practice . . . 263 b. THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. § 249. Freedom and Grace. Predestination . 268 250. Controversies respecting Predestination within the Denominations themselves. 277 251. Justification and Sanctification. Faith and Works . 281 252. Fluctuations within the Denominations . 286 253. The Economy of Redemption . 283 Contents. ix THIRD DIVISION. THE DOCTRINES CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE, CON¬ CERNING SAINTS, IMAGES, THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, AND PURGATORY. (THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.) PAGE § 254. Introduction . . . 289 255. The Church and Ecclesiastical Power . 290 256. Further Development of the Doctrine concerning the Church . 299 257. Adoration of Saints and Images . 301 258. The Sacraments . . . 303 259. The Sacrifice of the Mass. The Lord’s Supper . 308 260. Internal Fluctuations and further Doctrinal Development . , . 323 261. The Doctrine concerning Purgatory. . . 326 SECOND CLASS. DOCTRINES IN WHICH PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS MORE OR LESS AGREED (IN OPPOSITION TO THE MINOR SECTS). FIRST DIVISION. THEOLOGY PROPER. § 262. Trinitarians and Antitrinitarians . . 328 263. The Systematic Development of the Doctrine concerning God, together with its Mystical and Speculative Aspects . 333 264. Creation and Preservation of the World. Providence and Government of the World . 337 265. Angels and Demons (Devil) . 341 SECOND DIVISION. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY (INCLUDING THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING BAPTISM AND ESCHATOLOGY). § 266. The Person of Christ . . 344 267. Further Doctrinal Development and Internal Controversies . 351 268. The Doctrine of Atonement . 354 269. Differences of Opinion within the Lutheran and Reformed Churches . 362 270. Baptism . 364 271. Eschatology . . . 370 X Contents. FIFTH PERIOD. FROM THE YEAR 1720 TO THE PRESENT DAY. THE AGE OF CRITICISM, OR SPECULATION, AND OF THE ANTAG¬ ONISM BETWEEN FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE, PHILOSOPHY AND CHRISTIANITY, REASON AND REVELATION; AND ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THESE ANTAGONISMS. A. GENERAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIFTH PERIOD. PAGE 272. Introduction . 373 273. Influence of Philosophy upon Theology . 375 274. The Philosophy of Wolf . 376 275. Influence of Deism and Naturalism. Rationalism . 378 276. Works of Apologetical Writers. Changes in the Mode of Treating Theology. Modern Compendiums of Systematic Theology . 382 277. Reaction. Edict of Religion. Orthodox Pietism . 388 278. Zinzendorf and the United Brethren. Wesley and the Methodists. Sweden¬ borg . 390 279. The Philosophy of Kant. Rationalism and Supernaturalism . 394 280. Modern Speculative Philosophy. Fichte. Schelling . 398 281. Herder and Jacobi. De Wette and Schleiermacher . 401 282. Attempts at Restoration. Practical Piety and Modern Theology . 404 283. The Philosophy of Hegel and the Young Hegelians . 407 284. Latest Rationalistic Reaction. . . . 410 285. The Protestant Church and Doctrine out of Germany . 412 285, a. [Theology in England in the Eighteenth Century.] . 416 285, b. [English Theology and Philosophy in the Present Century.] . 423 285, c. [Theology and Philosophy in Scotland.] . 430 285, d. [Theology in the United States of America. New England. Edwards aud his School.] . 435 285. e. [Theology and Philosophy in the United States. — Continued.] . 442 286. Conflicts of the Confessions . 452 287. The Roman Catholic Church. German Catholicism . 454 288. The Russian-Greek Chnrch . 459 B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIFTH PERIOD. FIRST DIVISION. PROLEGOMENA. RELIGION. REVELATION. BIBLE AND TRADITION. (miracle and prophecy.) § 289. Religion . 461 290. Truth and Divine Origin of Christianity. Perfectibility. Reason and Reve¬ lation . 463 291. The Word of God. Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Spirit . 465 292. Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture. Miracles and Prophecy . 467 Contents. xi SECOND DIVISION. THEOLOGY PROPER. CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. THE DOCTRINE CON¬ CERNING ANGELS AND DEVILS. PAGE § 293. Deism. Theism. Pantheism . 474 294. The Existence and Attributes of God . 476 295. The Doctrine of the Trinity . 478 296. Creation and Preservation of the World. Providence, Theodicy . 481 297. The Doctrine Concerning Angels and Demons . 482 THIRD DIVISION. ANTHROPOLOGY. CHRISTOLOGY. SOTERIOLOGY AND THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. § 298. The Doctrines concerning Man, Sin, and Liberty . 485 299. Christology . 489 300. The Doctrine of Atonement . 496 301. The Economy of Redemption. Justification and Sanctification (Eaith and Good Works). Grace and Liberty. Predestination . 503 i FOURTH DIVISION. THE CHURCH. SACRAMENTS. ESCHATOLOGY. § 302. The Doctrine concerning the Church . 511 303. The Means of Grace. The Sacraments . 513 304. Eschatology . 517 Index . 523 * VT * T "T 7^ T1 rrrn jl Ai O Xx x O' IT T J tS A T A A T A '?> T . c^A /A y XX V./ v . ■' '- W /ci. XX / f v? w '» t "TV* X / * ■ £^g»r •’•tv* ■ ■ ■ THIRD PERIOD. THE AGE OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (CONTINUED). THIRD DIVISION. ANTHROPOLOGY. § 173. GENERAL DEFINITIONS. % The Greek church adhered to the opinions of the earlier fathers, which were collected and more fully developed by John Damascenus / He, as well as most of the Western theologians, adopted the cur¬ rent twofold division into body and soul. While John Scotus Erigena regarded the bodily constitution of man, and even his condition as a creature, as a result of sin,2 John of Damascus and the disciples of the school of St. Victor, recognized in the union of the soul with the body a higher purpose of God, and a moral lesson for man.3 The theory designated as Creatianism, which had contested the vic¬ tory with Traducianism during the preceding period, was now more precisely defined.4 The psychological views of the mystics stood in a close relation with their entire system, founded upon subjective experience ; and at all events, it had a greater tendency to lead into the depths of religious contemplation, than the subtleties of the scholastics, which had rather to do with what is external.6 1 On the one hand, cosmology was introduced into the doctrine of crea¬ tion ; on the other, both psychology and physiology were introduced into anthropology. With respect to the last two, theologians founded their no¬ tions especially upon the physics of Aristotle. Thus John Damascenus, De Fide Orthod. ii. 12-28, treated of the four temperaments (humoribus, XvlL0~h 0 of man, as corresponding to the four elements of the world ; of the various faculties of the soul, etc. lie everywhere retained the principal definitions 14 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. of earlier theologians concerning human liberty , etc. (Compare especially c. 25-28.) 3 De Divis. Naturae, iv. 10 : Non enim homo, si non peccaret, inter partes mundi administraretur, sed universitatem omnino sibi subditam administraret, nec corporeis his sensibus mortalis corporis ad ilium regendum ut^retur, verum sine ullo sensibili motu vel locali vel temporali, sola rationabili con- tuiter naturalium et interiorum ejus causarum facillimo rectae voluntatis usu secundum leges divinas aeternaliter ac sine errore gubernaret. [For a full exposition of the views of Erigena on body and soul, see Christlieb’s work, Leben u. Lehre der Job. Scot. Erigena, 1860, p. 248, sq. He rests on the Aristotelian view, that formless matter is incorporeal, and can only be known by reason. The body in relation to man is an accident. Omnis ovcia in- corruptibilis est. Omne incorruptibile corpus materiale non est. Omnis igitur ovoia corpus materiale non est (De Div. Nat. i. 49). The body, he says, is made up of points, lines, surfaces, and solidity, all of which are in¬ corporeal, etc.] 3 John Damascenus , 1. c. c. 12. According to Hugo of St. Victor , (quoted by Liebner , p. 395), the union of the soul with the body is a type of the mystical union of God with man. Richard of St. Victor adopted the same opinion (see Engelhardt , p. 181), which was also held by Peter Lombard (Sent. Lib. i. Dist. 3. 9., and Lib. ii. Dist. 17). Thomas Aquinas gave a more fully developed system of psychology. (Summa P. i. 9. 75-90. Cramer vii. p. 473.) [Comp. Plassmann , Psychologie d. Schule des Aquin., 1860. 4 Anselm defended creatianism negatively , by opposing traducianism, De Conceptu Yirginali, c. 7 : Quod autem mox ab ipsa conceptione rationalem animam habeat (homo), nullus humanus suscipit sensus. Hugo St. Victor pronounced positively in favor of creatianism ; de Sacram. Lib. i. P. vii. c. 30 : tides catholica magis credendum elegit animas quotidie corporibus vivi- ficandis sociandas de nihilo fieri, quam secundum corporis naturam et carnis humanse proprietatem de traduce propagari. Comp. Liebner , p. 416. [Also in De Anima, ascribed to Hugo (see Note 5) : Dicimus autem rationales animas pro essentia fieri quotidie de nihilo novas, sed pro consimili natura ex institutione divina non utique novas. Quales enim in exordio Deus die sexto masculo et feminse dedit, tales quotidie inspirat singulis, nova de nihilo creatione, non nova institutione.] Robert Pulleyn brought forward some very singular and abstruse arguments against traducianism, see Cramer , vi. p. 474. Peter Lombard also espoused creatianism in decided terms, Sent. Lib. ii. Dist. 17. C. : De aliis (i. e ., the souls posterior to Adam and Eve), certissime sentiendum est, quod in corpore creentur. Creando enim infundit eas Deus, et iufundendo creat. — Thomas Aquinas , Summa P. i. Qu. 118, Art. l,made a distinction between the anima sensitiva and anima intellectiva (which was similar to the distinction formerly made between and 7 Tvevya, or vovq.) The former is propagated in a physical manner, inasmuch as it is allied to the physical ; the latter is created by God. [Comp. Aquinas, Contra Gentes, ii. 89 : Anima igitur vegetabilis, quae primo inest, cum embryo vivit vita plantae, corrumpitur, et succedit anima perfectior, qua? est nutritiva et sensitiva simul ; et tunc embryo vivit vita animalis ; hac autem § 173. General Definitions in Psychology. 15 corrupta, succedit anima rationalis ab extrinseco immissa, licet prascedentes fuerint virtute seminis. Aquinas’s chief argument (in Summa Theol. Pt. I. qu. 118, Art. 2, is, that an immaterial substance could only be produced by creation.] More precise definitions were given by Odo of Cambray (a. d 1113), De Peccato Original]', Lib. ii. (in Maxima Biblioth. PP. Ludg. T. xxi. p. 230-34). Comp. SchrocJch, xxviii. p. 436. He designated creatianism as the orthodox opinion. — Friar Berthold illustrated this theory in a popular way in his sermons, quoted by Kling , p. 209 ( Grimm , p. 206) : “As life is given to the child in his mother’s womb, so the angel pours the soul into him, and God Almighty pours the soul with the angel into him.” The pre¬ existence of the soul still had a defender in Fredegis of Tours , in the ninth century; see Ritter , Gesch. d. Phil. vii. 190, sq. 5 Concerning the mystical psychological views of the disciples of the school of St. Victor, see Liebner , p. 334, ss. The three fundamental powers by which the soul knows, are imaginatio, ratio (rather understanding than reason), and intelligentia. Cogitatio corresponds to the first, meditatio to the second, and contemplatio to the third. \Hugo in his Comm, in Joelem (Schopff’s Aurora, iv. 38) : Tria quoque sunt genera visionum; prima est materialis, secunda spiritualis, tertia intellectualis. Prima concipit elemen- tata, secunda imaginata, tertia ab omni circumscriptione est aliena, utcunque Deum concipiens, virtutes quoque et vitia.] The treatise De Anima, Lib. iv., reprinted in Opp. TIugonisEd. Rothomag. T. ii. p. 132, ss., which was used as a compendium by the earlier scholastics no less than by the mystics, is some¬ times attributed to Hugo of St. Victor, but has probably Alcherus , abbot of Stella (a. d. 1147), for its author. See Liebner , p. 493, ss., and Fngelhardt , Dogmengeschichte ii. p. 119. — Bonaventura and Gerson adopted the same psychological notions. According to the former, spiritual vision is the prin¬ cipal idea. We see all things in God through the medium of a supernatural light (comp, above, vol. 1, § 161.) He, too, distinguished between sensation, imagination, reason (understanding), intellectus, the highest faculty of the mind, and the synteresis , or conscience. — Gerson De Theol. Myst. consid. x.— xxv.) divided the essence of the soul into two fundamental powers (vis cognitiva et vis affectiva.) Starting from its higher functions, he then divided the former as follows : intelligentia simplex (the pure faculty of intellectual vision), ratio (understanding), and sensualitas (the faculty of perception by the senses.) They are related to each other, as contemplatio, meditatio, and cogitatio. The highest degree of the vis affectiva is the Synteresis* the next is the appetitus rationalis, and the lowest is the appetitus animalis ; see Hundeshagen , p. 37, ss., Ch. Schmidt, p. 76, ss. [ Schwab's John Gerson, 1859.] * Synteresis est vis animse appetitiva, suscipiens immediate a Deo naturalem quandam jnclinationem ad bonum, per quam trahitur insequi motionem boni ex apprehensione simplicis intelligentise prsesentati, quoted by Liebner , p. 340. Comp. Bonavent. Compend. JI. 51. 16 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. § 174. THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. The assertion of some of the earlier Greek theologians, that the '(jjvx'ij, as such, is not immortal, but obtains immortality only from its connection with the rrvevya, was repeated in the Greek church by Nicolas of Methone .* In the West, the schoolmen generally taught the immortality of the soul as a theological truth ; but the chief leaders of the scholastic sects, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus , were at issue on the question, whether reason furnishes satisfactory proofs of that doctrine.3 Raimund of Sabunde rested belief in God, as well as belief in immortality, upon the idea of freedom, and the necessity of moral sanctions.3 But the advocates of Platonism, in particular, towards the close of the present period, were at much pains to prove the immortality of the soul, in opposition to the Aristotelians.4 At last, the Council of the Lateran, held A. d. 1513, under Pope Leo X., pronounced the natural immortality of the soul to be an article of faith, and discarded the distinction between theo¬ logical and philosophical truths as untenable.5 1 John Damascenus taught (De Fide Orthod. ii. 12, p. 1*7 9), that the soul is aOavarog. Nicolas of Methone, on the contrary, expressed himself as follows (Refut. p. 207 and 208, quoted by ITllmann, p. 89, 90) : “ It is not every soul that neither perishes nor dies, but only the rational, truly spiritual and divine soul, which is made perfect through virtue, by participating in the grace of God. For the souls of irrational beings, and still more, of plants, may perish with the things which they inhabit, because they can not be separated from bodies which are made up of parts, and may be dissolved into their elements.” Compare with this passage what he said, Refut. p. 120 : “ If any created being is eternal, it is not so by and for itself, nor through itself, but by the goodness of God ; for all that is made and created has a beginning, and retains its existence only through the goodness of the Creator.” 2 The scholastics, by closely adhering to Aristotle , were naturally led to the inquiry, in what sense their master himself had taught the immortality of the soul, in the definition he gave of its essence, viz., that it is kvr'kk'XEia, 7] rrpd)r7] ouyarog (pvoucov dpyavmov (De Anim. ii. 1) ; comp. Mtinscher, edit, by Yon Colin ii. p. 90. But Christianity set forth the immortality of the soul in so convincing a manner, that it became necessary, either to re¬ turn to the old distinction made between natural immortality, and that immortality which is communicated by grace, which was, however, possible only in connection with the threefold division (viz., body, soul and spirit), or to admit a collision between theological and philosophical truths. The distinction which Thomas Aquinas drew between anima sensitiva and anima intellectiva (§ 1 7 3, note 3), enabled him to ascribe immortality to the latter § 174. The Immortality of the Soul. 17 alone. Comp. Summa P. 1. Qu. 7 6, Art. 6., where he in fact contented him¬ self with saying : Animam humanam, quam dicimus intellectivum principium , esse incorruptibilem. But he also held that the intellectus alone is above space and time (hie et nunc), while the sensus moves in these categories and is restricted in its knowledge to the images (ideas, phantasms) borrowed from this sphere (intelligere cum phantasmate). As Anselm of Canterbury had inferred the existence of God himself from the idea of God, so Thomas Aquinas proved the immortality of the soul, in a similar manner, by an ontological argument : Intellectus apprehendit esse absolute et secundum omne tempus. Unde omne habens intellectum naturaliter desiderat esse semper. Naturale- autem desiderium non potest esse inane. Omnis igitur intellectualis substantia est incorruptibilis. Com. Engelhardt , Dogmen- geschichte ii. p. 123. — On the other hand, Scotus, whose views were more nearly allied to those of the nominalists, maintained : Non posse demon- strari, quod anima sit immortalis (Comm, in M. Sentent. L. II. Dist. 17. Qu. 1. Comp. Lib. iv. Dist. 43. Qu. 2). JBonaventura , on the contrary, asserted, De Nat. D. ii. 55 : Animam esse immortalem, auctoritate ostenditur et ra- tione. Concerning the further attempts of Moneta of Cremona (who lived between the years 1220 and 1250), William of Auvergne (bishop of Paris from 1228 to 1249), and Raimund Martini (in his Pugio Fidei adv. Maur. P. i. c. 4), to prove the immortality of the soul, comp. Mtinscher, edit, by Yon Colin, p. 91, 92. * Theol. Naturalis Tit. 92 : Quoniam ex operibus hominis, in quantum homo est, nascitur meritum vel culpa, quibus debetur punitio vel prasmium, et cum homo, quamdiu vivat, acquirit meritum vel culpam, et de illis non recipit retributiones nec punitiones dum vivit, et ordo universi non patitur, quod aliquid quantumeunque modicum remaneat irremuneratum neque im- punitum : ideo necesse est, quod remaneat liberum arbitrium, quo fiat radix meritorum et culparum, ut recipiat debitum et rectam retributionem sive punitionem : quod fieri non posset, nisi remaneret liberum arbitrium. Unde cum culpa vel meritum remanet post mortem, necesse est etiam quod ma- neat liberum arbitrium, in quo est culpa vel meritum, et cui debetur punitio sive retributio, et in quo est capacitas prsemii yel punitionis. 4 Marsilius Ficinus, De Immortalitate Animae Libri xviii. (Opp. Par. 641. fol.) an extract from which is given by Buhle (Geschichte der neuern Philo¬ sophic, vol. ii. p. 171-341.) “ This workf says Gieseler , Dogmengesch. 498, “ is the one among all that are extant , containing the greatest variety of proofs of the spirituality and immortality of the soul.” 6 Acta Concil. Beg. T. xxxiv. (Par. 1644. fol.) p. 333, quoted by Mtin- scher, ed. by Yon Colin, p. 92, 93. § 175. MAN IN HIS STATE OF INNOCENCE PRIOR TO THE FALL. It was one of the characteristic features of scholasticism, to waste the greatest amount of acuteness upon those parts of doctrinal 2 18 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. theology, which do not belong to the province either of psycholog¬ ical experience, or of history, properly so called, and concerning which the Sacred Scriptures give us rather intimations than dis¬ tinct information. Among such subjects were the doctrine of the angels, and that of the state of the first man in paradise. Though both scholastics and mystics frequently applied allego¬ rical interpretation to the biblical narrative of the primeval state,1 the former used it in such a manner, as to represent the first man wfith historical accuracy, and to describe him as he came forth from the hands of his Maker.2 In the opinion of some theologians, the justitia originalis was added to the pura naturalia, as a donum superadditum ; while others, e. g. Thomas Aquinas, distinguished between the purely human, and the divine which is added, only in the abstract, but made them coincide in the concrete. According to the latter notion, man was created in the full possession of the divine righteousness, and not deprived of it till after the fall.3 Most theologians still made a distinction between the image of God, and resemblance to God,4 and adventured many conjectures respect¬ ing the former, as well as man’s state of innocence in general.5 — The definitions concerning the liberty of man were beset with the greatest difficulties. The fall of man would not have been possible, without the liberty of choice. But, according to Augustine, some¬ thing more was required to constitute perfect righteousness, than the liberty of choice alluded to, inasmuch as man continued in the possession of it after his fall — viz. as a liberty to do evil. But if our first parents, on account of their having true freedom, were above the temptations to sin, how could they be seduced and fall P Anselm here avails himself of the distinction between will in gen¬ eral, and a confirmed or steadfast will (velle et pervelle).8 Accord¬ ing to Hugo of St. Victor , the liberty in question consisted indeed in the possibility of sinning or not sinning, but the dis|iosition to good was stronger than the propensity to evil. Others adopted similar views.7 1 John Damascenus (De Fide Orthodoxa ii. c. 10. p. 175.) connected the allegorical interpretation with the historical. As man himself is composed of body and soul, so his first dwelling-place was alodgroq as well as vogrog. According to him, sensual delight in the garden, and spiritual communion with God, are correlative ideas. — Peter Lombard theoretically adopted the literal interpretation of the Mosaic narrative, Sent. ii. Dist. 17. E., though ' he also considered it a type of the church ; but many of his practical ex¬ positions were allegorical ; e. g. Dist. 24. H., quoted by Miinscher, ed. by Von Colin, p. 94. According to him, the serpent represents that sensuality which still suggests sinful thoughts to man ; the woman is the inferior part of reason, which is first seduced, and afterwards leads man (the higher reason) into temptation. Thomas Aquinas also taught, P. i. Qu. 102. Art. 1. : § 175. Man in his State of Innocence. 19 Ea enim, quae de Paradiso in Scriptura dicuntur, per n^odum narrationis his- toricae proponuntur (in accordance with his hermeneutical principle, see vol. 1. § 164, note 4). On the other hand, Scotus Erigena boldly raised doubts as to the literal interpretation of the narrative (De Divis. Natura iv. 15, p. 196.), and regarded it as an ideal description of the happiness which would have been the lot of mankind, if our first parents had resisted temptation : Fuisse Adam temporaliter in Paradiso, priusquam de costa ejus mulier fabri- caretur, dicat quis potest . Nee unquam steterat, nam si saltern vel parvo spatio stetisset, necessario ad aliquam perfectionem perveniret . p. 197 : Non enim credibile est, eundem hominem et in contemplatione seternse pacis stetisse et suadente femina, serpentis veneno corrupta, corruisse. See Baur, Versohnungslehre, p. 127 ; Lehre d. Dreieinigkeit, ii. 306, and the remarkable interpretation of Luke, x. 30, there cited. [Non ait; homo quidam erat in Jerusalem et incidit in latrones. Nam si in Jerusalem, hoc est in paradiso, humana natura permaneret, profecto in latrones, diabolum scilicet sateliitesque ejus, non incurreret. Prius ergo descendebat de para¬ diso, suae voluntatis irrationabili motu impulsus, et in Jericho prsecipitabatur, hoc est, in defectum instabilitatemque rerum temporalium. De Divis. Na¬ turae, iv. 15.] 2 This led to a multitude of absurd questions concerning the nature and durability of their bodies, e. g . why the man had been created before the woman ? and why the latter had been made out of the rib of the former ? whether, and in what manner, the propagation of the race would have taken place, if our first parents had continued in their state of innocence ? whether their children would have inherited their original righteousness? whether more males or more females would have been born ? “ What dreams ! How could men so sedate and grave as monks were , or ought to have been , waste so much time upon the examination , discussion , and defence of such questions? In the Summa of Alexander Hales , this subject fills five pages in folio f Cramer, vii. p. 493. 3 The former opinion was adopted by Scotus Erigena , Sent. Lib. ii. Dist. 39.; Bonaventura, Sent. Lib. ii. Dist. 29. Art. ii. Qu. 2; comp. Brev. iii. 25. Cent. ii. § 2 ; Hugo of St. Victor , de Sacram. Lib. i. p. 6 ; Alexander Hales, P. ii. Qu. 96 : comp. Cramer, vii. p. 494 ss. Marheineke, Symbolik iii. p. 13 ss. On the contrary, the position of Thomas Aquinas (P. 1. Qu. 95. Art. 9.), that man, prior to the fall, had never been in the condition of the pura naturalia , but, from the moment of his creation, had possessed the donum superadditum, which belonged, therefore, properly to his very nature, was more nearly allied to the view of the later Protestant theolo¬ gians. See Cramer and Marheineke 1. c., and on the other side Baur , Symbolik, p. 34. [On Anselm's doctrine of the divine image, see F. B. Hasse , in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theologie, 1835. On this whole distinction of pura naturalia and dona gratiae see Meander, Hist. Dogm. 576.] 4 John Da.mascenus adhered to the distinction drawn by the Greek fathers, De Fide Orthod. ii. c. 12. — Hugo of St. Victor , De Sacram. Lib. i. P. c. 2. distinguished: . Imago secundum rationem, similitudo secundum dilec- tionem , imago secundum cognitionem veritatis, similitudo secundum amorem virtutis , vel imago secundum scientiam, similitudo secundum substantiam . . . 20 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. . . .Imago pertinet ad figuram , similitudo ad naturam, etc. Hugo, however, restricted the image of God to the soul, and decidedly excluded the body ; for the passages, see Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 94, 95. — Peter Lombard made a somewhat different distinction (Sent. Lib. ii. Dist. 16. D.). by num¬ bering the dilectio among those qualities which form the image (memoria, intelligentia et dilectio) ; he conceived the resemblance to God to consist in the innocentia et justitia, quae in mente rationali naturaliter sunt. He also expressed himself more briefly thus : Imago consideratur in cognitione veri- tatis, similitudo in amore virtutis. In agreement with Hugo of St. Victor, he asserted, Imago pertinet ad formam, similitudo ad naturam.* [On the Lombard's views, see JSfeander , Hist. Dogm. 509 : he distinguished between the dona naturalia, and the dona gratise ; the former consist in the purity and vigor of all the powers of the soul ; left to himself, however, man could do only evil. The aid originally given to man he thus defines : IUud utique fiiit libertas arbitrii ab omni labe et corruptela immunis atque voluntatis rec- titudo et omnium naturalium potentiarum animse sinceritas atque vivacitas. On Aquinas and Alexander of Hales , see Neander, p. 574, sx dg pq emdexbpevov apaprlav ( povov yap to Oelov apapTiag egtlv avenideicTOv), aXX’ oi>x &£ ev rq (pvoei to apaprdveiv s^ovra, ev Tq npoaipeoei de paX- Xov qrot e^ovaiav exovra peveiv nal npononTeiv iv r

oavT(*)g nal TpeneGdai etc rov naXov, teal ev rd) Hand) y ivEGdai, rov Oeov napaxopovvTog did to avTel-ovoiov . Ovk dpSTq yap to (3ia yivopevov. Comp. c. 22, p 187-88, c. 24, 27 . Further, c. 27, 194-95 : E l de toDto, e% avdyrtqg napvfiGTaTai tg5 Xoyuid) to avTe^ov- glov • q yap ova eGTai Xoymbv , q Xoyinov ov nvpiov egtcli npdi-ecov nal avTe^ovGiov. "O dev nail ra aXoya ova eIglv avTe^ovGia' ayovTai yap paXXov vno Tqg fvGecog, qnep dyovar dio ovde avTiXeyovoi Tq (pvGiitq 6pe%ei, aXX’ dpa dpsxOd)Gi Tivog , 6ppd)ot npog Tqv npa^iv. fO de avOpomog, Xoyucog dv, ayei paXXov Tqv fvGiv qrrep dyeTar dto nal opeyopevog , elrrep eOeXot , e%ov- Giav exu dvaxcuTLGat Tqv ope^iv , q dnoXovQqoai av>Tq. "O dev Ta pev dXoya ovde enaivecTai , ovde ip eyeTar o de dvOponog nal enaivelTai nal fey STai. C. 30, p. 198 : (6 Oeog ) ov yap OeXec Tqv tcanlav y iveGdai, ovde (did^eTai Tqv apsTqv. Notice the usage of napa fvGiv, and naTa (pvoiv , ibid. p. 100, and compare it with Augustine’s usage of natura. — In his opinion, the effects of the fall consist in this, that man is OavaTcp vnevOvvcg nal fOopa nal novcp na6v77o(3XqQqoeTai nal TaXairuvpov eXnov (3l°v (ibid.) In the moral aspect man is yvpvoOelg Tqg xdpiTog nal Tqv npog Oeov nappqolav anendvGapevog (Lib. iii. c. 1.) Comp. iv. 20. — John Damascenus was also followed by the rest of the Greek theologians, Theodore Studita , Tlieophylactus , Euthymius Zigabenus , Nicetas Choniates , and Nicolas of Methone. The views of the latter (taken from his Refut.) are given by Ullmann , 1. c. p. 86, ss. He also laid great stress upon the freedom of the will, and held that the divine image was only obscured by the fall. 3 Anselm expressed himself in very strict terms concerning the imputa- * The passage in question refers, in the first instance, to the first man, but, as may be seen from the context, still admits of a general application in the case of all men. § 177. Original Sin. 27 tion of original sin, to the exclusion of all milder views, De Orig. Pecc. c. 3 : Si vero dicitur originate peccatum non esse absolute dicendum peccatum, sed cum additamento originale peccatum, sicut pictus homo non vere homo est, sed vere est homo pictus, profecto sequitur : quia infans, qui nullum liabet peccatum nisi originale, mundus est e peccato : nec fuit solus inter homines filius virginis in utero matris et nascens de matre sine peccato : et aut non damnatur infans, qui moritur sine baptismo, nullum habens peccatum prseter originale, aut sine peccato damnatur. Sed nihil horum accipimus. Quare omne peccatum est injustitia, et originale peccatum est absolute pecca¬ tum, unde sequitur, quod est injustitia. Item si Deus non damnat nisi prop¬ ter injustitiam, damnat autem aliquem propter originale peccatum : ergo non est aliud originale peccatum, quam injustitia. Quod si ita est, originale peccatum non est aliud quam injustitia, i. c., absentia debitse justifies, etc. — Nevertheless it is not the sin of Adam as such, but man’s own sin which is imputed to him, c. 25 : Quapropter cum damnatur infans pro peccato origi- nali, damnatur non pro peccato Adse, sed pro suo ; nam si ipse non haberet suum peccatum, non damnaretur. — lie opposed the theory of the material propagation of sin (by traducianism) in what follows, c. 7. (compare above, § 173, note 4) : Sicut in Adamomnes peccavimus, quando ille peccavit : non quia tunc peccavimus ipsi, qui nondum eramus, sed quia de illo futuri eramus, et tunc facta est illi necessitas, ut cum essemus, peccaremus (Rom. 5). Simili modo de immundo semine, “in iniquitatibus et in peccatis concipi” potest homo intelligi, non quod in semine sit immunditia peccati, aut peccatum sive ini- quitas ; sed quia ab ipso semine et ipsa conceptione, ex qua incipit homo esse, accipit necessitatem, ut cum habebit animam rationalem, habeat peccati immunditiam, quae non est aliud quam peccatum et iniquitas. Nam etsi ex vitiosa concupiscentia semine generetur infans, non tamen magis est in semine culpa, quam est in sputo vel in sanguine, si quis mala voluntate exspuit aut de sanguine suo aliquid emittit, non enim sputum aut sanguis, sed mala voluntas arguitur.) * — On the question how far all men have sinned in Adam ? compare ch. 1 and 2, and ch. 21, 22. Anselm also thought that there was a kind of mutual action between original sin, and personal sin, c. 26 : Sicut persona propter naturam peccatrix nascitur: ita natura propter personam 'magis peccatrix redditur. — Concerning the mode of the propagation of sin , viz., whether it is communicated in the first instance to the soul, or to the body, etc., the scholastics differed in their opinions. Comp. Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 132 ; especially the opinion of Peter Lombard , Lib. ii. Dist. 31 : [In concupiscentia et libidine concipitur caro formanda in corpus prolis. Unde caro ipsa quae concipitur in vitiosa concupiscentia pqJluitur et corrumpitur: ex cujus contactu anima cum infunditur macul^m trahit qua ° Anselm would not have admitted the force of the argument frequently urged in favor of the doctrine of original sin, viz., that certain moral dispositions, which may be called hereditary sins, are propagated like certain physical disorders, inasmuch as he taught, c. 23 (in connection with what has been said above), that only the sin of Adam is trans¬ mitted to his posterity, but not that of parents to their children. His reasoning was quite logical, because the idea of original sin would otherwise become too relative ! Con* cerning the relation of Anselm’s theory to the later Lutheran (Flacian ?) see Mohler , Kleine Schriften, i. p. 167. 23 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. polluitur ct fit rea, id cst vitium concupiscentiao, quod est originate peccatum. Pet. Lomb. Sent. lib. ii. Dist. 31, Litt. C.] — Some of the later theologians, adhering to Augustine and Anselm, taught similar views, e. g., Savonarola • Quid autem est peccatum originale, nisi privatio justitiae origin alis ? Ideo homo, conceptus et natus in hujusmodi peccato, totus obliquus est, totus curvus. . . .Peccatum itaquc originale radix est omnium peccatorum, fomes eniin omnium iniquitatum : Medit. in Psalm, p. 17, quoted by Meier, Savon¬ arola, p. 260. [Anselm wrote a treatise De libero Arbitrio, taking the ground that liberty does not consist in freedom of choice — as this will not apply to God and the blessed spirits: as we advance in virtue the possibility of sin¬ ning diminishes. Ilis definition is : Arbitrium potens servare rectitudinem voluntatis propter ipsam rectitudinem. Yet Anselm does not assert the total loss of freedom by the fall : De lib. Arb. cap. 3 : Licet peccato se subdidissent, libertatom tamen arbitrii naturalem in se interimere nequiverunt. So too Bernard , Gratia et lib. Arbitrium, c. 8 : Manet post peccatum liberum ar- bitrium ; etsi miserum, tamen integrum. Et quod se J3er se homo non sufficit excutere a peccato sive miseria, non liberi arbitrii signat destructionem sed duarum reliquarum privationem. So the Lombard , II. Dist. 25 : Cor- rupta est ergo libertas arbitrii per peccatum et ex parte perdita .... Ecce liberum arbitrium dicit [scil. Augustinus] hominem amisisse : non quia post peccatum non habuerit liberum arbitrium sed quia libertatem arbitrii perdidit: non quidem omnem sed libertatem a miseria et a peccato. — Abelard says that freedom is the power of doing what we decide to be according to reason. Comp. N candor, Hist. Dogm. 525, on the Delation of Grace and Freedom.] 3 Since Abelard maintained that the free consent of man was necessary to constitute sin (§ 1 76, note 4), he could not speak of sin, in the proper sense of the word, in the case of new-born infants ; yet he did not feel dis¬ posed to deny original sin altogether. He therefore took the word “ sin” in a twofold sense, applying it to the punishment, as well as to sin itself. In¬ fants have a part only in the former, but not in the latter. Nor did Abelard see how unbelief in Christ could be imputed to infants, or to those to whom the gospel is not announced : Scito te ipsum, c. 14 (quoted by de Wette , Sittenlehre, iii. p. 131). He also praised the virtues of the better part of the Greeks, especially of the philosophers, in particular of the Platonists ; Tlieol. Christ, ii. p. 1211 ; compare above § 158, note 2. Ncander , der heilige Bernhard, p. 125. 4 This difference is connected with the one above alluded to concerning the original state of man (§175). As the justitia originalis, according to Buns Scotusc, was not so intimately united with the nature of man, as Thomas Aquipas supposed, the loss of the supernatural gifts was less great, and might take place without such painful rupture as human nature must un¬ dergo, in the strict Augustinian view : see Sent. Lib. ii. Dist. 29. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas expressed himself as follows : Summ. P. ii. 1, Qu. 85, Art. 3 (quoted by Munscher, ed. by von Colin, p. 134); Per justitiam originalem perfecte ratio continebat inferiores animae vires, et ipsa ratio per- ficiebatur a Deo et subjecta. Ilaec autem originalis justitia subtracta est per peccatum primi parentis . et ideo omnes vires animae remanent quo- dammodo destitutae proprio ordine, quo naturaliter ordinantur ad virtutem, § 178. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. 29 et ipsa destitutio vulneratio naturae dicitur. Comp. Bonaventura Brevil. iii. 6, ss. 6 Deutsche Theologie, c. 14: “He who lives a selfish life, and according to the old man, is, and may justly be called, the child of Adam ; even if he have sunk so deep, as to be the child and brother of the devil . All who follow Adam in his disobedience are dead, and can be made alive only in Christ, i. e ., by obedience. As long as a man is Adam, and Adam’s child, he is his ownself, and lives without God . Hence it follows, that all the children of Adam are dead in respect to God . We shall never repent of sin, nor commence a better life, until we return to obedience . Dis¬ obedience is sin itself,” etc. 6 JVessel, De Magnit. Pass. c. 59, and other passages quoted by Ullmann , p. 244. — Savonarola taught in a similar manner concerning the posterity of Adam: rationem culpse non habent, reatu non carent. (Triumph. Cruc. Lib. iii. c. 9. p. 280, ss. quoted by Meier, p. 261.) Besides original sin, there were yet other effects of the fall (such as death and other evils), which had before this been made prominent by the early church, and to which even a greater importance was attached, on account of their connection with the imputation of sin. Death itself did not actually enter into the world till later, but mortality came at the same time with sin. On the question, in how far God may be said to have been the author of •death? etc., see Cramer , vii. p. 528. According to Scotus Erigena , the distinction of the sexes is the effect of sin; De Div. Nat. ii. 5, p. 49 : Eeatu suae prsevaricationis obrutus, naturae suae divisionem in masculum et fceminam est passus et . in pecorinam corruptibilemque ex masculo et foemina numerositatem justo judicio redactus est. § 178. EXCEPTION TO THE UNIVERSAL CORRUPTION OP MANKIND. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OP THE VIRGIN. , Labonlaye , die Frage der unbefleckten Empfangniss, Berl., 1854. Jul. Muller , in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft, vi. 1. *Passaglia , De Immaculato Deiparse semper Virginis Conceptu. 3 Tom. Rom., 1854-5. \J. Perrone , De Irn- macul. B. V. Marise Conceptu, Rom., 1848. Jo. Lannoii, Opera Omnia Prsescriptiones de Concept. B. Mar. Virginis, 1616, in Opera i. 1. Lambruschini , on Imm. Cone, transl. New York, 1855. Abbe Laborde, Impossibility of Imm. Cone, transl. Phil., 1855. Passaglia, (as above) in French version, 4 Tom., 1855. H. Benzinger, Dio Lehre d. unbefleckt. Emp., 2d ed., 1855. Sylloge Monument, ad Mysterium Cone. Immac. Virg., cura Ant. Ballerini, Rom., 1855. Mgr. J. B. Malon (Bruges) L’im- maculee Cone, de la bienheureuse Vierge. 2, 8vo, Bruxelles, 1857. Articles on the dogma, Christ. Remembrancer, 1852 and 1858; Methodist Quarterly (New York), 1855; Church of Eng. Quarterly, 1855; Brownson’s Quarterly, 1859.] The earlier notion, advanced not only by the heretic Pelagius, but also by the orthodox Athanasius, according to which some indi¬ viduals had remained free from the general corruption, was not likely longer to receive countenance.1 It was only the Virgin, who SO # Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. having long been elevated above the lot of humanity by an exces¬ sive adoration (the Hyper dulia), was to share the privilege of her son Jesus, viz., to appear as sinless on the page of history ; although theologians of repute, raised their voices against such a doctrine.1 2 In the course of the twelfth century, the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin gained great authority, in the first instance in France. But when the canons of Lyons instituted (a. d. 1140) a particular festival in honor of that doctrine, by which a new Lady-day was added to those already in existence, Bernard of Clairval , clearly perceiving that thus the specific difference be¬ tween our Saviour and the rest of mankind was in danger of being set aside, strongly opposed both the new doctrine and the festival.3* Albert the Great , Bonaventura , Thomas Aquinas , and with him the order of the Dominicans in general, were also zealous in opposition.4 On the other hand, the Franciscan monk, Duns Scotus , endeavored to refute their objections, and to demonstrate, by subtile reasoning, that the superiority of the Bedeemer, so far from being lessened, was augmented, by supposing that he himself was the cause of this righteousness in the nature of Mary ; yet even Scotus only main¬ tained, that the immaculate conception was the more probable among the different opinions.5 * The church hesitated for a long time without coming to a decision.8 Pope Sextus IV. at last got out of the difficulty by confirming the festival of the immaculate concep¬ tion, while he declared, that the doctrine itself should not be called heretical, and allowed those who differed to retain their own views.7 Of course the controversy did not come to an end, especially as the tendency of the age was rather favorable to the dogma. 1 Thus Anselm, De Pecc. Orig. drew a distinct line between the birth of John the Baptist (which was relatively miraculous, but did not, on that ac¬ count, render him sinless), and the incarnation of the Bedeemer (which excluded original sin). Sanctification (i. e., the being made holy) in the mother’s womb, does not exclude original sin ; and this is so specially noted to avoid confusion in the matter. So it could be, and was, assumed, that Mary was free from actual sin, without being delivered from original sin. See Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 558 sq. Julius Muller, loc. cit. p. 6. [Meth. Qu. Beview, ubi supra.] 3 Concerning the worship of the Virgin in general, see § 188 on the worship of saints. — The controversy on the immaculate conception was pre¬ ceded by that carried on between Paschasius Badbert and Batramn, con¬ cerning the virginity of Mary. Comp. § 179, toward the end (on Christology). Badbert had already maintained that Mary was sanctificata in utero matris (in d’Achery Spic. Tom. i. p. 46) ; but it is difficult to define precisely what he understood by that expression (compare the following note). It was, however, not only the worship of the Virgin as such, which led to the sup¬ position of her immaculate conception, but this seemed a necessary inference § 178. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. 31 from other doctrinal premises. Theologians as acute as the scholastics could not but be aware, that, in order to explain the miracle of Christ’s sinlessness on physical grounds, it was not sufficient to assert that man had no part in his generation ; for as long as his mother was supposed to be stained with original sin, it was impossible to deny that she had part therein, unless they had recourse (after the manner of the Docetae, and the Valentinians, in particular), to a mere birth did crcjXrjvog (comp. vol. i. § 65.) Anselm en¬ deavored to avoid this difficulty, by leaving the physical aspect of original sin more or less out of question (comp, the preceding §), De Pecc. Orig. c. 8 and c. 11. He also concedes unreservedly, that even a sinful mother might have conceived a Redeemer without sin. Yet still he considers it fitting (decens erat) that Mary should be purified from sin, before the Saviour of the world was conceived in her : De Concep. Virg. cap. 18, and Cur Deus Homo, ii. 16 : JBoso here declares decidedly against the immaculate conception ; Virgo tamen ipsa, unde assumtus est, est in iniquitatibus concepta, et in peccatis concepit earn mater ejus, et cum originali peccato nata est, quoniam et ipsa in Adam peccavit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. To this Anselm re¬ plies : Virgo autem ilia, de quo file homo (Christus) assumtus est, fuit de illis, qui ante nativitatem ejus per eum mundati sunt a peccatis, et in ejus ipsa munditia de ilia assumta est. Comp, the conclusion of chap. 16 : Quoniam matris munditia, per quam mundus est, non fuit nisi ab illo, ipse quoque per se ipsum et a se mundus fuit. And chap. 1 7 . per quam (scil. mortem Jesu Christi) et ilia virgo, de qua natus est, et alii multi mundati sunt a pec¬ cato. Comp. Hasse , ii. 461, 556. Muller ubi supra, 12 (with reference to the interpretation of the passage by Gabriel Biel, Sent. lib. iii. Dist. 3, qu. 1). 3 Bernardi , Ep. 174, ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, quoted by Gieseler ii. 499 ; Munsclier , edit, by Von Colin , p. 136; Laboulaye , 1. c. p. 16. He, too, admitted that Mary was sanctified in the womb (as Paschasius taught), but he did not draw from that doctrine the inference that she was free from original sin (quatenus adversus originale peccatum haec ipsa sanctificatio valuerit, non temere dixerim), and continues as follows : Etsi quibus vel pau- cis filiorum hominum datum est cum sanctitate nasci, non tamen et concipi , ut uni sane servaretur sancti praerogativa conceptus, qui omnes sanctificaret, solusque absque peccato veniens purgationem faceret peccatorum, etc. [Pe¬ ter Lombard , Liber Sent. iii. Dist. 3, sq., says of the flesh of Mary, which our Lord assumed, that “ it was previously obnoxious to sin, like the other flesh of the Virgin, but cleansed by the operation of the Holy Spirit.” “ The Holy Ghost, coming into Mary, cleansed her from sin.” Alexander of Hales , Summa, Pars iii. qu. 2, membr. 2, Art. 1,4: “ It was necessary that the blessed Virgin in her generation should contract sin from her parents ;” “ she was sanctified in the womb.” Perrone attempts to set aside these opinions, and that of Aquinas and others (below), by the position that these mediaeval doctors refer to the first, or active conception (the marital act), and not to the second conception (the infusion of the soul). But Aquinas says, that the infusion of grace is “ after the infusion of the soul ;” and that “ before the infusion of the soul the Virgin was not sanctified ;” and Alexander of Hales 32 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. and Bonaventura have similar statements. On the views of Peter de la Celle, bishop of Chartres, see Neander , Hist. Dogmas, 512.] * Albert Mag. Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 3. Thomas Aquinas, Summ. P. iii. Qu. 27. Art. 2, affirms a sanctification in the womb [sanctificata, and not sancta], but only after the fructifying of the embryo. But the lust of sin is not thereby wholly destroyed — secundum essentiam, which was the case only in the conception of Christ himself, yet the concupiscence is restrained — quoad exercitiam et operationem. Only later, when Christ was conceived, did the holiness of what she bore work also upon the mother, wholly annul¬ ling the bias to sin. Comp. Gieseler , Dogmengescli. 560 ; Jal. Muller, 1. c. ■ — JBonaventura, too, with all his enthusiastic veneration for Mary, did not consider her free from original sin : Sent. lib. iii.# Dist. 3. Art. 1, qu.'2 : Teneamus secundum quod communis opinio tenet, Virginis sanctificatio- nem fuisse post originalis peccati contractionem (. Munscher , Von Colin, ii. 136 sq.) 5 In Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 3. Qu. 1. and Dist. 18. Qu. 1. (quoted by Gieseler ) ; see Schrockh, Kircliengesch. xxxiii. p. 362, ss. Cramer, vii. p. 567, ss. Scotus takes his departure from the different possibilities : Deus potuit facere quod ipsa nunquam fuisset in peccato originali ; potuit etiam fecisse, ut tantum in uno instanti esset in peccato ; potuit etiam facere ut per tempus aliquod esset in peccato et in ultimo illius temporis purgaretur. And then he finds it probable to attribute to her the most excellent of these possibilities, accord¬ ing to the argumentum congruentise seu decentiae. Se-e Laboulaye, 1. c. 22. Scotus at any rate expressed himself with reserve, and even the Franciscans did not at first receive the doctrine unconditionally. — Aluarus Pelagias (about a. d. 1330) calls it — nova et pliantastica. But soon the jealousy of the Orders mingled in the controversy, and even visions on both sides were brought to support and refute the dogma. Thus St. Bridget (about a. d. 1370) testified for the doctrine, and St. Catherine of Siena, as a member of the St. Dominic order, had visions against it. 6 See Gieseler 1. c. p. 501. The festival spread, although the council of Oxford (a. d. 1222) pronounced against its necessity. In the 13th century it was widely observed, but only as the festum conceptionis in general, and not as the festum conceptionis immaculatce ; see the explanation of it in Durantis Rationale Div. Offic. libr. vii. c. 7, in Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 559. [Durant says, that it was not celebrated on account of the immaculate con¬ ception, for this was not the case ; but because the mother of the Lord had conceived. Aquinas however vindicates the festival as including a reference to the sanctity of Mary, but on the ground, that the time of her sanctifica¬ tion could not be accurately assigned ; and he opposes the immaculate concep¬ tion itself, as derogatory to the dignity of Christ.] At the Paris council (1387) the Spanish Dominican John de Montesono maintained, that it was against the faith to assume that original sin did not embrace all men, Mary included. But the University condemned this position, as well as others of this divine. Still more definite than the Paris synod was that of Basle, in favor of the dogma, Sess. xxxvi. (a. d. 1439, Sept. 17th) in Ilarduini Concc. T. viii. Col. 1266 : Nos . doctrinam illam disserentem gloriosam virgi- nem Dei genitricem Mariam, prseveniente et operante divini numinis gratia § 178. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. 33 singulari, nnnquam actualiter subjacuisse originali peccato, sed immunem semper faisse ab omni originali et actuali culpa sanctamque et immaculatam, tamquam piam et consonam cultui ecclesiastico, fidei catholic®, rectae ra- tioni et sacrae scripturse, ab omnibus catholicis approbandum fore, tenendam et amplectendam diffinimus et declaramus, nullique de csetero licitum esse in contrarium praedicare seu docere. (The celebration of the festival was fixed upon December 8th.) The Dominicans, however, adhered to their opposition ; thus particularly the Dominican Torquemada (Turrecremata). The decrees of Basle could not be considered as binding, because this coun¬ cil was held to be schismatical ; and it was the very men who guided that council, as D'Ailly and Gerson , who maintained the new dogma. Even at the council of Constance Gerson proposed to introduce also a festival in honor of the immaculate conception of St. Joseph ! (Miiller, ubi supra, p. 8). [On the introduction of the festival and the Paris decree, see Meth. Quar¬ terly, as above, p. 280-82.] 7 See the bulls of Pope Sixtus IV., dated Febr. 27th, a. d. 1474, and Sept. 4th, a. d. 1483 (Grave minus) in Extravagant. Comm. Lib. iii. Tit. 12. Cap. 1. and 2. (quoted by Munscher , edit, by Von Colin , pp. 168, 169.) Comp. Gieseler , iii. p. 387. 8 Even some of those who afterward espoused the cause of the Deforma¬ tion, were zealous advocates of the doctrine in question, such as Manuel , a poet of Berne, who wrote on the occasion of the scandalous affair of Jetzer: compare his “ Lied von der reinen unbefleckten Empfangniss” in the work of Gruneisen , Nic. Manuel, p. 297, ss., where he also quotes the fathers as authorities, even Anselm and Thomas Aquinas*, and then proceeds thus : Auch miltigklich nnd sicherlich der christen mensch das glaubet, das gott d’ herr, on widersperr, seyn mutter hat bedawet (begabet) mit heiligkeit, gnadrich erfreit, sunst wer sye vndg’legen sein zorn ins teufels pflegen, daz nit mocht seyn, d’ lilien reyn, Anselmus mer, in seyner leer, von dir hat schon betrachtet. Er haltet nit liebhabers sitt, der deyn hoch fest verachtet, das dich gantz clor eert preisst furwor, empfange on all siinde. etc. Thomas Aquin halt von dir fin, du seysst die reinst uff erden, on schuld und siind, fur Adams kind, gefreyet billich werden, in der taglich, auch nicht todtlich, keyn erbsund mocht beliben. Desgleichen thund auch scriben Scotus subtil, d’ lerer vil, die schul Paris, mit grossem fliss, zu Basel ists beschlossen. Die kristlich kilch, mit bistumb glich, halt das gantz unverdrossen. 3 34 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. von dorn bebut, heJlischer flut. In ewigkeit bestandtlich bistu allein, cbristlicbe ein, behalten bast gar trewlicb. Die sunn ibr scbein offt leytet ein in unflatiges kote, belibt docb keck on mass und fleck in ibrer scbon on note. Aucb gold on luft, in erdes cluft, wecbst unverseret glantze. Also beleib aucb gantze Maria bocb on erbsund bocb (pocb — docb) an sel und leib, vors teufels streyt und gottes zorn gefreyet. Gottlieb er gwalt in ibr beym stalt, und sye vor unfal weybet, etc. FOURTH DIVISION. CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY. § 179. THE GREEK CHURCH ON CHRISTOLOGY. THE ADOPTION CONTROYERSY IN THE WEST. NIHILIANISM. * Dor ner, Entwickelungsgeschichte der Christologie, p. 106, as., Walch , Oh. G. F, His- toria Adoptianorum. Gott. 1755-58. Frobenii Dissertatio Hist orica de Ilseresi Elipandi et Felicia (in his edition of the Works of Alcuin, T. i. p. 923, ss.) [ Christ - Her, John Scotus Erigena, 330-361.] After the Monothelite controversy had been brought to a close in the East, no further objections were there raised against the church doctrine of two natures and two wills in one and the same person. But, in the course of the controversy respecting images, the ques¬ tion, whether it was right to represent Christ in a bodily form, gave rise to a renewed discussion concerning the relation of the divine to the human nature. John Damascenus , in particular, en¬ deavored to reconcile the doctrine of two natures and two wills, with the unity of person, by regarding the divine nature as that which constitutes the person, and by illustrating the mutual rela¬ tion in which the two natures stand to each other, through the use of the phrases rponog avriSocecog and Trepix^pyoiq.1 The Greek theo- ' logians in general adopted his views.2 — The orthodox doctrine was. again endangered by the Adoption interpretation of the Sonship of Christ, advanced by several Spanish bishops, especially Elipan- dus of Toledo , and Felix of Urgella , whom Alcuin and others successfully combated. The adoption theory, by making a distinc¬ tion between an adopted son and a natural one, leaned toward Nes- torianism, though its peculiar modifications admitted a milder interpretation.3 Peter Lombard’ s view, that the Son of God did not become anything by the assumption of human nature (because no change can take place in the divine nature), was branded as the heresy of Nihilianism , though he advanced it without any evil in¬ tention, and was falsely interpreted as if he meant that Christ had become nothing .* Albert the Great , and Thomas Aquinas , en¬ deavored to develop the christological doctrines of the church in a dialectic method.5 But alongside of this dialectic scholasticism, 36 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. there was constantly found, as its supplement, a mystical, and tnoral tendency of a practical character. Some of this class despised all the subtile reasonings of the schools, while others, partly adopt¬ ing them, regarded Christ, as it were, as the divine representative, or the restored prototype, of humanity.* On the contrary, the false mystics transformed the historical Christ into a mere ideal.7 1 John of Damascus, De Fide Orth. iii. c. 2, ss. p. 205 : Ov yap 7 :poi>- 'noordoxj naO * eavrrjv oapKt 7]vu)6t) o Oetog Xoyog, a/ IP . avrog 6 Xoyog, yevopevog ry oapid vnooraotg coots apa oap%, dpa Oeov Xbyov oap %, dpa oap% ep\pvxog, XoytKi 'j re Kal voepd * 6 to ovk dvOpcmov drtoQeooOevra Xeyopev, aXXa Oeov evavOponrjoavra. "£2 v yap cfovcei reXetog Oeog, yeyove (pvoet reXetog avOpconog 6 avrog, k. t. X. Concerning the terras rponog avrtdooecog (communicatio idiomatum), and neptxd>Qr]otg (immeatio), see ch. 3 and 4, p. 210: K al ovrog ear tv o rponog rrjg dvrtdooeog, etcarepag (pvaeag dvrtdtdovorjg ry erepa ra tdta 6ta rfjv rrjg vrtoordoeog TaoTorrjTa, Kal ri]V eig dXXr\Xa avrcov neptxboprjotv. K ara tovto dvvapeOa elnetv rrepl XpLorov, Ovrog o Oeog rjp&v eirl rijg yf/g coptOr] nal rolg avOpconotg ovvave- Grpd TvpavvG) to tov deononov TTpooEVExGfjvai alpa, but used very strange language in the subsequent part of the chapter : Ylpbosioi Totyapovv o OavaTog Kal KaTamojv to odpaTog deXeap tgj Trjg OsoTrjTog ayKiOTpcp nepinelpETai, Kal avapapTrjTOv Kal ^Gjonoiov yevoapevog ocjpaTog dia yap OavaTGj vnevOvvov to ndv gpdjv yevog’ ndvreg yap rjpapTov , KEVTpov de tov OavaTov eotIv g apapTia (1 Cor. xv. 56), dl gg Tpcboag gpag o OavaTog KaTafieftXgKE, Kal dXXojg ovk gv tgjv deopCjv T7]g dovXelag anaXXaygvai Tovg dopaTi XgipOevTag, g did OavaTov (Rom. v. 14.) Ta yap XvTpa ev r g aipeoei Kefaai tgjv kotexovt tgjv. Ovk gv ovv o dvvapevog vneXOelv to dpapa Kal egayopaoai to yevog , ovk Tjv ovdelg tgjv tov yevovg eXevOepog’ poyig de Tgg idiag evoxgg eXevOe- povTaL Tig, og eavTOv anoOvgoKGJV ov dvvapevog ovveXevOepGJoai eva yovv eavTU ). E l de ovdeva , Tig gv dvvaTog , oXov Koopov dizaXXd^ai dovXetag ; el yap Kal d%i6xp£(vg tjv rrpog T7jv id'iav eXevGepiav EKaoTog’ aXXy ovv ovk tjv npenov , navTag anodavEiv , ovde vtto tt\v tov OavaTov e^ovoiav KaTa- peivai. T ivog ovv rjv to KaTopdcopa ; drjXov otl avapapTr/Tov Tivog. T ig de tgjv navTiov dvapapTTjTog rj povog b Oeog ; ei reidrj tolvvv Kal Oeov to epyov tjv Kal OavaTov Kal t&v 7]yrjoapevo)v tov OavaTov rraO&v ddvvaTOV rjv TeXeoG7]vai7 b Oeog de ixaOCbv Kal OavaTov eotIv arcapadeKTog, TrpooeXa[3e (pvoiv naO&v Kal OavaTov deKTLKrjv, bpoovaiav Tjfilv vnapxovoav KaTa navTa Kal arcapaXXaKTCjg exovoav rrpog f]pag, opov Xaf3l]V didovg tg3 npoonaXaiovTi OavaTcp KaTa oapKa , Kal di’ avTTjg T7jg vTZOKEipevjjg avTcp (pvoEGjg KaTayuvLovpevog avTov , Iva pr/TE avTog x(*)Pav GX°^rl Xeyeiv , ovx biro av0pd)7TOV7 aXX * vno Oeov TjTTTjoOai, pr/TE pl]v 7]pe(g KaTapaXaKi^oipeOa npog Tovg ay&vag’ Kaipov KaXovvTog exovTeg rrapadeiypa tt]v opo(pv7j Kal opoovoiov oapKa , ev q KaTEKpidrj 7] apapTia , x(*)Pav ovdoXcog evpovoa ev avTijj. . . Ov yap paT7]V Ti yeyove tgjv irepl to Tipiov avTov rcadog ovpftefirjKbTGJV, aXXa Xoyo) Tivl KpeiTTOVi Kal dvayKalcp , rraoav Xbyajv dvvapiv vTrepfidXXovTL. Comp. Refut. p. 155, ss., quoted by Seisen , p. 4, and Ullmann , p, 90, ss. “ He agreed (with Anselm) 'principally in endea¬ voring to .demonstrate .that the Redeemer must needs have been God and Man , but differed from him in this , that Anselm referred the necessity of the death of Jems to the divine holiness , while Nicolas brought it into connection with the dominion of Satan over sinful men.” Ullmann, p. 94. § 180. Atonement and Redemption. 43 8 “ The relation in which Anselm's theory of satisfaction stands to the opinions which had generally obtained previous to his time, is chiefly expressed in his decided opposition to the principle on which those views were founded , in relation to the devil Baur , Yersohnungslehre, p. 155. Cur Deus Homo i. 7. and ii. 19: Diabolo nec Deus aliquid debebat nisi pcenam, nee homo, nisi vicem, ut ab illo victus ilium revinceret ; sed quidquid ab illo exige- batur, hoc Deo debebat, non diabolo. Comp. Dial, de Yerit. c. 8 (in Ilasse, ii. 86) : Dominus Jesus, quia solus innocens erat, non debuit mortem pati, quia ipse sapienter et benigne et utiliter voluit earn sufferre. The theory of Anselm is rather established upon the idea of sin (comp. § 176, note 4.) It is the duty of man to honor God ; by sin he has deprived him of the honor due to him, and is obliged to mate retribution for it in a striking manner. So in i. 11: Ilunc honorem debitum qui Deo non reddit, aufert Deo quod suum est, et Deum exhonorat, et hoc est peccare. Quamdiu autem non sol¬ vit, quod rapuit, manet in culpa ; nec sufficit solummodo reddere, quod ab- latum est, sed pro contumelia illata plus debet reddere, quam ab'stulit. Com. also c. 13 : Necesse est ergo, ut aut ablatus honor solvatur, aut poena sequatur, alioquin aut sibi ipsi Deus Justus non erit, aut ad utrumque impo- tens erit, quod nefas est vel cogitare. It may be true that God can not, properly speaking (i. e., objectively), be deprived 'of his honor, but he must insist upon its demands, for the sake of his creatures ; the order and har¬ mony of the universe require it. i. c. 14 : Deum impossibile est honorem suum perdere. ... Cap. 15: Dei honori nequit aliquid, quantum ad ilium pertinet, addi vel minui. Idem namque ipse sibi honor est incorruptibilis et nullo modo mutabilis. Yerum quando unaquseque creatura suum et quasi sibi prseceptum ordinem sive naturaliter sive rationabiliter servat, Deo obe- dire et eum dicitur honorare ; et hoc maxime rationalis natura, cui datum est intelligere quid debeat. Quae cum vult quod debet, Deum honorat ; non quia illi aliquid confert, sed quia sponte se ejus voluntati et dispositioni sub- dit, et in rerum universitate ordinem suum et ejusdem universitatis pulchri- tudinem, quantum in ipsa est, servat. Cum vero non vult quod debet, Deum, quantum ad illam pertinet, inhonorat, quoniam non subdit se sponte illius dispositioni, et universitatis ordinem et pulchritudinem, quantum in se est, perturbat, licet potestatem aut dignitatem Dei nullatenus laedat aut decoloret. (With this the idea is connected, that the deficiency in the hierarchia coeles- tis, occasioned by the fall of the angels, was made up by the creation of man. * It is worthy of notice that, as the doctrines of the Church were gradually developed in the lapse of ages, the kingdom of Satan was more and more put into the background, as the shadows disappear before the light. During the first period, up to the complete overthrow of Manicheism, the demons occupied an important place in the doctrines respecting God and the government of the world, as well as in anthropology, until Au¬ gustine (in the second period) showed that the origin of sin is to be found in a profounder view of human nature. And lastly, in the course of the present period, the connection between the doctrines of Christology and Soteriology on the one hand, and the doctrine of demoniacal agency on the other, being dissolved, the latter is pushed back to escha- tology, where the devil finds his proper place in hell. Still farther, the relation of the devil to the work of redemption was still so prominent even in the time of Anselm, that Abelard was accused of heresy for contesting the right of the devil to man ; see Bern- hard. Epist, cxc. 5, in Mabillon, Tom. i. p. 650 sq. (Comp. Basse's Anselm, ii 493). 44 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. c. 16. (Comp, above § 1 72, Note 5.) From the reasons referred to, it would be unworthy of God to pardon the sinner, merely by making use of his supreme authority, in the way of mercy ; (i. c. 6), and c. 12 : Non decet Deum peccatum sic inpunitum dimittere . In that case, injustice would be more privileged than justice. (Liberior est injustitia, si sola misericordia dimittitur, quam justitia.) Comp. c. 19. But man can not make satisfac¬ tion, inasmuch as he is corrupt by original sin (i. c. 23 : quia peccator pec- catorem justificare nequit) : nevertheless it was necessary that satisfaction should be given by a human being, i. c. 3 : Oportebat namque ut sicut per hominis inobedientiam mors in humanum genus intraverat, ita per hominis obedientiam vita restitueretur, et quemadmodum peccatum, quod fuit causa nostrse damnationis, initium habuit a femina, sic nostras justitise et salutis auctor nasceretur de femina, et ut diabolus, qui per gustum ligni, quern per- suasit, hominem vicerat, ita per passionem ligni, quam intulit, ab homine vinceretur. But could not God have created a sinless man ? Be it so ; but then the redeemed would have come under the dominion of him who had redeemed them, i. e., under the dominion of a man, who would himself be nothing but a servant of God, to whom angels would not render obedience, (i. c. 5.) And besides, man himself owes obedience to God, i. c. 20 : In obedientia vero quid das Deo, quod non debes, cui jubenti totum, quod es et quod habes et quod potes, debes? . Si me ipsum et quidquid possum, etiam quando non pecco, illi debeo, ne peccem, nihil habeo, quod pro peccato illi reddam. — Nor could any higher being ( e . g. an angel) take upon him the work of redemption, for so much is sure : Ilium, qui de suo poterit Deo dare aliquid, quod superet omne quod sub Deo est, majorem esse necesse est, quam omne quod non est Deus . Nihil autem est supra omne quod Deus non est, nisi Deus . Non ergo potest hanc satisfactionem facere nisi Deus, (ii. c. 6.) If therefore none can make satisfaction but God himself, and if it be nevertheless necessary that a man should make it, nothing re¬ mains but that — the Godman should undertake it ; ibid. : Si ergo, sicut constat, necesse est, ut de hominibus perficiatur ilia superna civitas, nec hoc esse valet nisi fiat prsedicta satisfactio, quam nec potest facere nisi Deus, nec debet nisi homo : necesse est, ut earn faciat Deus homo. It is, moreover, necessary that the Godman should be of the race of Adam, and born of a virgin (c. 8. comp. § 179); and among the three persons of the Trinity, it appears most seemly that the Son should assume humanity (ii. c. 9. comp, g 170, Note 6). In order to make satisfaction for man, he had to give something to God which he did not owe to him, but which, at the same time, was of more value than all that is under God. Concerning obedience, he owed it to God, like every other rational creature ; but he was not obliged to die (c. 10, 11.) Nevertheless, he was willing to lay down his life of his own accord, ibid. : Video, hominem ilium plane, quern quserimus, talem esse oportere, qui nec ex necessitate moriatur, quoniam erit omnipotens, nec ex debito, quia nunquam peccator erit ; et mori possit ex libera voluntate quia necessarium erit; for death is the greatest sacrifice which man can offer, ibid. : Nihil asperius, aut difficilius potest homo ad honorem Dei sponte et non ex debito pati, quam mortem ; et nullatenus se ipsum potest homo magis § 180. Atonement and Eedemption. 45 dare Deo, quam cum se morti tradit ad honorem illius.* But it was be¬ cause it was voluntary, that the act had an infinite value ; for his death outweighs all sins, however numerous or great, c. 14. A : Cogita etiam, quia peccata tantum sunt odibilia, quantum sunt mala, et vita ista tantum ainabi- lis est, quantum est bona. Unde sequitur, quia vita ista plus est amabilis, .quam sint peccata odibilia. B. Non possum hoc non intelligere. A. Pu- tasne tantum bonum tarn amabile posse sufficere ad solvendum, quod debetur pro peccatis totius mundi? B. Imo plus potest in infinitum. (On this account Christ’s atonement has also a reacting influence upon our first parents, c. 16, and upon Mary herself, ibid, and c. 17, comp. § 178, note 2.) But the offering, thus voluntarily made, could not but be recompensed. As the Son, however, already possessed what the Father possesses, the reward due to him must accrue to the advantage of others, viz. men (ii. 19.) Thus the love and the justice of God may be reconciled with each other, c. 20: Misericordiam vero Dei, quae tibi perire videbatur, cum justitiam Dei et peccatum hominis considerabamus, tarn magnam tamque concordem justitiae invenimus, ut nec major nec justior cogitari possit. Nempe quid misericoi> dius intelligi valet, quam cum peccatori tormentis aeternis damnato, et unde se redimat non habenti, Deus pater dicit : Accipe Unigenitum meum, et da pro te ; et ipse Filius : Tolle me, et redime te ? . Quid etiam justius, quam ut ille, cui datur pretium majus omni debito, si debito datur affectu, dimittat omne debitum ? And lastly, we should not pass by his caution at the close of his treatise (c. 22.) : Si quid diximus, quod corrigendum sit, non renuo correctionem, si rationabiliter sit. Si autem testimonio veritatis roboratur, quod nos rationabiliter invenisse existimamus, Deo, non nobis attribuere debe- mus, qui est benedictus in ssecula. Amen. [On Anselm’s view compare Neander , Hist. Dogm. 514 sq., viz. he affirms the necessity of an active (rather than passive) vicarious sacrifice.] Notwithstanding all its appearance of logical consequence, the theory of Anselm, as has been remarked, is open to the charge of an internal contradiction. For though An¬ selm himself admitted, that God could not be deprived of his honor objectively, he never¬ theless founded his argument upon this objective fact, and made it necessary that, after all, the love and compassion of God should come in, accept the satisfaction voluntarily made by another and an innocent being, and for his sake remit the punishment due to actual transgressors, who, on their part could not retrieve their loss. Comp. Baur , p. 168-1 19. Schweizer, too, in his Glaubensl. d. reformirten Kirche, ii. 391, says, that the theory of Anselm hovers between the foedus operum and the fcedus gratise. To this it has been replied, that Anselm clearly distinguishes between the immanent and the transeunt (declarative) honor of God, and that his argument starts with this ; see Basse's Anselm, ii. 576. — But, further, the subjective (moral) aspect is put too much into the . background by the objective (legal) one ; and the rest of the redeeming work of Christ, as seen in his life, almost vanishes out of sight (comp, however, ii. c. 18.) Nor can it be denied, that the reconciliation spoken of is rather one made on the part of God with men, than a reconciliation of men with God ; see Baur , p. 181. Ullmann (Nicolas of Methone, p. 93.) ¥e should, however, be careful not to confound the theory of Anselm with its development by later Protestant theologians. On the question, whether the satisfaction ° Comp, also i. cap. 9 : Non coegit Deus Christum mori, in quo nullum fuit pecca¬ tum, sed ipse sponte sustinuit mortem, non per obedientiam deserendi vitam, sed propter obedientiam servandi justitiam, in qua tarn fortiter perseveravit, ut inde mortem in- curreret. 46 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. referred to by Anselm is, properly speaking, not so much a suffering of punishment , as merely an active rendering of obedience f inasmuch as he makes a diherence between punishment and satisfaction (i. 15. necesse est, ut omne peccatum satisfactio aut poena sequatur) see Baur, p. 183 ss. Nevertheless, it is certain, that the satisfaction made by Christ, in the view of Anselm, consisted, if not exclusively, at least principally, in sub¬ mitting to sufferings and death ; it can not, therefore, be said with Baur, “ that the idea of a punishment , by which satisfaction is made , and which is suffered in the room of another , does not occur in the scheme of Anselm \_Baur: Dogmengesch. 260-61, finds the nerve of Anselm’s theory in Cur Deus Homo, i. 23 ; Nullatenus debet aut potest accipere homo a Deo, quod Deus illi dare proposuit, si non reddit Deo totum, quod illi abstulit, ut sicut per ilium Deus perdidit, ita per ilium Deus recuperet. — The honor of God is to be restored, not merely negatively by punishment, but positively by satisfaction : the satisfaction, as such, is a moral act and desert.] On the other hand, it must be admitted that Anselm rests contented with the idea of the suffering of death : in his writings nothing is said of the Redeemer being under the burden of the Divine wrath , of his taking upon him the torments of hell, or what is called the anguish of the soul, etc. The chaste and noble, tragical style, too, in which the subject is discussed, forms a striking contrast with the weak and whining, even sensuous “ theology of blood” of later ages. — Respecting the relation in which Anselm’s theory stood to the doctrine of earlier times, see Baur , p. 186 ss. Neander, Church Hist. (Torrey’s transl.), iv. 500-Y. [On Anselm’s theory, see British and Foreign Quarterly Review, Edinb. 1859. The best and fullest account is in Basse's Anselm. Comp, also Thomasius , Christi Person und Werk, iii. 211-228: “We can not say, that here the love of God is sacrificed to his justice, nor that the love of the Father recedes behind the love of the Son, nor that the relation between guilt and satis¬ faction is viewed merely quantitatively ; but yet it is true, that the love of God is not made sufficiently prominent) and that the passive obedience of Christ does not come to its full recognition, since the death of Christ is not viewed as the suffering of a divine judg¬ ment, but as a gift to the honor of God, hence it is not strictly vicarious, but rather sup¬ plementary.” Yet “the idea of satisfaction has been made by Anselm the inalienable possession of the church.” — Neander, Hist. Dogmas, p. 521 : “ From the time of Anselm, two opposing views of redemption were developed : the one viewed its method as ob¬ jectively necessary, and derived its efficiency from this necessity; the other assigned rather a subjective connexion to the two, as if it had been merely the pleasure of God to connect the price of redemption with the sufferings of Christ, because these were best adapted to effect the moral transformation of man.” Comp., also, Ritschl , in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1860, p. 584, sq.] ■■* § 181. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT. The contemporaries and immediate successors of Anselm were far from adopting his theory in all its strictness.1 On the contrary, Abelard, taking in this case, as well as in many others, the opposite side of the question, attached principal importance to the moral aspect of the doctrine, and declared the love of Christ the redeem¬ ing principle, inasmuch as it calls forth love on our part.2 Bernard of Clairval, on the other hand, insisted upon the mystical idea of the vicarious death of Christ.3 Hugo of St. Victor adhered more nearly to the doctrine of Anselm, but modified it so far as to return to the earlier notion of a legal transaction and struggle with the § 181. Atonement and Redemption. 47 devil ; at the same time he asserted (with Abelard) the moral sig¬ nificance of Christ’s death.4 The opinions of Robert Pulley n and Peter Lombard were still more closely allied with those of Abelard, though the latter combined with it other aspects of the atonement.6 The later scholastics returned to the doctrine of Anselm, and de¬ veloped it more fully.6 Thus Thomas Aquinas brought the priestly office of Christ prominently forward, and laid great stress upon the superabounding merit of his death.7 Duns Scotus went to the other extreme, denying its sufficiency ;8 but he supposed a voluntary ac¬ ceptance on the part of God. Wy cliff e and Wessel attached im¬ portance to the theory of satifaction in its practical bearing upon evangelical piety, and thus introduced the period of the Reforma¬ tion.9 The mystics either renounced all claims to doctrinal precision, and, abandoning themselves to the impulses of feeling and imagina¬ tion, endeavored to sink into the depth of the love dying on the cross ; or they thought to find the true principle of redemption in the repetition in themselves of the sacrifice once made by Christ, i. e., in literally crucifying their own flesh.10 Those of a pantheistic tendency annulled all that was peculiar in the merits of Christ.11 The external and mythical interpretation of the doctrine, as a legal transaction, led to offensive poetical exaggerations and distortions of the truth.1 2* 1 “ If we must , on the one hand , acknowledge that Anselm's theory of sat¬ isfaction is a brilliant specimen of the dialectical and speculative acuteness of the scholastics , it must appear to us strange on the other hand, that he stands alone , and does not seem to have convinced any of his successors of the necessity of the standpoint which he assumed Baur, Versohnungslehre, p. 189. 2 Abelard opposed, like Anselm , hut still more decidedly, the introduction of the devil into the plan of redemption : Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. Lib. ii. (Opp. p. 550), quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 163 ; Baur , p. 191. The real ground of the reconciliation was stated by him as follows (p. 553, quoted by Baur, p. 194) : Nobis autem videtur, quod in hoc justi- ficati sumus in sanguine Christi et Deo reconciliati, quod per hanc singularem gratiam nobis exhibitam, quod filius suus nostram susceperit naturam, et in ipso nos tam verbo, quam exemplo instituendo usque ad mortem perstitit, nos sibi amplius per amorem astrixit, ut tanto divinae gratae accensi beneficio, nil jam tolerare propter ipsum vera reformidet caritas . Redemtio itaque nostra est ilia summa in nobis per passionem Christi dilectio, quae nos {leg. non) solum a servitute peccati liberat, sed veram nobis filiorum Dei libertatem, acquirit, ut amore ejus potius quam timore cuncta impleamus, qui nobis tan tam exhibuit gratiam, qua major inveniri, ipso attestante, non potest. “ Thus the two repre¬ sentatives of scholasticism , in its first period , when it developed itself in all its youthful vigor , Anselm and Abelard , were directly opposed to each other , with respect to the doctrines of redemption and atonement. The one considered the last ground of it to be the divine justice , requiring an infinite equivalent for the 48 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. infinite guilt of sin , that is, a necessity founded in the nature of God ; the other held it to be the free grace of God, which, by kindling love in the breast of man, blots out sin and with sin its guilt:'1'1 Baur , Verso hnungsleh re, p. 195. On the endeavors of Abelard, notwithstanding his other views, to re¬ present redemption in its legal aspect, see ibidem. [Abaelardi Opera, 1606, p. 590 : Sed et hoc, ni fallor, contuendo nobis Apostolus reliquit (Rom. v. 12, sq.), Deum in incarnatione filii sui id quoque sibi machinatum fuisse, ut non solum misericordia, verum et justitia per eum subveniret peccantibus, et ipsius justitia suppleretur , quod delictis nostris praepediebatur . Homo itaque factus lege ipsa dilectionis proximi constringitur, ut eos, qui sub lege erant, nec per legem poterant salvari, redimeret, et quod in nostris non erat meritis, ex suis suppleret, et sicut sancitate singularis extitit, singulars fieret utilitato in aliorum etiam salute.] 8 Bernard opposed Abelard, in the first place, in respect to the point that the devil has no legal claims upon man, see Epist. 190, de Erroribus Abas- lardi ad Innocentem III., quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 164, Baur, Versohnungsl. p. 202. He made a distinction between jus acquisitum, and jus nequiter usurpatum, juste tamen permissum. lie ascribed the latter to the devil : Sic itaque homo juste cap tivus tenebatur: ut tamen nec in homine, nec in diabolo ilia esset justitia, sed in Deo. Bernard, moreover, urged especially the fact, that Christ as the head, had made a satisfaction * for the members. [Homo siquidem, qui debuit, homo qui salvit. Nam si unus , inquit (2 Cor. v. 16) pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt , ut videlicet satisfactio unius hominis imputetur, sicut omnium peccata unus ille portavit, nec alter jam inveniatur, qui forefecit (i. e. peccavit), alter, qui satis- fecit, quia caput et corpus unus est Christus.] — Satisfecit caput pro membris, Christus pro visceribus suis (see Baur , pp. 202, 203.) Bernard’s views were most nearly allied to those of Augustine and Gregory the Great. 5 In the system of Hugo, God appeared as the patronus of man, and the opponent of the devil. But, first of all, it was necessary to conciliate his favor. This idea is largely dwelt upon in his Dialogus de Sacramentis legis naturalis et script*. De Sacram. c. 4 : Dedit Deus gratis homini, quod homo ex debito Deo redderet. Dedit igitur homini hominem, quern homo pro homine redderet, qui, ut dign^ recompensatio fieret, priori non solum sequalis, sed major esset. Ut ergo pro homine redderetur homo major homine, factus est Deus homo pro homine — Christus ergo nascendo debitum hominis p.atri solvit et moriendo reatum hominis expiavit, ut, cum ipse pro homine mortem, quam non debebat, sustineret, juste homo propter ipsam mortem, quam debebat, evaderet, et jam locum calumniandi diabolus non inveniret, quia et ipse homini dominari .non debuit, et homo liberari dig- nus fuiU — The following is written rather in the spirit of Abelard, c. 10 : Ut in Deo humanitas glorificata exemplum esset glorificationis homi- nibus ; ut in eo, qui, passus est, videant, quid ei retribuere debeant, in eo autem, qui glorificatus est, considerent, quid ab eo debeant exspectare ; ut et ipse sit via in exemplo et veritas in promisso et vita in pracmio. Comp. Liebner , Hugo von St. Victor, p. 417, ss. Baur, Versohnungsl. 206, 208. * Concerning Pulleyn, who in other respects was praised by Bernard on § 181. Atonement and Redemption. 49 account of his orthodox}7, see Cramer , vol. vi. p. 490, ss., Baur , p. 205. \Pulleyn says, the Redeemer must suffer, in part because this was necessary to our redemption (though we might have been redeemed in some other way), in part, as an example to us in the endurance of suffering. But the price of redemption was paid, not to the devil, which is impossible ; but to God.] Peter Lombard , more than any of the other scholastics, regarded the subject in question from the psychologico-moral point of view (see Baur , p. 209), Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 19 : A. Quomodo a peccatis per ejus mortem soluti sumus ? Quia per ejus mortem, ut ait Apostolus, commendatur nobis caritas Dei, i. qui pro nobis solvit.] ( Baur , p. 213.) And lastly the devil occupied a very strange position in the system of Peter Lombard. (Quid fecit redemp- tor captivatori nostro ? tetendit ei muscipulum crucem suam : posuit ibi quasi escam sanguinem suum.) Baur , p. 211, comp, also p. 79. [On the views of Raymund Lulli, see Neander , Hist. Dogm. 581. Of Innocent III., Nean- der says (p. 583), that he was “the first who represented the satisfaction of Christ as a reconciliation between the divine attributes of mercy and justice Modum invenit, per quern utrique satisfaceret tam misericordise quam jus- titise : judicavit igitur, ut assumeret in se poenam pro omnibus et clonaret per se gloriam universis. Sermo i. fol. 6, ed. Colon. 1575. “This,” adds Neander, “ was the first assertion of the satis/ actio vicaria jiassiva among the schoolmen.” Neander also cites from William of Paris : Quid mirum est, Deum esse factum hominem,.participatione humanse naturae, ut homo etiam fieret Deus, congruenti sibi p^irticipatione deitatis. The love of God must be revealed, that man may love God : Quia amor amore convenientius accenditur, sicut ignis igne, decuit Deum amorem nostrum amore suo accen- dere.] * Thus Alanus ab Insulis iii. (quoted by Pez , T. i. p. 493-97) ; Albertus 4 50 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. Magnus (Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 20, Art. 7) ; Alexander Hales, in Summse P. iii. Qu. 1, Membr. 4, ss., see Cramer , vii. p. 574, ss., Baur, p. 215, note. \Alexander , Summa, Pars iii. qu. 1. membrum 5, that man can not make sat¬ isfaction without the gift of grace : Membr. 6, that no creature could do it, being finite : Membr. 7, that only the Godman could do it : Ergo necesse est, quod satisficiat Deus, qui potest, et homo, qui debet, ergo debet satisfacere Deus homo, et non solus Deus nec solus homo.] Bonaventura (Opp. T. v. p. 191, ss., ibid. p. 218, ss.) 7 Summse Pars, iii. Qu. 22, (de Sacerdotio Christi), quoted by Munscher , edit, by Yon Colin, p. 166. His theory of satisfaction will be found ibid. Qu. 46-49.* Baur , Versohnungsl. p. 230, ss. He discussed especially the necessity of suffering, and the question, Whether God could have redeemed man in any other way? and replied to it both in the affirmative and nega¬ tive, according to the idea formed of necessity. (Art. 2. Baur, p. 232.) At all events, the sufferings of Christ were the most proper way, and the one most to the purpose. It was also significant, that Christ suffered on the cross, which reminds us not only of the tree in Paradise, but also of this, that the cross is a symbol of various virtues, as well as of that breadth, and length, and depth, and height of which the apostle spoke (Eph. iii. 18), of our exaltation into heaven, etc. While Anselm did not go beyond the sim¬ ple fact of Christ’s death, Aquinas endeavored to demonstrate, that Christ endured in his head, hands, and feet, all the sufferings hich men have to endure in their reputation, worldly possessions, body and soul, in head, hands, and feet ; accordingly, the pain of the sufferings of Christ is by far the greatest which can be endured in the present life (in proof of which he adduced several arguments.) Nevertheless his soul possessed the uninter¬ rupted enjoyment of blessedness , Art. 8, (but Thomas Aquinas himself did not as yet speak of the soul’s enduring the torments of hell, or bearing the eternal curse, thus leaving the sufferings incomplete.) [But Aquinas con¬ siders this case of eternal punishment, also ; and argues, that Christ need not, and could not, thus suffer ; the dignity of his person, and his voluntary sacrifice were sufficient; see Thomasius, ubi supra, 236 sq. Christ suffered all that man deserved, “ secundum genus,” and not “secundum speciem.”] He further propounded (like Bernard of Clairval) the mystical idea, accord¬ ing to which the head suffers for the members (Qusest. 48, art. 1.) : Christus per suam passionem non solum sibi, sed etiam omnibus membris suis meruit salutem. Passio non est meritoria, inquantum habet principium ab exteriori, sed secundum quod earn aliquis voluntarie sustinet, sic habet principium ab interiori, et hoc modo est meritoria. — Thomas made use of the same mys- / * In Thomas Aquinas we also find (as the title indicates) the first hints about the threefold office of Christ, since he views him as legislator, sacerdos and rex. However, he does not use the expression munus , officium , and only develops the sacerdotium , showing how Christ was at once sacerdos and hostia perfecta. See Gieseler, Dog- mengesch. ,513. [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I. 3, already recognizes the three offices, saying, that high priests, kings and prophets were anointed as types, having reference to the true Christ, the Logos, who is the only high priest of all, the only king of all creation, and the only arch-prophet of the prophets of the Father. Comp. Ebrard in Herzog’s Real- eacyclop.J 51 § 181. Further Development. tical idea to refute the objection that one being could not make satisfaction for another ; for, inasmuch as two are made one through love, the one may make satisfaction for the other. Concerning the meritum superabundant, Qu. 48, art. 2 : Christus autem ex charitate et obedientia patiendo majus aliquid Deo exhibuit, quam exigeret recompensatio totius offensse humani generis : primo quidem propter magnitudinem charitatis , ex qua patieba- tur ; secundo propter dignitatem vitae suae, quam pro satisfactione ponebat, qua3 erat vita Dei et hominis ; tertio propter generalitatem passionis et magnitudinem doloris assumti . et ideo passio Christi non solum sufficiens , sed etiam super abundans satis/ actio fuit pro peccatis humani generis (1 John ii. 2.) Respecting his further statements, see Baur , Ver- soliuungslehre, and Miinscher, edit, by Yon Colin, p. 167. \Thomasius, ubi supra, '236 sq., and Bits chi, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1860, p. 597 sq.] 8 Duns Scotus in Sent. L. iii. Dist. 19: . . . Quantum vero attinet ad meriti sufficientiam, fuit profecto illud finitum, quia causa ejus iinita fuit, videlicet voluntas naturae assumptse, et summa gloria illi collata. Non enim Christus quatenus Deus meruit, sed in quantum homo. Proinde si exquiras, quantum valuerit Christi meritum secundum sufficientiam, valuit procul du- bio quantum fuit a Deo acceptatum. Siquidem divina acceptatio est potis- sima causa et ratio omnis meriti . Tantum valuit Christi meritum suffi- cienter, quantum potuit et voluit ipsum Trinitas acceptare, etc. — Thus he destroyed the principal argument of Anselm’s theory in his Cur Deus Homo ? for, since Christ suffered only in his human nature, an angel, or any other man, might have suffered quite as well, as Duns Scotus was fully prepared to admit. Comp. Baur , p. 256. On this account the sufferings of Christ appeared even less necessary to Scotus than they did to Thomas Aquinas. Both their systems are compared by Baur , Versohnungsl, pp. 257, 258. — Bonaventura occupied an intermediate position between the two former, by teaching a perfectio et plenitudo meriti Christi. Brev. iv. c. 7, Cent. iii. sect. 30. [The theory of Scotus was favored by nominalism. Clement VI sanctioned the Thomist theory in his jubilee bull of 1343. Baur. William Occam , the great reviver of nominalism, passes over the topic wholly in his commentary on the Lombard, and merely alludes to it in his Quodlibeta. The Spanish nominalist, Michael de Placois (in the 16th century), says: Mortem Christi non explevisse justitiam, sed solum explevisse ex magna con- dignitate — quod ad justitise sequalitatem attinet, tantum valorem habere oportuisse opera puri hominis, quantum habuerunt opera Christi, quia per se neutra sufficiebant. Quoted in Thomasius, ubi supra, p. 245. On Gabriel Did, see ibid. p. 251 sq. On Duns Scotus, see Ritschl, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1860, p. 565 sq.] 6 Wycliffe. Trialogus iii. c. 25 (De Incarnatione et Morte Christi), quoted by Baur, p. 273. [Dialog, lib. iii. cap. 25 : Salvari enim oportet ilium homi- nem (Adam), cum tam fructuose poenituit, et Deus non potest negare suam misericordiam taliter pcenitenti. Et cum, juxta suppositionem tertiam, opor¬ tet, quod satisfactio pro peccato fiat, ideo oportet, quod idem illud genus hominis tantum satisfaciat, quantum in prothoplasto deliquerat, quod null us homo faeere poterat, nisi simul fuerat Deus et homo . Et fuit necessa- 52 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. rium, ipsam acceptum fnisse in ligno, *ut sicut ex fructu ligni vetito periit homo, sic ex fructu ligni passo salvetur homo. Et sunt alise multae con- gruentise utrobique.] He laid, however, quite as much stress upon repent¬ ance as upon the theory of satisfaction. — According to Wessel , Christ was our Redeemer, even by representing in himself the divine life (an idea which had almost wholly sunk into oblivion since the time of Anselm.) Neverthe¬ less he was also Mediator ; yea, he was God, priest, and sacrifice at the same time. We see in him both the God who was reconciled, and the one who brought about that reconciliation. Comp. De Magnitud. Passionis, c. 17, and Exempla Scalse Meditationis, Ex. iii. p. 391 ; quoted by Ullmann , p. 261, JSaur , p. 277. “ Wessel , too, considered the sufferings of our Lord as being made by a substitute ; but going beyond the merely external and legal trans¬ action ., he asserted the necessity of a living faith , and the appropriation of the Spirit of Christ Ullmann , p. 264. He attached, therefore (as did Abelard and Peter Lombard), great importance to the principle of love. He who would form a correct estimate of the full measure of the sufferings of Christ, must come to them, above all, with an eye exercised in love ; De Magnit. Passionis, p. 19. Further passages may be seen in the works of Ullmann and J3aur. 10 The emotional contemplation of the sufferings of Christ, and expressions such as “ the blood of Jesus , full of love , and red like a rosev (e. g. in the writings of Suso), may, indeed, be traced to mysticism. But the true mys¬ tics did not rest satisfied with this. Thus the author of the “ Deutsche Theologie,” c. 3, after having proved that God had assumed humanity in order to remove the effects of the fall, thus continues : “ Though God were to take to himself all men who exist, and to assume their nature, and be incarnated in them, and make them divine in him, yet, if the same did not take place with regard to myself, ‘ my fall and rebellion would never be destroyed.” — In more distinct reference to the design of the sufferings of Christ, Tauler said (in a sermon on Luke x. 23, quoted by Wackernagel , Lesebuch i. sp. 868) : “ Since your great God was thus set at nought, and condemned by his creatures, and was crucified and died, you should, with patient endurance, and with all suffering humility, behold yourselves in his sufferings , and have your minds thereby impressed .” Compare also his Sermons, i. p. 289 (Sermon on Good Friday.) — Bishop Master Albrecht said : “Four-and-twenty hours compose day and night ; take one of the hours and divide it into two, and spend it in contemplating the sufferings of our Lord — that which is better and more useful to man than if all men, and all the saints, and all the angels of God, and Mary, the mother of God, should re¬ member him [i. e ., should intercede for him.] As man dies a bodily death, so he dies unto all sin, by serious meditation on the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ^ (Spruche deutscher Mystiker, in WackernageVs Lesebuch, sp. 889.) — But not only did the mystics urge the necessity of recalling the sufferings of Christ by inward contemplation, but the same idea was also externally represented by the self-inflicted torments of ascetics, especially ot the Flagellantes of the middle ages. In the latter case it must, however, be admitted, that as the spirit of self-righteousness was called forth, the merits of Christ were thrown into the shade. Thus, it is said, in one of the hymns § 182. Connection of Christology and Soteriology. 53 of the Flagellantes (a. d. 1349) : “Through God we shed our blood, on ac¬ count of which our sins will be pardoned.” (Hoffmann, Geschichte des deutschen Kirch enliedes, p. 94.) 11 The Beghards taught : Christus non est passus pro nobis, sed pro se ipso. (Mosheim, p. 256.) Almarich of Bena maintained, that by all Christ¬ ians being members of Christ, we are to understand, that, as such, they participated in the sufferings of Christ on the cross. ( Engelhard t, p. 253.) Thus he inverted the doctrine according to which the head died for the members (that of Bernard of Clairval, and Thomas Aquinas.) 12 Jacob de Theramo , who lived in the fourteenth century (1382) treated the transaction between Christ and Belial (the devil) in the form of a judi¬ cial process; this was translated into German in the 15th century, under the title : “ Hie hept sich an ein Rechtsbuoch comp. W. Wackernagel , Die altdeutschen Handschriften der Baseler TJniversitatsbibliothek, 1835, 4to. pp. 62, sq. Baur , (relying on Doderlein’s Diss. Inauguralis, 1774-5, in his Opusc. Academ. Jena, 1789), calls it a carnival play ; but it is not so, the subject is intended to be treated in an earnest spirit. Compare a simi¬ lar drama : Extractio Animarum ab Inferno, in the English Miracle- Plays or Mysteries , by W. Marriott. Bas. 1838, p. 161. [Comp. Karl Ease, das geistliche Schauspiel, 1858.] § 182. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SOTERIOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY. Julius Muller in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft. Oct. 1850. In the theory of Anselm, so much importance was attached to the incarnation and death of Jesus, as the foundation of the work of redemption, that there was danger lest the wonderful life of the Redeemer, which lies between the two, should lose its religious significance. There were, however, those who again directed atten¬ tion to the life of the Godman, as itself having a redeeming power.1 Some, indeed, made it appear that Christ came into the world only in order to die, and that consequently he would not have been sent at all if there had been no sin to atone. On the other hand, others, e. g. Wessel , pointed out in various ways the significance which the manifestation of God in the flesh must have, indepen¬ dently of sin and its effects, as the keystone of creation, and crown of humanity.’ 1 See Wessel in the preceding §, note 9. a Comp. vol. i. § 64. “ The question, whether Christ would have assumed the nature of man if there had been no sin , was not discussed until the mid¬ dle ages , being started , as it appears, for the first time by Rupertus, Abbot of 54 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. Buitz , in the 12 th century .” Borner , p. 134 ; comp, his work, De Glorificatione Trinitatis, et Processione Sp. Sanct. lib. iii. c. 21 ; iv. 2, and Comm, in Mattli. de Gloria et Honore Filii homin. lib. xiii. (Opera, Tom. ii. 164) ; Gieseler , Dogmengesch. 514. [Rupert says, that men and angels were created for the sake of the one man, Jesus Christ ; he, the head and king of all elect angels and men, did not need sin in order to become incarnate. Alexander of Hales adopted the same view : Summa Theol. P. iii. Qn. 2, Membr. 13. Bonaventura agrees with Aquinas.] — The language of Thomas Aquinas \ sufficiently shows that he too felt disposed to look upon the incarnation of j Christ as being in one respect the completion of creation. In his Comment. / on the Sentences, Lib. iii. Dist. 1. Qu. 1, Art. 3, he said, that the incarnation- f had not only effected deliverance from sin, but also — hum an 80 naturae exalta- tionem et totius universi consummationem. Comp. Summa, P. iii. Qu. 1, Art. 3 ; Ad omnipotentiam divinae virtutis pertinet, ut opera sua perficiat et se manifestet per aliquem infinitum effectum, cum sit finita per suam essen- tiam, Nevertheless, he thought it more probable (according to P. iii. Qu. 1, 3), that Christ would not have become man if there had been no sin. This notion generally obtained, and theologians preferred praising (after the example of Augustine) sin itself as feiix culpa (thus Richard of St. Victor , De In- carnat. Yerbi. c. 8), rather than admit the possibility of the manifestation of the Son of God apart from any connection with sin. Buns Scotus , how¬ ever, felt inclined to adopt the latter view, which was more in accordance with his entire Pelagian tendency;* Lib. iii. Sent. Dist. vii. Qu. 3, and Dist. xix. On the other hand, Wessel, whose sentiments were by no means like those of Pelagius, took the same view (De Incarn. c. 7 and c. 11, quoted by Ullmann , p. 254). In his opinion the final cause of the incarnation of the Son of God is not to be found in the human race, but in the Son of God himself. He became man for his own sake ; it was not the entrance of sin into the world which called forth this determination of the divine will ; Christ would have assumed humanity even if Adam had never sinned : Si incarnatio facta est principaliter propter peccati expiationem, sequeretur, quod anima Christi facta sit non principali intentione, sed quadam quasi oc- casione. Sed inconveniens est, nobilissimam creaturam occasionaliter esse introductam (quoted by Dorner , p. 140.) [Comp, on the subject of this section, W. FlorJce , in Zeitschrift f. d. * This was done in later times by the Socinians. Nevertheless, the theory in question may be so strained, “ that sin is made light of, and mankind exalted, rather than the dig¬ nity of Christ augmented .” (Dorner, p. 131.) But whether the notion of a feiix culpa, by which sin is made to appear as Oeotokoc, might not lead men so far as to worship it on pantheistic grounds, and at the same time to make light of it in the moral point of view, is another question. And, on the other hand, if we, looking at sin in a serious light, re¬ gard the incarnation of Christ merely as something which has become necessary in order to repair the damage, its happy aspect will be lost sight ofJ and the joy we might experi¬ ence at Christmas will too soon be changed into the weeping and wailing of the Passion- week. This is the principal defect of Anselm’s theory. But with respect to the exaltation of mankind at the expense of the dignity of Christ, the latter, so far from being endan¬ gered by the theory of 'Weasel, is raised by the idea that Christ assumed humanity not on account of man, but for his own sake, an idea by which the pride of man is humbled. [This note is omitted in the 5th edition of Hagenbach.] § 182. Connection of Christology and Soteriology. 55 Lutkerische Tkeologie, 1854, p. 209-249; Liebner , in liis Christologie ; Dorner , Lekre von der Person Ckristi ; Tkomasius , Christi Person und Werk, i. 169. Aquinas denied tlie position, that Christ would have become incarnate even if there had been no sin, not merely on the ground that the Scripture connects the incarnation only with sin, but also, because the per¬ fection of the universe did not require it : Ad perfectionem universi sufficit, quod naturali modo creatura ordinetur in Deum sicut finem. Hoc autem excedit limites perfectionis naturse, ut creatura uniatur Deo in persona: Summa , Pars iii. qu. 1, art. 3. Baymund Lulli , as quoted in Neander, Hist. Do gm. 582, says that the incarnation is indeed a work of free love ; and that we can not say that it was only brought about by sin, but that God owed it to himself: Alias Deus non solveret debitum sibi ipsi et suis digni- ¥ FIFTH DIVISION. THE ORDO SALUTIS. § 183. * PREDESTINATION. ( The Controversy of Gottschalk .) CeUot, L.y Historia Gotteschalci. Par. 1655, i \Staudenmaier, Scotus Erigena, p. 170, ss. Gfrorer, on Pseudo-Isidore in the Tubingen Theol. Zeitschrift, xviii. 274, sg. Wiggers , Schicksale d. Angustinischen Anthropologie, in Niedner's Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol., 1857-8. [ Weizsdcker, Das Dogma von der gottlichen Vorherbestimmung im neunten Jahr. in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1859. Archb. Ussher , Gottschalcus et Prsedest. Controvers. ab eo mota, Dublin, 1631, and in Ussher1 s Works, 16 vols., Dublin, 1837-40. The Predestination Controversy in the Ninth Century, Princeton Review, 1840. F. Monnier , De Gottschalci et Joan. Scoti Erigenae Con- troversia, Paris, 1853.] Great as was the authority of Augustine in the West, the pre¬ vailing notions concerning the doctrine of Predestination contained more or less of the Semipelagian element.1 Accordingly, when in the course of the ninth century Gottschalk , a monk in the Franciscan monastery of Orbais, ventured to revive the rigid Augustinian doc¬ trine, and even went so far as to assert a twofold predestination, not only to salvation hut also to damnation,2 he exposed himself to per¬ secution. He was in the first instance, opposed by Rabanus Mau- rus ,3 and afterwards condemned by the Synods of Mayence (a. d. 848), and of Quiercy (Cressy, Carisiacum, a. d. 849).4 Hincmar , Archbishop of Rheims, took part in the transactions of the latter Synod. Though Prudentius of Troyes ,5 Ratramn ,6 Servatus Lupus ,7 and several others, pronounced in favor of Gottschalk, though under certain modifications, John Scotus Erigena , by an ingenious argumentation contrived to preserve the appearance of Augustinian orthodoxy, by maintaining, on the basis of the position borrowed from Augustine, that evil was something negative, and therefore could not, as such, he predestinated by God.8 The objections ad¬ vanced b y Prudentius and Florus (Magister) were as little heeded as the steps taken by Remigius , Archbishop of Lyons, in behalf of Gottschalk.8 On the contrary, the second Synod of Quiercy (Cressy, A. D. 853) laid down four articles, in accordance with the views of § 183. Predestination. 57 Hincmar ;10 then several bishops at the Synod of Valence drew up six other articles of a contrary tendency, which were confirmed by the Synod of Langres (a. d. 859), 11 but zealously opposed again by Hincmar.12 Gottschalk, the victim of the passions of others, bore his fate with that fortitude and resignation, which have at all times characterised those individuals or bodies of men who have adopted the doctrine of Predestination. 1 The theologians of the Greek church retained the earlier definitions as a matter of course. John Damasc. He Fide Orthod. ii. c. 30 : Xp?/ y ivgjokelv, cjg Tcavra pev TTpoyivdoicei 6 Oeog, ov ndvra de npoopi^er irpoyivdyoiceL yap ra £0’ ijplv, ov npoopt^ei de avra. (Comp. § 177*, note 1). — Respecting the opinions entertained by the theologians of the Western church ; see vol. i. § 114. The venerable Bede (Expositio Allegorica in Canticum Cantic.) and Alcuin (de Trinit. c. 8) adopted, in the main, the views of Augustine, but rejected the praedestinatio duplex. Comp. Munscher , ed. by von Colin, pp. 121, 122. They were, however, unconscious of the difference between themselves and Augustine; see Neander, Church History, iv. p. 472, sg. Wiggers , ubi supra. 3 Respecting the history of his life, and the possible connection between it and his doctrine, see Neander, 1. c. p. 414, ss. ; Staudenmaier, 1. c. p. 175, [aud Gieseler, ii. § 16.] His own views, as well as those of his opponents, may be gathered from Guilb. Maugin , Vett. Auctorum, qui saec. IX. de Praedestinatione et Gratia scripserunt, Opera et Fragmenta. Paris, 1650, Tomi. ii. 4to (in T. ii. : Gotteschalcanae Controversiae Historica et Chronica Dissertatio.) In the Libellus Fidei which Gottschalk presented to the synod of Mayence, he asserted: Sicut electos omnes (Deus) praedestinavit ad vitam per gratuitum solius gratise suae beneficium . sic omnino et reprobos quosque ad aeternae mortis prsedestinavit supplicium, per justissimum vide¬ licet justitiae suae judicium (after Hincmar, de Praed. c. 5). In his con¬ fession of faith (given by Munscher, ed. by von Colin, p. 122) he expressed himself as follows : Credo et confiteor, quod gemina est praedestinatio, sive electorum ad requiem, sive reproborum ad mortem. But he referred the praedestinatio duplex not so much to evil itself, as to the wicked. Compare the passage quoted by Neander, iii. 475 : Credo atque confiteor, prsescisse te ante ssecula quaecunque erunt futura sive bona sive mala, praedestinasse vero tantummodo bona. On the connection subsisting between his views and those of Augustine, see Neander, 1. c. p. 474. [The fundamental idea of Gottschalk was that of the divine immutability . He does not speak of a predestination to evil, but to' death. See Baur , Dogmengesch. 215. Comp. Neander, Hist. Dogm. 448, $ ruorevovoa, evoe(3ovoa real rag evroXag rrpdrrovaa rov avauaivioavrog i]pag . . "E on de rraXiv rrioreg eXttl^o- pevcjv vrrooraoig (Hebr. xi. 1), rrpaypdrorov eXey^og ov fiXenopevcov, rj adioranrog teal ddidapirog eXrrlg rcbv re vmo deov i]plv enrjyyeXpevoiv , nal r^g rd)V airijoeatv i]pu)V e'rirv'xiag. 'H pev ovv irpdrrj rrjg rjperepag yvdprjg earl , i] de devrepa rcbv xapiopo'rtov rov nvevparog. 3 On the difference between these two terms, compare Liebner , p. 435. [ Hugo St. Victor : De Sacramentis, liber 1, part x. cap. 3: Duo sunt, in quibus fides constat : cognitio et affectus , i. e ., constantia vel firmitas credendi. In altero constat quia ipsa illud est ; in altero constat, quia ipsa in illo est. In affectu enim substantia fidei invenitur ; in cognitione materia. Aliud enim est fides, qua creditur, et aliud, quod creditur. In affectu invenitur fides, in cognitione id, quod fide creditur.] 8 Sent. L. iii. Dist. 23, D : Aliud est enim credere in Deum, aliud credere Deo, aliud credere Deum. Credere Deo, est credere vera essa qum loquitur, quod et mali faciunt. Et nos credimus homini, sed non in hominem. Cre¬ dere Deum, est credere quod ipse sit Deus, quod etiam mali faciunt [this kind of faith was sometimes called the faith of devils, according to James ii. 19]. Credere in Deum est credendo amare, credendo in eum ire, credendo ei adhgerere et ejus membris incorporari. Per hanc fidem justificatur impius, ut deinde ipsa fides incipiat per dilectionem operari. — The same holds true of the phrase, credere Christum, etc. Comp. Lit. C. 4 Generally speaking, the scholastics made a difference between subjective and objective faith, fides qua , and fides quee creditur ( Peter Lombard , 1. c.) As a subdivision, we find mentioned fides formata, which works by love. Faith without love remains informis, see Lombard , 1. c. : Thomas Aquinas , Summ. P. ii. 2, Qu. 4, A§t. 3 (quoted by Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 175.) § 186. Faith and Good Works. 69 So, too, a distinction was made between developed and undeveloped faith, (tides explicita et implicita) ; the latter is sufficient, see Summa, ii. Qu. 1, Art 7 : Qu. 2, Art. 6 and 7. ‘ Thus Peter Lombard said, 1. c. : Sola bona opera dicenda sunt, quae hunt per dilectionem Dei. Ipsa enim dilectio opus fidei dicitur. — Faith would therefore still be the source of good works ; comp. Lib. ii. Dist. 41, A. where every thing which does not proceed from faith (according to Rom. xiv. 23) is represented as sin. — The views of Thomas Aquinas were not quite so scriptural ; Summ. P. ii. 2, Qu. 4, Art. 7, he spoke of faith itself as a virtue , though he assigned to it the first and highest place among all vir¬ tues. Such notions, however, led more and more to the revival of Pelagian sentiments, till the forerunners of the Reformation returned to the simple truths of the Gospel. This was done e. g ., by Wessel (see Ullmann, p. 272, ss.) and Savonarola (see Rudelbach , p. 351, ss.) On the other hand, even the AValdenses laid much stress upon works of repentance. Thomas a Kern¬ els did not start from the central point of the doctrine of justification in such a measure and manner, as did the above : see Ullmann ubi supra. [Comp. Chalmers, Essay prefixed to the Imitation.] 8 Alanus ab Insulis also opposed the notion of the meritoriousness of works in decided terms, ii. 18 (quoted by Pez , i. p. 492) : Bene mereri pro- prie dicitur, qui sponte alicui benefacit, quod facere non tenetur. Sed nihil Deo facimus, quod non teneamur facere . Ergo meritum nostrum apud Deum non est proprie meritum, sed solutio debiti. Sed non est merces nisi meriti vel debiti praecedentis. Sed non meremur proprie, ergo quod dabitur a Deo, non erit proprie merces, sed gratia. — Some theologians regarded faith itself as meritorious (inasmuch as they considered it to be a work, a virtue — obedience to the Church.) Thomas Aq. P. ii. 2, Qu. 2, Art. 9. — On the distinction made between different kinds of merita, see P. ii. 1, Qu. 114, Art. 4, quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 145. Men have only a meritum ex congruo, but not ex condigno. Christ alone possessed the latter. [The meritum de condignp , strict merit, can not possibly be attained by a creature — on this ground man could not make himself worthy of grace. The meritum de congruo , or, imputativum , presupposes that grace is con¬ nected with certain conditions, in which man may have a part to perform, by which he may earn this grace.] 7 The development of the doctrine of a thesaurus meritorum, thesaurus supererogationis, belongs to Alexander of Hales (Summa, Pars. iv. Quaest. 23, Art. 2, memb. 5). To this was added the distinction made by Thomas Aquinas between consilium and praeceptum, see Summ. P. ii. Qu. 108, Art. 4, quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 177. [Praeceptum importat necessitatem : consilium autem in optione ponitur ejus cui datur. . . . Supra prcEcepta sunt addita consilia. . . .Consilia vero oportet esse de illi& per quae melius et expeditius potest homo consequi finem praedictum.] On the histor¬ ical development of indulgencies, see f (Hus.) Amort , Historia. . . . de Origine, Progressu, Yalore et Fructu Indulgentiarum, Venet., 1738, fol. Gieseler , Church Hist. (N. Y. ed.), ii. 196, 518, iii. 162, 393. Ullmann , Reformat, vor d. Ref. i. 203. \Hirscher, Die Lehre vom Ablass, Tub., 1844. [G. E. Steitz, d. romische Busssacrament, Frankf., 1853. — Clement YI. in the Con - 70 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. stitutio Unigenitus , 1343, for the jubilee of 1350, granted large indulgences, founded on this treasury of grace, and stated the whole doctrine explicitly. — • Innocent III., in 1213, issued indulgences for the crusaders, in very broad terms, saying to all who took part — plenam suorum peccaminum de quibus veraciter fuerint corde contriti et ore confessi, veniam indulgemus, et in rctributione justorum salutis seternm pollicemur augmentum. — Albertus Mag. Sent. iv. d. 20, 16, defines: Indulgentia sive relaxatio est remissio poense in- junctse ex vi clavium et thesauro supererogationis perfectorum procedens. . . . In hoc enim thesauro habet ecclesia divitias meritorum et passionis Christi et gloriosse virginis Marias et omnium apostolorum et martyrum et sanctorum Dei vivorum et mortuorum. Thomas Aquinas , III. in Suppl. 25, a. 1, gives the rationale of the matter : Ratio autem, quare valere possint, est unitas corporis mystici, in qua multi in operibus poenitentise supererogaverunt ad mensuram debitorum suorum, et multi etiam tribulationes injustas sus- tinuerunt patienter, per quas multitudo poenarum poterat expiari, si eis de- beretur ; quorum meritorum tanta est copia quod omnem poenam debitam nunc viventibus excedunt; et prsecipue propter meritum Christi. ... Sic prsedicta merita communia sunt totius ecclesiae. Comp. Schmid , Lehrb. d. Dogmengesch. 122.] 8 Thus the Franciscan monk, Bertliold , in the thirteenth century, zealously opposed the penny-preachers who seduced the souls of men (see JGling, pp. 149, 150, 235, 289, 384, 395; Grimm , p. 210; Wackernagel , deutsches Lesebuch i. Sp. 664). On the struggles of Wycliffe, Hus, and others, see the works on Ecclesiastical History. Concerning the treatise of Hus : De In- dulgentiis, compare Schrockh, xxxiv. p. 599, ss. Besides, the actual ex¬ ercises of penance on the part of the Flagellantes, and those who tormented themselves, formed a practical opposition to the laxity of principle. See Gieseler, 1. c. SIXTH DIVISION. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS. § 187. THE CHURCH. Even in the preceding period, the idea of the Church had become confounded with its external manifestation, and thus the way was prepared for all the abuses of the Romish hierarchy, and the develop¬ ment of the papacy. The relation in which the ecclesiastical power stands to the secular (or the church to.the state), was often illustrated by the comparison of the two swords, which some supposed to be separated, while others thought them united in the hand of Peter.1 It belongs, properly speaking, to the province of Canon Law, to develop and define those relations ; but, inasmuch as adherence to the decisions of ecclesiastical authorities on such matters was sup¬ posed to form a part of orthodoxy, and as every species of dissent ap¬ peared not only heretical, but as the most dangerous of all heresies, it is obvious that they are not to be passed over with silence in the history of doctrines. That which exerted the greatest influence upon the doctrinal tendency of the present age, was the dogma of the ~ papal power and infallibility, in opposition to the position that the council is superior to the Pope.3 The mystical idea of the church, and the notion of a universal priesthood, which was intimately con¬ nected with it, was propounded, with more or less definiteness,, by Hugo of St. Victor , as well as by the forerunners of the Reforma¬ tion, Wy cliff ( 3, Matthias of Janow , Hus , John of Wesel, WesselT and Savonarola .3 The antihierarchical element referred to, and to¬ gether with it the antiecclesiastical, manifested itself nowhere so* strongly as in the fanatical sects of the middle ages, whose> princi¬ ples also led them sometimes to oppose not only Christianity, but also the existing political governments.4 On the other hand, the Waldenses and Bohemian brethren endeavored, in a simple way, and without fanaticism, to return to the foundation laid by the apostles : overlooking, however, the historical development of the Church.5 72 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. 1 This is more fully shown in the work entitled : Vridankes Bescheiden- heit,* edit, by Grimm , Gott. 1834, p. lvii. — Bernard of Clairval already interpreted the words of Luke xxii. 36-38, in a figurative sense ; Epist. ad Eugen. 256 (written a. d. 1146) ; in agreement with him, John of Salisbury (Polic. iv. 3) asserted, that both the swords are in the hands of the Pope, but yet the Pope ought to wield the secular sword by the arm of the Em¬ peror. On the other hand, the Emperor Frederic I. referred the one of the two swords to the power of the Pope, the other to that of the Emperor (see the letters written a. d. 1157, 1160, 1167, in the work of Grimm). The Emperor Otto maintained the same in opposition to Pope Innocent III. Since it was Peter (according to John xviii. 10) who drew the sword, the advocates of the Papal system inferred, that both the swords ought to be in one hand, and that the Pope had only to lend it to the Emperor. Such was the reasoning, e. g., of the Franciscan monk, Berthold. On the contrary, others, as Freidank , Reinmar of Zweter , and the author of the work en¬ titled : Per Sachsenspiegel , insisted that the power was to be divided ; in a note to the Sachsenspiegel, it is assumed that Christ gave only one of the two swords to the Apostle Peter, but the other, the secular one, to the Apostle John. The opposite view was defended in the work called “ der Sehwabenspiegel.” Further particulars are given by Grimm, 1. c. [Com-r pare also Gieseler ii. § 55, note 13.] — There were also not wanting those who advocated the freedom of the chureh in opposition to the secular as well as the spiritual domination. Thus John of Salisbury maintained the principle : Ecclesiastica debent esse liberrima : see his 95th Epistle and the collection of Masson (in Ritter , Gesh. d. Phil. viii. 50, Note). 3 Compare e.g. the bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII. a. d. 1302 (in Extravag. Commun. Lib. i. Tit. viii. cap. 1.), and the decision of the Synod of Basle, Sess. i. the 19. Jul. 1431, in which the opposite doctrine was set forth. ( Mansi T. xxix. Cod. 21 : both in M'unscher , edit, by Von Colin, p. 316-18.) 3 According to Hugo of St. Victor (de Sacram. Lib. ii. P. iii. quoted by Liebner, p. 445, ss.), Christ is the invisible head of the Church, and the multitudo fidelium is his body. The Church, as a whole, is divided into two halves (walls), the laity and the clergy (the left side and the right side). As much as the spirit is above the body, so much is the ecclesiastical power above the secular. On that account, the former has the right not only to institute the latter, but also to judge it when it is corrupt. But since the ecclesiastical power itself is instituted by God, it can be judged only by God when it turns from the right path (1 Cor. vi.) Hugo also acknowl¬ edged the Pope as the vicarius Petri. lie conceded to him the privilege of 'being served by all ecclesiastics, and the unlimited power of binding and 'loosing all things upon earth. — Wycliffe made a much more precise distinc¬ tion between the idea of the Church, and the external ecclesiastical power, -■# .The passage in Vridank reads (p. 152) : Zwei swert in einer scheide verderbent lihte beide ; als der babest riches gert, so verderbent beidin swert. § 187. The Church. 73 than Hugo (see the extracts from the Trialogus given by Schrockh , xxxiv. p. 510, ss., and his other writings of an antihierarchical tendency, ibid, p. 547.) Meander, Church History (Torrey) v. 173 sq. : Hist. Dogmas, 613. Bohringer, 409. Vaughan's Life of W. — Lechler in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1853.) Still more definite was Matthias of Janow (De Eegulis Yet. Novique Test.), who says, that seeming Christians can no more be regarded as Christians, than a painted man can be called a man : comp. Meander, ubi supra. Hus , in his treatise De Ecclesia, distinguishes between three forms of manifestation of the Church : 1. Ecclesia triumphans , i. e., beati in patria quiescentes, qui adversus Satanam militiam Christi tenentes, finaliter trium- pharunt ; 2. Ecclesia dormiens , i. e., numerus prsedestinatorum in purgatorio patiens ; 3. Ecclesia militans , i. e., ecclesia prsedestinatorum, dum hie viat ad patriam. From this true church, at present represented in these three forms, he distinguishes, again, the ecclesia nuncupative dicta (the ecclesia of the prcesciti) ; Quidam sunt in ecclesia nomine et re, ut prcedestinati, obedientes Christo catholici ; quidam nec re nec nomine, ut prsesciti pagani : quidam nomine tantum, ut prsesciti hypocritse; et quidam re, licet videantur nomine esse foris, ut prsedestinati Christian], quos Antichristi satrapse videntur in facie ecclesise condemnare (among whom Hus probably reckoned himself). Comp, further in Munchmeier , ubi supra, p. 16. Hase, Kirchengesckichte, p. 387, says of him : — “ Hus ascended from the idea of the Roman Church to the idea of the true Church, which was in his opinion the community of all who have from eternity been predestinated to blessedness, and whose head can be none but Christ himself, and not the Pope. As Hus , however, re¬ tained all the assertions concerning the Church made by the Roman Cath¬ olics, and applied them to the said community of the elect, who alone can administer the sacraments in an efficient way, his Church must necessarily have assumed the character of an association of separatists .” On the rela¬ tion of the views of Hus to those of Gerson, see Munchmeier , u. s. 18 Note. Hus’s friend, Nicolas de Clemangis , also, in agreement with Hus, regarded the vital faith of the individual as the real living principle, by which the dead church was to be revived ; hence his declaration : In sola potest mu- liercula per gratiam manere ecclesia, sicut in sola Yirgine tempore passionis mansisse creditur (Disputatio de Concil. General). Comp. M'unz, Nic. Cle- manges, sa vie et ses ecrits, Strasb. 1846. [Comp, on Clemangis, and Hus and Wycliffe, Presb. Quarterly, 1856-8.] John von Wesel (Disp. adv. In¬ dulgent.), starting from the different definitions of the word ecclesia, shows, that we can equally «vell say, ecclesia universalis non errat, and, ecclesia uni¬ versalis errat. Only the church founded on the rock is to him, sancta et im- maculata ; and he distinguishes from this, the church — peccatrix et adultera. John Wessel held that the Church consists in the community of saints, to which all truly pious Christians belong — viz. those who are united to Christ by one faith, one hope, and one love (he did not exclude the Greek Christians). The external unity of the Church under the Pope is merely accidental ; nor is the unity spoken of established by the decrees of councils. (Hyperbo¬ reans, Indians, and Scythians, who know nothing of the councils of Constance or Basle!) But he considered love to be still more excellent than the unity of faith. In close adherence to the principle of Augustine (Evangelio non 74 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. crederem, etc.) which he regarded as a subjective concession, he believed with the Church, and according to the Church, but not in the Church. Respecting the priesthood he retained the distinction between laity and clergy, but at the same time admitted the doctrine of a universal priesthood, together with the particular priesthood of the clergy. Nor does the Church exist for the sake of the clergy, but, on the contrary, the clergy exist for the sake of the Church. Comp. Ullmann , p. 296, ss. (after the various essays, De dignitate et potestate ecclesiastica, De sacramento poenitentise, De com- munione Sanctorum et thesauro ecclesise, collected in the Farrago Rerum Theologicarum), and Munclimcier, p. 19. — According to Savonarola , the Church is composed of all those who are united in the bonds of love and of Christian truth, by the grace of the Holy Spirit ; and the Church is not there , where this grace does not exist ; see the passages collected from his sermons in Ludelhach , p. 354, ss., and Meier , p. 282, ss. Respecting the mystical interpretation of the ark of the covenant as having regard to the Church, see ibid. * Compare Mosheim , p. 257 : Dicunt, se credere, ecclesiam catholicam sive christianitatem fatuam esse vel fatuitatem. Item, quod homo perfectus sit liber in totum, quod tenetur ad servandum prsecepta data ecclesise a Deo, sicut est prseceptum de honoratione parentum in necessitate. Item, quod ratione hujus libertatis homo non tenetur ad servandum prsecepta Prselato- rum et statutorum ecclesise, et hominem fortem, etsi non religiosum, non obligari ad labores manuales pro necessitatibus suis, sed eum libere posse recipere eleemosynam pauperum. Item dicunt, se credere omnia esse com- munia, unde dicunt, furtum eis licitum esse. 5 Comp. Gieseler , Church History ii. § 86. Herzog , Waldenser, 194 sq. § 188. THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS. [Rev. J. B. Morris, Jesus the Son of Mary ; on the Reverence shown by Catholics to his Blessed Mother. Lond. 2 vols. 1851 : comp. Brownson’s Review, July, 1852 and 1853. Kitto s Journal, April, 1852. J. H. Horne,, Mariolatry of Rome, edited by Jarvis, 1850. Dublin Review, on Worship of Saints, April, 1853. Pusey , on Rule of Faith, pp. 55-60. Newman , on Development, 173-80. A review of Liguori’s Glories of Mary, discussing the patristic testimony, in Christian Remembrancer, Lond. Oct. 1855.] The hierarchical system of the Papacy, which was reared like a lofty pyramid upon earth, was supposed to correspond to a supposed hierarchy in heaven, at the head of which was Mary, the mother of Grod.1 The objection of the polytheistic tendency of this doctrine, which would naturally suggest itself to reflecting minds, was met by the scholastics of the Greek Church by making a distinction be¬ tween Xarpeia and TcpooKvvrjoip ; by those of the Latin Church, by distinguishing between Latvia, Dulia , and Hyperdulia.'1 But such § 188. The Worship of Saints. 75 distinctions were by no means safeguards against practical abuses ; in consequence of these, the forerunners of the Reformation were induced to oppose, with all energy, the worship of saints.3 1 The adoration of the Yirgin (Mariolatry) was countenanced by John Damascenus among the Greeks, and by Peter Damiani , Bernard of Clair - val, JBonaventura ,* and other theologians of the Western Church; see Gieseler, 1. c. ii. § 78, (where passages from the songs of the Minnesingers are quoted) ; Munscher , edit, by Yon Colin, p. 180-82 ; and De Gratiis et Yirtutibus beata3 Marias Yirg., in Pez , Tlies. Anecdd. T. i. p. 509 ss. To these we may add a passage from Tauler , Predigt. auf unser lieben Frauen Yerktindigung (Predigten, vol, iii. p. 57). Tauler calls Mary, “the daughter of the Father, the mother of the Son, the bride of the Holy Spirit, the queen o| heaven, the lady of the world and of all creatures, the mother and intercessor of all those who implore her help, a temple of God, in which God has reposed, like a bridegroom in his chamber, with great plea¬ sure and delight ; as in a garden full of every kind of odoriferous herbs, he found in the virgin all kinds of virtues and gifts. By means of these vir¬ tues she has made the heaven of the Holy Trinity pour out honey upon wretched sinners such as we, and has brought to us the Sun of Righteous¬ ness, and abolished the curse of Eve, and crushed the head of the devilish serpent. This second Eve has restored, by her child, all that the first Eve lost and marred, and has provided much more grace and riches. She is the star that was to come out of Jacob (of which the Scripture foretold — Numb. xxiv. 1 7), whose lustre imparts light to the whole world: accord¬ ingly, in every distress (says Bernard) fix thy eyes upon that star, call upon Mary, and thou canst not despair ; follow Mary, and thou canst not miss thy way. She will keep thee by the power of her child, lest thou fall in the way ; she will protect thee, lest thou despair ; she will conduct thee to her child ; she is able to perform it, for God Almighty is her child ; she is willing to do it, for she is merciful. Who could doubt for a moment that the child would not honor his mother, or that she does not overflow with dove, in whom perfect love (i. e ., God himself) has reposed ?”f — Besides Mary, it was especially the apostles of Christ, the martyrs, those who had taken an active part in the spread of Christianity, the founders of national churches, the greatest lights in the Church, and ascetics, and lastly, monks and nuns in particular, that were canonized. Imagination itself created some new (mythical) saints, e. g ., St. Longinus; and in fine, some of the men and women mentioned in the Old Testament came in for their share in the gen¬ eral adoration. The right of canonizing formerly possessed by the bishops was more and more claimed by the popes ; for particulars, see the works on Ecclesiastical History. * Comp, the Psalterium beatse M arise Yirginis, of the 13th century. [This is not by Bonaventura, comp. Gieseler. On this Psalter, see Southern Presb. Review, Jan. 1855.] f The mother of Jesus appears as an intercessor before her Son, who is for the most part represented as a severe judge. Thus in the picture of Rubens in Lyons, Christ is depicted with the thunder-bolt, while Mary, with St. Dominic and St. Francis, is making supplications at his feet : see Quandt , Reise ins mittagliche Frankreicb, Leipz. 1846, p. 99. [See Mrs. Jameson's Legends of the Madonna, 1852.] 76 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. 3 In tbe Greek Church it was, in the first instance, in reference to the adoration of images, that this distinction was made by the second synod of Nice (in Mansi Concil. T. xiii. Col. 377), as well as by Theodore Studitay Ep. 167, App. 521. The Xarpeta is due to none but the triune God, the Tiprpnu)] irpoGKvvrjGiq we owe also to images. — In the Latin Church, Peter Lombard , Sent. Lib. iii. Diet. 9, A., ascribed the Latria to God alone. He further asserted, that there are two species of Dulia , the one of which belongs to every creature, while the other is due only to the human nature of Christ. Thomas Aquinas added (Lib. ii. P. i. Qu. 103, Art. 4) the Hyperdulia , which he ascribed to none but Mary. Compare the passages quoted by Munscher , ed. by von Colin, pp. 182, 183. 3 This was done e. g. by Hus, in his treatise De Mysterio Antichristi, c. 23. See Schrochk, xxxiv. pp. 614, 615. The adoration of saints was connected with the adoration of images , and the worship of images. The consideration of the external history of the controversy respecting images belongs to the province of ecclesiastical his¬ tory. The worship of images was defended upon doctrinal grounds by John Damascenus , Orationes II. pro Imaginibus. Opp. T. i. p. 305, ss. — The Synod of Constantinople (a. d. 754) decided against the superstitious adoration of images, the second Synod of Nice (a. d. 787) pronounced in favor of it. A distinction was made between the X arpeia, which is due to God alone, and the Trpooicvvrjoiq npgruAj (aoTraopof), which could be paid as well to the images or pictures of saints, as to the sign of the cross and the Holy Gospels. — An intermediate view was at first entertained in the Western Church (imagines non ad adorandum, sed ad memoriam rerum gestarum et parietum venustatem habere permittimus), e. g. by the Emperor Charle¬ magne in the treatise De impio Imaginum Cultu, Lib. iv. (written about the year 790), and the Synod of Frankfort (a. d. 794) ; the doctrine of the Synod of Nice was defended by Pope Hadrian (he composed a refutation of the books of Charlemagne; in Mansi T. xiii. Col. 759, ss.). Theodulph of Orleans. — Thomas Aquinas afterwards asserted (Summ. P. iii. Qu. 25, Art. 3), in reference to the cross of Christ : Cum ergo Christus adoretur adora- tione latriee, consequens est, quod ejus imago sit adoratione latrise adoranda (here then we have a specimen of real idolatry ?). Comp. Art, 4, and John Damascenus De Fide Orthod. Lib. iv. c. 11. § 189. THE SACRAMENTS. cc The doctrine of the Sacraments is the principal point in which the scholastics were productive in the formal aspect , as well as the material.”1 Not only was the attempt made by several theologians, such as Hugo of St. Victor / Peter Lombard* and others, to estab¬ lish a more precise definition of the term “ sacrament/’ upon the basis laid down by Augustine ; but, with regard to the number of sacraments, the sacred number seven was determined upon especially § 189. The Sacraments. 77 through the influence of Peter Lombard.4 In reference to the latter point, however, nothing had been decided previous to the time of Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas .5 But after the number had once been determined, it was a comparatively easy task for theolo¬ gians, so acute as the scholastics, to find out some profound reasons for it.8 As, moreover, the Greek church, from the ninth century, manifested a disposition to increase the number of the sacraments,7 when attempts were made at that time to unite the two churches, the Western computation was confirmed by the Council of Florence.8 Only Wy cliff e , the Waldenses, and the more rigid among the Hus- ites, either returned to the primitive number two, or dissented more or less from the seven of the Catholic church, and from its idea of the sacrament.9 1 TJllmann , Wessel, pp. 321, 322. 3 Hugo of St. Victor was not satisfied with the definition of Augustine : sacramentum est, sacrse rei signum (comp. vol. i. § 136), and called it a mere nominal definition. Letters and pictures, added he, might equally he signs of sacred things. His own definition is given Lib. i. P. ix. c. 2 : Sacra¬ mentum est corporale vel materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum, ex similitudine repraesentans, ex institutione significans, et ex sanctificatione continens, aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam. The definition given in Summ. Tr. ii. c. 1, is shorter : sacramentum est visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae in eo collatae. Comp. De Sacr. Lib. ii. P. vi. c. 3 ; Liebner , p. 426': [Hugo also uses sacramentum in a wider sense — e. y., c. 9, De Sacramento Fidei et Yirtute : Sacramentum enim fidei vel ipsa tides intelligitur, quae sacramentum est, vel sacramenta fidei intelliguntur, quae cum fide percipienda sunt et ad sanctificationem fidelium praeparata sunt.] 3 Sent. L. iv. Dist. 13: Sacramentum enim proprie dicitur, quod ita sig¬ num est gratiae dei et invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et Causa existat. The same can not be said with regard to all signs . . . (omne sacramentum est signum, sed non e converso). Comp. Bonaventura , Bre- viloqu. vi. c. 1, ss. 4 As late as the present period the opinions of the theologians on this point were for a considerable time divided. Rabanus Maurus and Pascha- siits Radbert acknowledged only four sacraments, or, more properly speak¬ ing, only the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper ; but in connection with baptism they mentioned the Chrisma (confirmation), and divided the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper according to its two elements, the body and the blood of Christ. Rabanus de Inst. Cler. i. 24 : Sunt autem sacramenta Baptismus et Chrisma, Corpus et Sanguis, quae ob id sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum virtus divina secretius salutem eorundem sacramentorum operatur, unde et a secretis vir- tutibus vel sacris sacramenta dicuntur. Comp. Paschasius de Corp. et Sang. Domini c. 3. — Berengar of Tours expressed himself in similar terms (de S. Coena. Berolini, 1834, p. 153): Duo sunt enim praecipue ecclesiae sacramenta sibi assentanea, sibi comparabilia, regen erationis fidelium et refectionis (bap¬ tism and the Lord’s Supper). — Gottfried , abbot of Vendome, about 1120, 78 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. calls tlie ring and staff with, which the bishops were instituted, sacramenta ecclesiag. — Bernard of Clairval spoke of the washing of the feet as a sacra¬ ment (Sermo in Ccenam Domini, § 4, quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 188.) — Hugo of St. Victor (Lib. i. P. viii. c. 7), assumed three classes of sacraments : 1. Those sacraments upon which salvation is su¬ premely founded, and by the participation of which the highest blessings are imparted (baptism and the Lord’s Supper, together with confirmation, which is placed, P. vii., between the two others.) 2. Those sacraments which pro¬ mote sanctification, though they are not necessary to salvation, inasmuch as, by their use, the right sentiments of Christians are kept in practice, and a higher degree of grace may be obtained : such are the use of holy water, the sprinkling with ashes, etc. 3. Those sacraments which seem to be in¬ stituted only in order to serve as a kind of preparation for, and sanctifica¬ tion of, the other sacraments, such as holy orders, the consecration of the robes of the clergy, and others. — Besides the said three sacraments of the first class, he made particular mention of the sacraments of matrimony (Lib. ii. P. ix.), of penance (P. xiv.), and of extreme unction (P. xv.) ; “ but he did not slate, in reference to any of these sacraments , as he did with regard to baptism and the Lord's Supper , that it was necessary to number it among the sacraments of the first class. It is therefore uncertain whether he has not put some of them among those of the second class." Liebner , p. 429. Munscher, edit, by von Colin, pp. 188, 189. — [Hugo sums up thus: Prima ergo ad salutem, secunda ad exercitationem, tertia ad prseparationem con- stituta sunt. Cap. 7.] Peter Damiani mentioned as many as twelve sacra¬ ments (Opp. T. ii. p. 167-169.) — Whether Otto Bishop of Bamberg (who lived between the years 1139 and 1189, and who, according to the Vita Othonis, in Canisius Lectt. Antiqu., ed. Basnage. T. iii. P. ii. p. 62) intro¬ duced the seven sacraments among the Pomeranians whom he had converted to Christianity, is a point which remains to be investigated (see Engelhardt , Dogmengeschichte ii. p. 196. Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 189, 190.) [Gieselerx Church History, doubts the tradition about Otto of Bamberg; the Discourse in which it is found, he considers not to be genuine.] — The views of Peter Lombard on the subject in question were more decided : see Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 2, A: Jam ad sacramenta novae legis accedamus, quae sunt Baptismus, Confirmatio, Panis benedictio, i. e., Eucharistia, Poenitentia, Unctio extrema, Ordo, Conjugium. Quorum alia remedium contra pecca- tum praebent, et gratiam adjutricem conferunt, ut Baptismus ; alia in reme¬ dium tantum sunt, ut Conjugium; alia gratia et virtute nos fulciunt, ut Eucharistia et Ordo. 6 Thus Alanus ab Insulis , Lib. iv. (quoted by Pez, p. 497) enumerated the following sacraments : Baptismus, Eucharistia, Matrimonium, Poenitentia, Dedicatio basilicarum, Chrismatis et Olei inunctio, and assigned them their place as means of grace between the prcedicatio and the ecclesia. He spoke only of a plurality of sacraments, but did not state the exact number seven. Comp. iii. 6. Alexander Hales, though he adopted the number seven, ad¬ mitted that baptism and the Lord’s Supper alone were instituted by our Lord himself, and that the other sacraments had been appointed by his § 189. The Sacraments. 79 apostles, and tlie ministers of the church. (Summa P. iv. Qu. 8, Membr. 2, Art. 1, quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 196, 19V.) 8 According to Thomas Aquinas, P. iii. Qu. 65. Art. l./the first five sacra¬ ments serve — ad spiritualem uniuscuj usque hominis in se ipso perfectionem, but the last two, ad totius ecclesise regimen multiplicationemque. He then continues : Per Baptismum spiritualiter renascimur, per Confirmationem augemur in gratia et roboramur in fide ; renati autem et roborati nutrimur divina Eucharistise alimonia. Quod si per peccatum segritudinem incurrimus animae, per Poenitentiam spiritualiter sanamur ; spiritualiter etiam et corpora- liter, prout animae expedit, per extremam Unctionem. Per Ordinem vero ecclesia gubernatur et multiplicatur spiritualiter, per Matrimonium corpora- liter augetur. — Thomas, however, agreed with other theologians, Summ. P. iii. Qu. 62. Art. 5. in regarding baptism and the Lord’s Supper as potis- sima sacramenta. — Bonaventura brought (Brevil. vi. Cent. iii. sect. 4V. c. 3.) the seven sacraments into connection with the seven diseases of man. Original sin is counteracted by baptism, mortal sin by penance, venial sin by extreme unction ; ignorance is cured by ordination, malice by the Lord’s Sup¬ per, infirmity by confirmation, evil concupiscence by matrimony).* He also made a corresponding connection between the sacraments and the seven car¬ dinal virtues : baptism leads to faith, confirmation to hope, the Lord’s Supper to love, penance to righteousness, extreme unction to perseverance, ordination to wisdom, matrimony to moderation (for further particulars see, ibidem.) — Comp, also Berthold's Sermons edited by Kling, p. 439, ss. The “ seven sacred things” are, in his opinion, a remedy prepared by Jesus, divided into seven parts, etc.f See also Raimund of Sabunde, Tit. 282, in Matzke, p. 91. [Et ideo Christus ordinavit ad significandum et reprsesentandum omnia ista quae sunt invisibilia et debent fieri occulte in anima, ut scilicet exterius in corpore fieret ablutio et lavacrum per aquam elementalem cum verbis ex- presse significantibus ablutionem et lavacrum. Et ideo ista ablutio, quae fit in aqua eo modo quo Christus ordinavit, vocatur sacramentum seu signum regenerationis et renovationis, quia hoc est regenerare hominem et innovare, quia anima recipit novum esse spirituale. Et ideo in isto sacramento recipit homo nomen novum, quia vocatur Christianus, etc.] 7 John Damascenus mentioned (De Fide Orthod. iv. 13) the two myste¬ ries of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the former in reference to the birth of man, the latter in reference to the support of his new life ; these two mysteries were again subdivided by him-— viz, baptism into water and Spirit (Chrisma), and the Lord’s Supper into bread and wine. — Theodore Studita taught (lib. ii. Ep. 165, Opp. p. 517) six sacraments (after the example of Pseudo-Dionysius, see vol. i. § 136, Note 3) — viz. 1. Baptism ; 2. The Lord’s Supper {ovva^tg, kolvmvlo) ; 3. The consecration of the holy oil (re/Ler?) fwpov) ; 4. The ordination of priests ( ieparucal reXeiddoeig) ; 5. The monas¬ tic state ( povaxLKT] reXeiodoig) ; and 6. The rites performed for the dead * “ Thus the poor laity have no sacrament for ignorance, nor have the poor clergy a sa¬ crament to counteract lusts.” Schleiermacher , Kirchengesch. p. 514. t ‘ The Sacraments were also referred by some to the seven kinds of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament and the sprinkling of their blood.” Gieseler , Dogmengesch. 631. 80 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. (jrepl tgjv iepcog KeKOLgrjgevcov) . See Schrockh , Kircliengeschichte, xxii. pp. 127, 128. 8 Mansi Cone. T. xxxi. Col. 1054 ss. The decisions of this Synod had also binding force for the united Armenians. 0 Wy cliff e made mention of the ecclesiastical number, Lib. iv. c. 1., but in the subsequent chapters critically examined each sacrament separately. Comp. § 190, note 10. Christ was to him “the Sacrament of Sacraments:” Bohringer , 329. — The confession of faith adopted by the Waldenses is given by Leger , Histoire Generale des eglises evangeliques de Piemont, Leiden, 1669, p. 95, quoted by Schrockh, Kirchengesch. xxix. p. 548. That of the Husites, a. d. 1443, will be found in Lenfant, Histoire de la Guerre des Husites, vol. ii. p. 132, ss. Schrockh , Kirchengesch. xxxiv. p. 718, ss. Hus himself adopted the doctrine of seven sacraments, though with certain modi¬ fications : see Munscher , edit, by Yon Colin, p. 201. § 190. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED. Many discussions took place among the scholastics as to the antiquity of the sacraments/ their necessity, design, and significance, as well as respecting their specific virtue and effects.2 In the spirit of the better class of the mystics, Hugo of St. Victor traced the design of the sacraments to the inward religious wants of man.3 But Thomas Aquinas especially endeavored, with a great show of learning, both to define the idea of sacrament still more pre¬ cisely, and to enlighten himself, as well as others, concerning its effects.4 In consequence of the death of Jesus, the sacraments instituted in the New Testament have obtained what is called the virtus instrumentalist or effect iv a, which those of the Old Testament did not possess.5 Therefore, by partaking of the sacraments, man acquires a certain character , which in the case of some sacraments, such as baptism, confirmation and the ordination of priests, is character indelehilis , and, consequently, renders impossible the re¬ petition of such sacraments.6 The effects produced by the sacra¬ ments arise, not only ex opere operantis , but also ex opere operato ,T Accordingly, they neither depend upon the external or internal worth of him who administers the sacrament, nor upon his faith and moral character, but upon his intention to administer the sacra¬ ment as such. This intention must at least be habitual ; but it is not absolutely necessary that it should be actual* — In opposition to the doctrine of Thomas, which received the sanction of the Catholic Church, Duns Scotus denied that the effective power of grace was contained in the sacraments themselves.® The forerun¬ ners of the Reformation, e. g. Wessel and Wy cliff e, combated still \ § 190. The Sackaments. 81 more decidedly the doctrine, that the effects of the sacrament are produced ex opere operato, while they manifested the highest rev¬ erence for the sacraments themselves as divine institutions.10 Thus they preserved the medium between that superstitious, and merely external view, by which the sacrament was changed, as it were, into a charm, and the fanatical and subjective theory adopted by the pantheistic sects, who proudly idealized and rejected all visible pledges and seals of supernatural blessings.11 1 On the question, in what sense the Old Testament may be said to have had its sacraments? see Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 1, E . Yeteris Testamenti sacramenta promittebant tantum et significabant, hsec autem (novi testamenti) dant salutem (comp, the opinions of Augustine, ibidem.) Inasmuch as the sacraments were made necessary in consequence of sin, but God had instituted matrimony in Paradise, this sacrament was considered to be the earliest, belonging even to the state of innocence. See Cramer , vii. p. 103. Comp. Thomas Aquinas (in notes 4 and 5). 2 “ The common tradition of the Church taught only the notion of a magical efficacy of the sacraments , and thus assigned too great an influence to the mere external and unspiritual form. On the contrary , the scholastics clearly perceived, that justification and sanctification are something essen¬ tially free , internal, and spiritual, and depend upon faith. These two no¬ tions being contradictory to each other, it became necessary to reconcile them, which was for the most part done by ingenious reasonings Liebner, Hugo von St. Victor, p. 430. 3 According to Hugo of St. Victor, the design of the sacraments is three¬ fold : Propter humiliationem (we must submit to the visible, in order to attain by it, to the invisible) ; 2. Propter eruditionem (the visible leads to the invisible. Though a sick person may not see the medicine he is to take, he sees the bottle, which gives him an intimation of the healing power it contains, and inspires him with confidence and hope) ; 3. Propter exercita- tionem (the inner and spiritual life of man is strengthened thereby). The three persons of the Trinity take an active part in the administration of the sacraments. The Father (as the Creator) creates the elements ; the Son (as the Redeemer, God-man) institutes them ; and the Holy Ghost sanctifies them (through grace). Man, as the instrument of God, distribute^ them. God is the physician, man is the diseased person, the priest is the servant or the messenger of God, the grace of God (not the sacrament) is the medicine, and the sacrament is the vessel in which it is contained. — God could have saved man without sacraments, if he had chosen ; but since he has been pleased to institute them, it is the duty of man to submit to his arrangement; nevertheless, God can still save without sacraments. If either time or place prevent one from receiving the sacraments, the res (virtus) sacramenti is sufficient ; for the thing itself is of more importance than the sign, faith is more than water, etc. ; De Sacram. Lib. i. P. ix., c. 3-5. Liebner, p. 430, ss. 4 Thomas Aquinas Summ. P. iii., Qu. 60-65. (Extracts from it are given by Miinscher , edit, by Yon Colin, p. 192, ss.) [Qu. 60, Art. 2. Sacramen- 6 82 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. turn est signum rei sacrae, inquantum est sanctijicans homines. Art. 3. In qua sanctificatione tria possunt considerari : videlicet, ipsa causa sanctifica- tionis nostrse, quae est passio Christi : et forma nostrae sanctificationis, quae consistit in gratia et virtutibus ; et ultimus finis sanctificationis nostrae, quae est vita aeterna. Et baec omnia per sacramenta significantur. — Qu. 61, Art. 1 : they are necessary to human salvation in a threefold way : 1. Be¬ cause man is led by sensible objects. 2. By sin, he is under the sway of what is corporeal. 3. Human action is chiefly through and about corporeal matters, etc.] 5 Qu. 62., Art. 1 : Necesse est dicere sacramenta novae legis per ali quern modurn gratiam causare . Et dicendum est, quod duplex est causa agens, principalis et instrumental is. Principalis quidem operatur per virtutem suae formas, cui assimilatur effectus, sicut ignis suo calore calefacit. Et hoc modo nihil potest causare gratiam nisi Deus, quia gratia nihil est aliud, quam quaedam participata similitudo divinae naturae. Causa vero instrumcn- talis non agit per virtutem suae formae, sed solum per motum, quo movetur a principali agente. Unde effectus non assimilatur instrumento, sed princi- pali agenti. Et hoc modo sacramenta novae legis gratiam causant. — Art. 5 : Unde manifestum est, quod sacramenta ecclesiae specialiter habent virtutem ex passione Christi, cujus virtus quodammodo nobis copulatur per susceptio- nem sacramentorum. — Art. 6 : Per fidem passionis Christi justificabantur antiqui patres, sicut et nos. Sacramenta autem veteris legis erant quaedam illius fidei protestationes, inquantum significabant passionem Christi et effec¬ tus ejus. Sic ergo patet, quod sacramenta veteris legis non habebant in se aliquam virtutem, qua operarentur ad conferendam gratiam justificantem ; sed solum significabant fidem per quam justificabantur.'* 6 Innocent III. in Decret. Greg. IX. L. iii. T. 42, c. 3 : Et is, qui ficte ad baptismum accedit, characterem suscipit christianitatis impressum. Thomas , P. iii. Qu. 63, Art. 2 : Sacramenta novse legis characterem imprimunt. — The Concilium Florentinum, held under Pope Eugen IV., laid down the following canon (in Mansi T. xxxi. Col. 1054, ss.) : Inter haec Sacramenta tria sunt, Baptismus, Confirmatio et Ordo, quae characterem, i. e. spirituale quoddam signum a cseteris distinctivum imprimunt in anima indelebile. Unde in eadem persona non reiterantur . Reliqua vero quatuor characterem non im¬ primunt et reiterationem admittunt. (Nevertheless a difference of opinion respecting the repetition of extreme unction, took place on occasion of the death of Pope Pius II. Concerning the discussion which arose between the dying Pope and Laurentius Roverella, bishop of Ferrara, see Platina in Vita. Pii II. Compare below, § 199, note 3.) 7 The distinction between these two terms was best defined by Gabriel Biel , in Sent. Lib. iv., Hist. 1, Qu. 3. Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 199) : ° “ The notion That the sacraments of the Old Testament had only figured the divine grace but not communicated it, was rejected by John Bonaventura and Scotus, after the opposite doctrine had previously been propounded by the Venerable Bede ; it was, however, confirmed by Pope Eugen IV. at the Council of Florence .” Munscher, edit, by Von Colin, p. -187 (the proofs are given ibid. pp. 198, 199). The doctrine was then established, that the sacra¬ ments of the Old Testament produced effects ex opere oper antis, those of the New Testa¬ ment exopere operator Comp. Engelhardt, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 197, 198, note. § 190. The Sacraments. 83 Sacramentum dicitur conferre gratiam ex opere operato, ita quod ex eo ipso, quod opus illud, puta sacramentum, exhibetur, nisi impediat obex peccati mortal is, gratia confertur utentibus, sic quod prseter exliibitionem signi foris exbibiti non requiritur bonus rnotus interior in suscipiente. Ex opere ope- rante vero dicuntur Sacramenta conferre gratiam per modum meriti , quod scilicet sacramentum foris exhibitum non sufficit ad gratiae collationem, sed ultra hoc requiritur bonus motus seu devotio interior in suscipiente, secun¬ dum cujus intentionem confertur gratia, tanquam meriti condigni vel con- grui, prsecise, et non major propter exhibitionem sacramenti. (This latter view was also that of Scotus.) 8 Thomas , 1. c. Qu. 64, Art. 5 . .Ministri ecclesiae possunt sacramenta conferre, etiamsi sint mali. — Art. 9 : Sicut non requiritur ad perfectionem sacramenti, quod minister sit in charitate, sed possunt etiam peccatores sacra¬ menta conferre, ita non requiritur ad perfectionem sacramenti tides ejus, sed infidelis potest verum sacramentum praebere, dummodo caetera adsint, quae sunt de necessitate sacramenti. Concerning the intentio , compare ibidem and Art. 10. Munscher , edit, by Yon Colin, p. 196. Cramer , vii. pp. 712, 713. [. Aquinas opposed the view — quod requiritur mentalis intentio in mi- nistro, quae si desit, non perficitur sacramentum ; and maintained, quod mi¬ nister sacramenti agit in persona totius ecclesiae cujus est minister. In verbis autem quae profert exprimitur intentio ecclesiae ; quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti , nisi contrarium externis exprimatur ex parte ministri, vel reci- pientis sacramentum. Comp, also Art. 10.] 9 Compare note 7. 10 Wycliffe criticised the doctrine of the sacraments very acutely. Trialo- gus Lib. iv. c. 1. ss. In his opinion, a thousand other things (in their quality of rerum sacrarum signa) might be called sacraments, with quite as much propriety as the seven sacraments .... Multa dicta in ista materia habent nimis debile fundamentum, et propter aggregationem ac institutionem in terminis difficile est loquentibus habere viam impugnabilem veritatis. . . .Yon enim video, quin quselibet creatura sensibilis sit realiter sacramentum, quia signum a Deo institutum ut rem sacram insensibilem significet, cujusmodi sunt creator et creatio et gratia creatoris. Comp. c. 25, where he designated the ceremonies which had been added to the sacraments, inventions of An¬ tichrist, by which he had imposed a heavy burden upon the Church. — Wessel expressed himself in milder terms on this point; he did not altogether disapprove of certain external additions (Chrisma), since, out of reverence the Church has surrounded the sacraments with greater pomp ; but, concerning their effects, he opposed the doctrine which would represent them as being produced ex opere operato, and he made salvation depend on the disposition of him who receives the sacrament ; De Commun. Sanct., p. 817. Ullmann , pp. 322, 333. 11 Mosheim , 1. c. p. 257 : Dicunt, se credere, quod quidlibet Laicus bonus potest conficere corpus Christi, sicut sacerdos peccator. Item, quod sacerdos, postquam exuit se sacris vestibus, est sicut saccus evacuatus frumento. Item, quod corpus Christi sequaliter est in quolibet pane, sicut in pane sacramen¬ tal! Item, quod confiteri sacerdoti non est necessarium ad salutem. Item, quod corpus Christi vel sacramentum Eucharistiae sumere per Laicum, tan- 84 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. valet pro liberatione animrn defuncti, sicut celebratio Missae a sacerdote. Item, quod omnis concubitus matrimonialis prseter ilium, in quo speratur bonum prolis, sit peccatum. — Comp. Berthold's Sermons, edited by Kling, pp. 308, 309. § 191. BAPTISM. The scholastics exhibited more originality in their discussions on the Lord’s Supper, than in their inquiries into the doctrine of Baptism, where they confined themselves rather to particular points. In adherence to the allegorical system of Cyprian, they adopted the mystical interpretation of the water, as the liquid element, but ex¬ ercised their ingenuity and fondness for subtile distinctions in pedantic definitions concerning the fluids to be used at the perform¬ ance of the rite of baptism.1 The baptism of blood was as well known during the present period as in preceding ages, with this dif¬ ference only, that it was performed by those who inflicted tortures upon themselves (Flagellantes) instead of by martyrs.* The bap¬ tism of water could be administered by none but priests, except in cases of necessity.3 The doctrine of infant baptism had long been regarded by the Church as a settled point ; Peter of Bruis , how¬ ever, and some mystical sects, spoke of it in a slighting way.4 As infants, the subjects of baptism could not enter into any engage¬ ment themselves; an engagement was made for them by their godfathers and godmothers, according to the principle of Augus¬ tine : credit in altero, qui peccavit in altero.6 — Infant baptism was supposed to remove orignal sin, but it did not take away the concu- piscentia (lex fomitis), though it lessened it by means of the grace imparted in baptism.6 In the case of grown up persons who are baptised, baptism not only effects the pardon of sins formerly com¬ mitted, but it also imparts, according to Peter Lombard , assisting grace to perform virtuous actions.7 — The assertion of Thomas Aquinas , that children also obtained that grace,8 was confirmed by Pope Clement Y. at the Synod of Vienne (a. d. 1311. )9 1 Compare Cramer, vii. p. 715. ss. Peter Lombard taught, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 3, G : non in alio liquore potest consecrari baptismus nisi in aqua ; others, however, thought that the rite of baptism might also be performed with air, sand, or soil. ( Schmid , J. A., de Baptismo per Arenam. Helmst. 1697. 4.) Various opinions obtained concerning the question, whether beer, broth, fish-sauce, mead or honey-water, lye or rose-water, might be used in¬ stead of pure water. See Meiners and Spittlers Neues Gottingen, his- torisches Magazin, Vol. iii. part 2, 1793, 8, (reprinted from Holderi dubie- tatibus circa Baptismum) : Augusti , theologische Blatter, Vol. i. p. 170, ss., § 191. Baptism. 85 and his Archseologie vii. p. 206, ss. The scholastics carried their absurdities so far, as to start the question : Quid faciendum, si puer urinaret (stercorizaret) in fontem ? A distinction was also made between aqua artificialis, naturalis, and usualis. — Many other useless and unprofitable contentions took place about the baptismal formulas ; see Holder , 1. c. — Sprinkling also (instead of dipping) gave rise to many discussions. Thomas Aquinas , preferred the more ancient custom (Summa P. iii. Qu. 66, Art. 6), because immersion reminded Christians of the burial of Christ : but he did not think it abso¬ lutely necessary. From the thirteenth century, sprinkling came into more general use in the West. The Greek Church, however, and the Church of Milan, still retained the practice of immersion ; see Augusti , Archasologie vii. p. 229, ss.* — On the question whether it was necessary to dip once, or thrice, see Holder, 1. c. (he has collected many more instances of the in¬ genuity and acuteness of the casuists in reference to all possible difficulties.) 2 Thomas Aquinas , Qu. 66, Art. 11 . praeter baptismum aquae potest aliquis consequi sacramenti effectum ex passione Christi, inquantam quis ei conformatur pro Christo patiendo. — Concerning the Flagellantes, see Forste- mann , die christlichen Geisslergesellschaften, Halle, 1828. 3 Peter Lombard , Sent. iv. Hist. 6, A (after Isidore of Spain) : Constat baptismum solis sacerdotibus esse traditum, ej usque ministerium nec ipsis diaconis implere est licitum absque episcopo vel presbvtero, nisi his procul absentibus, ultima languoris cogat necessitas : quod etiam laicis fidelibus permittitur. — Compare Gratian. in Decret. de Consecrat. Dist. 4, c. 19. — Thomas Aquinas , Summ. P. iii. Qu. 67, Art. 1-6. (The further definitions belong to the province of canon law.) 4 Comp. Petr. Yen. Cluniacensis adv. Petrobrusianos, in Bibl. PP. Max. Lugd. T. xxii. p. 1033. — The Paulicians, Bogomiles, Cathari, etc., opposed infant baptism ; several of these sects ( e . g ., the Cathari) rejected baptism by water altogether. Comp. Moneta , advers. Catharos et Waldenses, Lib. v. c. i., p. 277, ss. Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 209, 210. ‘ Comp. Vol. i. § 137, note 6, p. 390, Peter Lombard , Sent. L. iv. Hist. 6, G. Thomas Aquinas , Qu. 68, Art. 9 : Begeneratio spiritualis, quae fit per baptismum, est quodammodo similis nativitati carnali, quantum ad hoc, quod, sicut pueri in maternis uteris constituti non per se ipsos nutrimentum ac- cipiunt, sed ex nutrimento matris sustentantur, ita etiam pueri nondum habentes usum rationis, quasi in utero matris ecclesiae constituti, non per se ipsos, sed per actum ecclesise salutem suscipiunt. — The regulations concerning the ecclesiastical relationship in which the godfathers and godmothers stand to each other, belong to the canon law. Comp. Peter Lomb. L. iv. Dist. 42. Thomas Aquinas , P. iii. in Supplem. Qu. 56, Art. 3. — Decretalia Greg. IX. L. iv. T. 11. Sexti Decretal. L. iv. T. 3. 0 Lombard , L. ii. Dist. 32, A. (in accordance with Augustine) : Licet remaneat concupiscentia post baptismum, non tamen dominatur et regnat sicut ante : imo per gratiam baptismi mitigatur et minuitur, ut post dominari * Various regulations concerning the right performance of baptism may also be found in Berthold's Sermons, pp. 442, 443. Thus it is there said: “Young people ought not to baptize children for fun or mockery; nor ought foolish people to push a Jew into the water contrary to his wishes. Such doings are not valid.” 86 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. non valeat, nisi qnis reddat vires liosti eundo post coneupiscentias. Nec post baptismum remanet ad reatum, quia non imputatur in peccatum, sed tantum poena peccati est; ante baptismum vero poena est et culpa. Compare what follows. Thomas Aquinas , Summ. P. ii. Qu. 81, Art. 3 : Peccatum originale per baptismum aufertur reatu , inquantum anima recuperat gratiam quantum ad mentem : remanet tamen peccatum originale actu , quantum ad fomitem , qui est inordinatio partium inferiorum animse et ipsius corporis. Comp. P. iii. Qu. 27, Art. 3. 7 Lombard Lib. iv. Dist. 4, II : De adultis enim, qui digne recipiunt sacra- mentum, non ambigitur, quin gratiam operantem et cooperantem perceperint. . De parvulis vero, qui nondum ratione utuntur, qusestio est, an in bap- tismo receperint gratiam, qua ad majorem venientes setatem possint velle et operari bonum. Videtur quod non receperint : quia gratia ilia cliaritas est et tides, quae voluntatem prseparat et adjuvat. Sed quis duxerit eos acce- pisse fidem et charitatem ? Si vero gratiam non receperint, qua bene operari possint cum fuerint adulti, non ergo sufiicit eis in hoc statu gratia in bap- tismo data, nec per illam possunt modo boni esse, nisi alia addatur : quae si non additur, non est ex eorum culpa, quia justificati [ al . non] sunt a peccato. Quid am putant gratiam operantem et cooperantem cunctis parvulis in bap- tismo dari in munere, non in usu, ut, cum ad majorem venerint aetatem, ex munere sortiantur usum, nisi per liberum arbitrium usum inuneris extinguant peccando : et ita ex culpa eorum est, non ex defectu gratiae, quod maii hunt. 8 Thomas Aquinas , Qu. 69, Art. 6 : Quia pueri, sicut et adulti, in bap- tismo efficiuntur membra Christi, unde necesse est, quod a capite recipiant influxum gratiae et virtutis. 9 In Mansi, Tom. xxv. Col. 411, Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 203. [Mansi, Col. 411: Baptisma unicum. . . . celebratum in aqua, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, credimus esse tarn adultis quam parvulis communiter perfectum remedium ad salutem. Verum quantum ad effectum cum theologi varias opiniones habeant ; videlicet dicentibus quibusdam, par¬ vulis culpam remitti, sed gratiam non conferri ; aliis e contra assientibus quod et culpa eisdem in baptismo remittitur, et virtutes ac informans gratia infunduntur quoad habitum, etsi non pro illo tempore quoad usum : nos attendentes generalem efficaciam mortis Christi, quae per baptisma applicatur pariter omnibus baptizatis, opinionem secundam, quae dicit tarn parvulis quam adultis conferri in baptismo, gratiam informantem et virtutes, tanquam pro- babiliorem et dictis Sanctorum et doctorum modernorum theologize magis consonam et concordem, sacro approbante Concilio, duximus eligendam.] The repetition of the rite of baptism was not in accordance with the nature of that sacrament. But theologians differed in their opinions respecting the question, whether those who are prevented by circumstances from being baptised, may be saved ? In oppo¬ sition to earlier divines (such as Rabanus Maurus ), later theologians, e. g. Bernard of Clairval , Peter Lombard , and Thomas Aquinas , maintained, that in such cases the will alone was sufficient. Compare the passages quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 205, 206. [Aquinas, Qu. 68, Art. 2 : Alio modo potest sacramentum baptismi alicui deesse re, sed non voto : sicut cum aliquis baptizari desiderat, sed aliquo casu praevenitur morte, antequam baptismum suscipiat. Et talis sine baptismo actuali salutem coasequi potest propter desiderium baptismi , quod procedit ex fide per dilectionem operante, per quam Deus interius hominem sanctificat, cujus potentia sacramentis visibilibus non alligatur.] § 192. Confirmation. 87 § 192. CONFIRMATION. Klee, Dogmengesehichte, ii. p. 160-170. J. F Bachmann , Geschichte der Einfuhrung der Confirmation innerhalb d. Evangel. Kirche. Berlin, 1852. \Jo. Ballceus, de duabus Latinorum ex Unctione Sacramentis, Confirmatione et extrema Unctione, Genev., 1669. Ibid. De Cultibus religios. Latinorum, L. ix., 1671. In reply, Natal Alexander , Hist. Eccles. Ssec. II. Diss. x. N. Wiseman, Lectures on the Offices and Ceremonies, etc. H. Hepwood, the Order and History of Confirmation, 2d ed., 1850. Church Review (New Haven), Difference of Protest. Episc. and Rom. Cajth. View of Confirmation, April, 1852. T. Smyth, the Rite of Confirmation, 1845.]* Confirmation confirmatio) originally connected with bap¬ tism, was, in the course of time, separated from it, as a par¬ ticular rite, and then came to be viewed as a sacrament, which only the bishop could administer.1 As the first motion to spiritual life is the effect of baptism, so its growth is promoted by the rite of confirmation. Its characteristic is invigoration ;2 and so, those who are made members of this spiritual knighthood were smitten on the cheek.3 Moreover baptism must precede confirmation.4 Nor ought the latter rite to be performed without godfathers and godmothers.5 All these regulations were confirmed by Pope Eugen IV.6 But Wy cliff e and Hus declared confirmation to be an abuse.7 1 Compare Augusti , Arcliaeologie, vii. p. 401, ss. On the origin of this sacrament, and its reference to a Council of Meaux (Concilium Meldense), as alleged by Alexander of Hales, see Gieseler , Dogmengesch. 527. [Alex¬ ander got this notion from the Decretum Gratiani, where a statement about Confirmation is headed — Ex Concil. Meldens. But the passage is from a Paris Council, a. d. 829. But Alexander, though wrong, seems uncon¬ sciously to imply, that a sacrament might be directly instituted by the ' church ; which Aquinas denies, saying, that the sacraments must be ap¬ pointed or promised by Christ.] a Melchiades in Epist. ad Hisp. Episcopos (in Peter Lombard , Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 7) ; Thomas Aquinas , Art. 6, and 7 (quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 211, 212). [ Melchiades (in Pseudo-Isidor.) says: Sp. S. in fonte plenitudinem tribuit ad innocentiam: in confirmatione augmentum praestat ad gratiam. Et quia in hoc mundo tota. setate victoris inter invisi- biles hostes et pericula gradiendum est : in baptismo regeneramur ad vitam, post baptismum confirmamur ad pugnam . . . . Aquinas, Art. 6 : Character confirmation^ ex necessitate prcesupponit characterem baptismalem : ita scilicet quod, si aliquis non baptizatus confirmaretur, nihil reciperet, sed oporteret iter a to ipsum confirmari post baptismum (against the Catharists.)] Bonaventura Brevil. P. vi. c. 8, quoted by Klee, Dogmengesehichte, ii. p. 165. [ Bonaventura says : Primo ergo, quoniam confessio haec debet esse integra, et integritas confessionis non est, nisi quis confiteatur Christum verum hominem pro hominibus crucifixum, eundemque verum Dei filium in- 88 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. carnatum in Trinitate Patri et Spiritui Sancto per omnia sequalem, bine est, quod in forma vocali non tantam fit expressio actus confirmandi, verum etiam ipsius signi crucis, et nominis beatissimse Trinitatis. — As it should, sec¬ ondly, he placid and pleasing to God, oil of olives and balsam, etc., are used. Postremo, quia tabs confessio debet esse intrepida, ut nec pudore, nec timore dimittat quis dicere veritatem, et tempore persecution^ ignominiosam mortem Christi in cruce confiteri publice formidat quis et erubescit. . . . et hujus modi timor et pudor potissime apparet in fronte, ideo ad omnem vere- cundiam et formidinem propulsaudam et manus potestativa imponitur, qua3 confirm et et crux fronti imprimitur. Klee , ubi supra, pp. 165-6, note.] * According to Augusti (1. c. pp. 450, 451), this strange usage was not known previous to the thirteenth century ; but Klee asserts (Dogmengesch. ii. p. 165) that it existed as early as the eleventh century. At all events, it seems more likely that it had its origin in the customs of the Knights (as Klee supposes), than in certain rites which were observed when apprentices had served out their time (according to Augusti). But the proper element of this sacrament was the Chrisma, confectum ex oleo olivarum. Compare the authorities cited in notes 2 and 6. [Th e*form was in the laying on of hands by the bishop, anointing the forehead with the sign of the cross, using the formula : Consigno te signo crucis , et confirmo te chrismate salutis , in nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. 4 Thomas Aquinas , 1. c*. : Character confirmationis ex necessitate prassup- ponit characterem baptismalem, etc. Confirmation, too, has a character in- delebilis ; hence it is not to be repeated. 5 Concerning the godfathers and godmothers, see Augusti , 1. c. p. 434. Thomas Aquinas , Art. 10 ; Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 214. The re¬ lation of godfathers and godmothers in confirmation, is also a basis of eccle¬ siastical relationship. [This spiritual relationship is also considered as a hindrance to marriage. Boniface VIII. (1295) in sexto Decretal. L. iv., Tit. 3, cap. 1 ; Ex confirmatione quoque, sen frontis chrismatione spiritnalis cog- natio eisdem modis (as in baptism) contrahitur, matrimonia similiter impedi- cus contrahenda, et dirimens post contracta.] 6 Cone. Florent. Col. 1055, quoted by Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 215.* [The Florence Council declared the matter of the sacrament to be — Chrisma confectum ex oleo : the form (as above, note 3) ; the bishop to be the ordi¬ nary administrator. The effect was — robur. Ideoque in fronte, ubi verecundiae sedes est, confirmandus inungitur , ne Christi nomen confiteri erubescat, et praecipue crucem ejus. . .propter quod signo crucis signatur.] 1 Trialog. Lib. iv. c. 14. Schrockh, Kircheng. xxxiv. p. 508. He doubted whether confirmation could be proved from Acts viii. 17 (as was generally supposed), and called it blasphemy, to maintain that bishops might again impart the Holy Spirit, which had already been imparted by baptism. — Hus , Art. ii. apud Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1402. Klee , 1. c. p. 164. [The Council of Trent is against Hus, etc. in several canons. Sessio vii. De Conf. Can. i. ii.] * The Greek Church has the sacrament of confirmation as well as the Latin ; only (according to the older tradition of the church) it is performed immediately after baptism, and every priest is empowered to do it: see Art. Greek Church, in Herzog's Realeneyclop. § 193. The Lord’s Supper. 89 § 193. THE LORD’S SUPPER. 1. The Controversy on the Eucharist 'previous to the Rise of Scho¬ lasticism. Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn. Berengar. Marheineke (comp. vol. i. § *73), p. 66, ss. Ebrard , i. 385. Gfrorer, Uber Pseudo-Isidor, in the Freib. Kath. Zeitschrift, 184?, p. 23?, sq. Though at the beginning of this period, forms of statement are sometimes employed, which can be interpreted of the Lord’s Supper in a symbolical sense,1 yet the usage,3 fixed by the liturgies, was constantly shaped more in favor of the doctrine of transubstantia- tion. The violent controversy between the monks, Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn ,3 which degenerated into the most obscene discussions, and gave rise to appellations not less offensive, became the signal for new contests. The most eminent theologians of the age, such as Rabanus Maurus ,4 and Scotus Erigena ,5 took an active part in the dispute. Gerbert , whose reputation was great in those days, endeavored to illustrate the doctrine propounded by Paschasius, of a real change of the bread into the body of Christ, by the aid of geometrical diagrams.6 It had been so generally adopted, as the orthodox doctrine, towards the middle of the eleventh century, that Berengar , Canon of Tours, and afterwards Archdeacon at Angers, who ventured to express doubts concerning its correctness in a letter addressed to Lanfranc , was condemned, and obliged by several synods (at Vercelli and Pome, 1050-1079) to retract. ^He would have suffered still more, if Pope Gregory VII. had not at last suc¬ ceeded in protecting him against the rage of his enemies.7 Berengar, however, was far from rejecting every more spiritual conception, than that of a mere sign. Nor did he take offence at the use of the phrase, “ to partake of the body and blood of Christ,” but he ex¬ plained it in a more or less ideal manner.8 On the other hand, Car¬ dinal Humbert was carried so far by his violent zeal, as to interpret the phrase in question in the grossest (Capernaitic) manner.9 It then became impossible to adopt any moderate view ; and later theologians found little more to do than to conceal the more objec¬ tionable aspect of the doctrine by an increased subtlety of argu¬ mentation, and to surround the impenetrable mystery, as it were, with a thorny hedge of syllogisms, as is exemplified in the scho¬ lastic distinction made by Lanfranc between the subject and the accidents.10 1 Thus in the Venerable Bede (in Marci Evangel. Opera, Tom. v. p. 192, and elsewhere), the passage in Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 223, sq. 90 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. [He says, it is instituted, in suse redemptions memoriam : and, panem certi qnoque gratia sacramenti , priusquam frangeret, benedixit. In his Homil. Hiemalis (Tom. vii., col. 320), lie says that the bread and wine — in sacra- menturn carnis et sanguinis ejus ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transfertur.] So, too, in Walafried Strabo ( Ebrard , 366), Alcuin , etc. As early as the times of Charlemagne, however, theologians seemed agreed, that, in the bread and the wine of the Lord’s Supper, we are to adore more than mere signs, De impio Imaginum Cultu Lib. vi. c. 14, p. 461) ; see Munscher , von Colin, 224, sq. Amalarius of Metz speaks out with special emphasis (about 820) ; in the Spicileg. T. vii. (see Ebrard , 363 :) Ecclesiae sacrificium prsesens 'mandendum esse ab humano ore ; credit namque corpus et sanguinem Domini esse, et hoc morsu benedictione coelesti impleri animas sumentium. Moreover, he will not decide, utrum invisibiliter assumatur in coelum an reservetur in corpore nostro usque in diem sepulturse, an exhaletur in auras, aut exeat de corpore cum sanguine, an per poros emittatur. 2 Compare Ebrard , ubi supra, 370, sq. 5 Paschasius Radbert (monachius Corbeiensis) in his Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini (addressed to the Emperor Charles the Bald, between the years 830 and 832.) See Martene and Durand , T. ix. col. 367-470, and extracts from it in Dossier , x. p. 616, ss. Lie started from the omnipotence of God, to whom all things are possible, and consequently maintained ii. 2 ; sensibilis res intelligibiliter virtute Dei per verbum Christi in carnem ipsius ac sanguinem divinitus transfertur. He looked upon the elements as no more than a veil (in a Docetic way) which deceives our senses, and keeps the body of Christ concealed from us : Figura videtur esse dum frangitur, dum in specie visibili aliud intelligitur quam quod visu carnis et gustu sen- titur. It is the same body which was born of Mary. — At times the true body of Christ has appeared to those who doubted (in order to encourage them), as well as to those who were strong in the faith (in order to reward them), instead of the bread (for the most part in the form of a lamb), or stains of blood have been perceived, etc.* — lie was opposed by Ratramn (Ber- tranm) in his treatise : De Corpore et Sanguine Domini ad Carolum Calvum (it was written at the request of the king ; extracts are given by Schrockh, xxiii. p. 445 ; 'Neamder , iv. ; and Munscher, edit. by von Cblln, p. 230-235.) [Extracts in Gieseler (Ndw York ed.) ii. 80, sq. An English translation of Ratramn was published in 1548, 1549. Sir Llumphrey Lynde made another, 1623, reprinted, 1686. Dr. Hopkins, canon of Worcester, published the text and an English version, 1686, exposing the corruptions of Boileau’s version; another edition, 1688. It has been republished at Oxford several times. An American edition was published in Baltimore (with the Saxon Homily of LElfric), in 1843.] Ratramn properly distinguished between the sign, and the thing represented by it (figura et veritas), the internal and the external, and pointed out the true significance of the mysteries , which consists in this, that through their medium the mind of man rises from the visible to the invisible. If it were possible to eat the body of Christ, in the proper sense of the word, faith would be no longer required, and the * Concerning such miraculous appearances, compare also Bossuet, edited by Cramer, v. 2. p. 105. § 193. The Lord's Supper. 91 mystery, as such, would lose all its significance. The gross reality would destroy the idea, and nothing but a mere materialialism would remain. Ratramn also supposed a conversio of the bread and wine into the body of Christ, but only in the ideal sense of the word, as the ancient church held to a transition from the profane to the pure (sub velainento corporei panis corpo- reique vini spirituale corpus Christi spiritualisque sanguis existit). The mnemonic character is emphasized ; and he also appealed to the authority of earlier writers. Respecting the later appellation, S ter cor odists (in allusion to Matt. xv. 17), which had its origin in these discussions (Paschasius, c. 20, 2), see Sckroc/ch, xxiii. p. 493, ss., and Pfoff. C. M. ; Tractatus de Sterco- ranistis medii mvi. Tub. 1750, 4°.* [Comp. Neander , Hist. Login. 457, sg.] 4 The treatise of Rabanus addressed to Egilo, abbot of Prum, was pro¬ fessedly edited by Mabillon (Acta SS. T. vi.) ; but both Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 229, and Neander , Church Hist. iii. 457, sq ., deny the genuine¬ ness of that edition. The real opinion of Rabanus may be inferred from the following passage (Le Justit. Cleric, i. c. 31, and iii. 13, quoted by Gieseler , ii. p. 80, § 14, note, and Munscher , ed. by von Colin, 1. c.) : Maluit enim Lominus corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta fidelium ore percipi, et in pas- tum eoruin redigi, ut per visibile opus invisibilis ostenderetur effectus. Sicut enim cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vegetat, ita etiam verbum Lei intus animam nutrit et roborat. . . . Sacramentum ore percipitur, virtute sacramenti interior homo satiatur. Sacramentum in alimentum corporis redigitur, virtute autem sacramenti seterna vita adipiscitur. 6 This was at least the common opinion (compare the letter of Berengar to Lanfranc). It is, however, uncertain, whether the treatise (de Eucharistia) commonly ascribed to Scotus, which was condemned by the Synod of Ver- celli (a. d. 1050), is the same with the treatise ascribed to Ratramn (as De Marca says, who ascribes it to Scotus), or whether we have here two distinct treatises ; see Gieseler , as above. F. W. Lauf (Studien und Kriti- ken, 1828, part 4, p. 7 55, ss.), ascribes the authorship to Ratramn, and de¬ nies it of Scotus. Compare also Neander , as above ; he thinks it probable, ^ that Scotus gave his opinion on the subject in question, though the notion of a lost treatise written by him may have arisen from a mistake. To judge from some passages contained in his treatise Le Liv. Nat. (quoted by Nean¬ der, 1. c.) he would not have given countenance to the doctrine propounded by Paschasius. [ Neander , Hist. Logm. 459, says that the doctrine of Scotus was as follows : He taught like some of the Greek Fathers, that the glorified body of Christ by its union with the divinity was freed from the defects of a sensuous nature. He impugned those who said, that the body of Christ after the resurrection occupied some limited space, and held to its ubiquity. * A controversy of quite as unprofitable a nature was carried on between the above named Amalariys (who composed a liturgical work about the year 820), and the priest Guntrad , concerning spitting during the celebration of the mass ; see d'Achery , Spicil. T. iii. in Schrockh , Kirchengesch. xxiii. p. 496. G-erbert (De Corpore et Sanguine Christi) re¬ marks against the Stercoranistic inferences : Et nos ssepe vidimus non modo infirmos, sed etiam sanos, quod per se intromittunt, per vomitum dejecisse . subtilior tamen succus per membra usque ad ungues diffundebatur. “ That surely was medicinal Ebrard, p. 439. 92 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. He denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, and admitted a spiritual pre¬ sence at the Supper : Christ’s presence here is a symbol of his presence everywhere.] 8 De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, edited by Pez, in Thesaur. Anecdd. Noviss. T. i. P. ii. f. 133. Schrockh , xxiii. p. 493.* Gerbert also tried to make clear the relation between Christ, the Supper, and the church, in a logical way, by the three terms of the syllogism, or the three parts of an arithmetical proportion ; see Ritter , vii. 304 ; Ebrard , 438. 7 On the external history of the controversy, see Mabillon , J. Dissert, de multiplici Berengarii Damnatione, Fidei Professione et Relapsu, deque ejus Peenitentia, in J. Vogtii Biblioth. Hseresiolog. Hamb., 1723. Tom. i. Fasc. i. p. 99, ss. ; Schrockh , xxiii. p. 507, ss. ; Neander, iv. : and Gieseler, ii. § 29. — Sources from, which his opinions may be ascertained , are : the Epistles of his school-fellow, Adelmann , De Yeritate Corp. et Sang. Domini, ad Beren- gariuni (which he wrote previous to his nomination as bishop of Brixen in Tyrol, a. d. 1049), edited by J. Coster , Lovan, 1551, in Biblioth, Patrum T. xviii., and by Schmidt, Brunsv., 1770. 8 ; Hugonis Lingonensis Lib. de Cor¬ pore et Sanguine Dom. (d’Achery in Opp. Lanfranci. Append, p. 68, ss. Biblioth. Patrum T. xviii. p. 417, ss.) ; Lanfrancus , de Corp. et Sang. Dom. ad versus Berengar. Turonens. which was composed between the years 1063 and 70), in Opp. ed. L. d’Achery, Lutet. 1648, and Biblioth.. Patrum T. xviii. p. 763-777. This work also contains the first treatise which Berengar wrote in opposition to Lanfranc, from which we must distinguish his second : Liber de sacra Coena advers. Lanfrancum (edited by Staudlin in 6 programmes. Gott. 1820-29, 4.) — Comp. Lessing , Gotth . Ephr., Beren- garius Turonensis, Braunschweig, 1770, 4 (in the edition of his complete works publ. Berlin, 1825, ss., vol. xii. p. 143, ss.) ; Staudlins and Tzschir- ners Arcliiv fur Kirehengeschichte, vol. ii. part. i. p. 1-98. ^Berengarii Turonensis quae supersunt tam edita quam inedita, typis expressa, moderante A. Neandro T. i. Berol. 1834. (Berengarii de Sacra Ccenaadv. Lanfrancum, liber posterior, e codice Guelferbytano primum ediderunt A. E. et F. Th. Vischer. ibid. 1834.) A more detailed account of the literature is given by Gieseler, 1. c. Leading historical facts : The first condemnation of Berengar, a. d. 1050, at Rome under Pope Leo IX., without an opportunity of defence. — The repetition of the sentence passed upon him at Vercelli in the same year. — On the supposed council of Paris, see Neander, 1. c. — Council at Tours (a. d. 1054.) — Berengar’s justification with the assistance of Hilde¬ brand. — Another council at Rome (a. d. 1059.) — The violent conduct of Humbert. — The inconstancy manifested by Berengar in this matter. — Cor¬ respondence with Lanfranc. — Other Synods at Rome (a. d. 1078 and 1079. — Berengar again submitted to sign the confession of faith drawn up by his enemies, but retracted afterwards. — The Litterae Commendatitise of Pope Gregory VII. — -Berengar’ s death on the isle of St. Come, near Tours, a. d. 1088. * Gerbert’s method of illustrating such supernatural truths by ocular demonstration, was imitated even by later theologians. Thus Melancthon informs us, that his tutor Lem, pus, at Tubingen, drew a representation of transubstantiation on a board (Ep. de suis studiis, written a. d. 1541. See Galle, Melancthon, p. G.) § 193. The Lord's Supper. 93 8 Berengar combated principally the doctrine of an entire change , in such a manner as to make the bread cease to be bread, and to have nothing left but the accidents, for then in reality a portiuncula carnis was eaten instead of bread. In accordance with the earlier fathers, he retained the doctrine of a change from an inferior to a superior form, and of a mystical participation in the body of Christ under the figure of bread, p. 67 (edit. Yischer) : Dum enim dicitur : panis et vinum sacramenta sunt, minime panis aufertur et vinum, et nominibus rerum lta natarum significativis aptatur nomen, quod non nata sunt, ut est sacramentum ; simul etiam esse aliud aliquid minime prohibentur, sunt enim, sicut secundum religionem sacramenta , ita secundum aliud alimenta , sustentamenta. The subject, of which anything is pre¬ dicated, must remain the same , otherwise that which is predicated would have no meaning. Pag. 71 : Dun dicitur : panis in altari consecratur, vel panis sanctus, panis sacrosanctus est Christi corpus, omni veritate panis superesse conceditur. Verbi gratia, si enuntias : Socrates justus est, aliquid eum esse constituisti, nec potest justus esse, si contingat, Socratem non esse. Pag. 76 : Sicut enim, qui dicit : Christus est lapis angularis, non revera Christum lapi- dem esse constituit, sed propter aliquam similitudinem, quam ad se invicem gerunt, tale nomen ei imponit, eodem modo, cum divina pagina corpus domini panem vocat, sacrata acmystica locutione id agit. Pag. 86: Quando autem afferuntur ad altare vel ponuntur in altari, adhuc sunt, ut ait beatus Augustinus contra Faustum, alimenta refectionis, nondum sacramenta reli- gionis, (h)ac per hoc, nondum corpus Christi et sanguis existentia, non tropica, sed propria sunt locutione pendenda. Dicens ergo Humbertus ille tuus, panem, qui ponitur in altari, post consecrationem esse corpus Christi, panem propria locutione, corpus Christi tropica accipiendum esse constituit, et illud quidem recte, quia ex auctoritate scripturarum. — Pag. 90 : Dicitur autem in scripturis panis altaris de pane fieri corpus Christi, sicut servus malus dicitur fieri de malo servo bonus filius, non quia amiserit animse proprise naturam aut corporis. — Pag. 91 : Unde insanissimum dictuerat et christianse religioni contumeliosissimum, corpus Christi de pane vel de quocunque confici per generationem subjecti . ut pane absumto per corruptionem subjecti cor¬ pus Christi esse incipiat per generationem subjecti, quia nec pro parte, nec pro toto potest incipere nunc esse corpus Christi. — Pag. 95 : Novit autem revera secundum carnem Christum, qui Christi corpus asserit adhuc esse cor- ruptioni vel generationi obnoxium, vel quarumcunque qualitatum vel col- lineationum, quas prius non habuerit, susceptivum. — Pag. 98 : Denique verbum caro factum assumsit quod non erat, non amittens quod erat, et panis consecratus in altari amisit vilitatem, amisit inefficaciam, non amisit naturae proprietatem, cui naturae quasi loco, quasi fundamento dignitas divini- tus augeretur et efficacia. (A comparison is drawn between the change in question, and the change at the conversion of Saul into Paul, p. 144.) — Pag. 161 : Est ergo vera procul dubio panis et vini per consecrationem altaris conversio in corpus Christi et sanguinem, sed attendendum, quod dicitur : per consecrationem , quia hie est hujus conversionis modus, etc . Pag. 163 : Per consecrationem, inquam, quod nemo interpretari poterit: per subjecti corruptionem. — Pag. 167 : Sed quomodo manducandns est Christus? Quomodo ipse dicit : qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, 94 i Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. in me manet et ego in eo ; si in me manet, et ego in illo, tunc manducat, tnnc bibit ; qui autem non in me manet, nee ego in illo, etsi accipit sacra- mentum, adquirit magnum tormentum. — Pag. 1 71 : Apud eruditos enim constat, et eis, qui vecordes non sint, omnino est perceptibile, nulla ratione colorem videri, nisi contingat etiam coloratum videri. Ita enim scribit Lan- francus, colorem et qualitates portiunculae carnis Cbristi, quam sensualiter esse in altari desipit, videri oculis corporis, ut tamen caro ilia, cujus color videtur, omnino sit invisibilis, cum constet, omne quod in subjecto est, sicut, ut sit, ita etiam, ut videatur, non a se babere, sed a subjecto, in quo sit, nee visu vel sensuo aliquo corporeo comprehendi colorem vel qualitatem, nisi comprehenso quali et colorato.* — Pag. 188 : Rerum exteriorum est, panis et vini est, confici, consecrari ; hsec incipere possunt esse, quod non erant, cor¬ pus Cliristi et sanguis, sed per consecrationem, non per corruptionem panis et vini et generationem corporis Christi et sanguinis, quae constat semel potuisse generari. — Pag. 191 : . Yerissimum est nee ulla tergiversatione dissimulari potest, aliud esse totum corpus Christi, quod ante mille annos sibi fabricavit in utero virginis sapientia Dei, aliud portiunculam carnis, quam tu tibi facis de pane per corruptionem panis ipsius hodie factam in altari per generationem ipsius carnis. — Further passages are quoted by Gieseler, ii. as above, p. 172, sq ., ss. Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 242, ss. Comp, espe¬ cially his confession of faith made (though with reservation) at the Synod of Rome (a. d. 1078), in Mansi, xix. p. 761. Gieseler , ii. § 29 : Profiteor, panem altaris post consecrationem esse verum corpus Christi, quod natum est de virgine, quod passum est in cruce, quod sedet ad dexteram Patris, et vinum altaris, postquam consecratum est, esse verum sanguinem, qui manavit de latere Christi. Et sicut ore pronuncio, ita me corde habere confirmo. Sic me adjuvet Deus et hsec sacra. 9 According to the confession of faith imposed by Humbert upon Beren- gar at the Synod of Rome (a. d. 1059), he was to take an oath, in the name of the Holy Trinity, that he believed : Panem et vinum, quse in altari ponun- tur, post consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter, non sclum Sacra¬ mento, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi et Jidelium denti- bus atteri\ he retracted, however, as soon as he had obtained his liberty. [Comp. Meander , Hist. Dogm. 460, sg'.] 10 The doctrine of Lanfranc, though propounded in less rigid terms than that of Humbert, was, nevertheless, opposed to the view adopted by Berengar, and rendered impossible any further attempt to return to a sym- # bolising and spiritualising interpretation. He taught (1. c. c. 18, p. 772, quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 244) : Credimus terrenas sub- stantias, quse in mensa dominica per sacerdotale ministerium divinitus sanc- tificantur, ineffabiliter, incomprehensibiliter, mirabiliter, operante superna potentia, converti in essentiam dominici corporis, reservatis ipsarum rerum speciebus et quibusdam aliis qualitatibus, ne percipientes cruda et cruenta horrerent, et ut credentes fidei prsemia ampliora perciperent : ipso tamen * Only in so far may it be said that the bread of the Lord’s Supper is no bread ; as Christ says, My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me ; or Paul : I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Comp. p. 178. § 194. Transubstantiation. 95 doininico corpore existente in ccelestibus ad dexteram Patris, immortali, in- violato, integro, incontaminato, illseso : ut vere dici possit, et ipsum corpus quod de Virgine suratum est nos sumere, et tamen non ipsum. Ipsum quidem, quantum ad essentiam verseque naturae proprietatem atque naturam ; non ipsum autem, si spectes panis vinique speciem caeteraque superius com- prehensa. Hanc fidem tenuit a priscis temporibus et nunc tenet ecclesia, quae per totum effusa orbem catholica nominatur. (To this last view Beren- gar opposed proofs drawn from the writings of Ambrose and Augustine, in the treatise above mentioned. Comp, note 8.) § 194. 2, The Scholastic Development of the Doctrine. Transubstantia¬ tion. The Sacrifice of the Mass. A word is often of great consequence ! Hildebert of Tours was the first who made use of the full-sounding term “ transubstantiatio though similar expressions, such as transition had previously been em¬ ployed.8 Most of the earlier scholastics,3 and the disciples of Lan- franc in particular, had defended the doctrine of the change of the bread into the body of Chrst, and the doctrine of the accidentia sine subjecto ; these were now solemnly confirmed, by being inserted together with the term transubstantiatio into the Decretum Gra- tiani,4 and were made an unchangeable article of faith by Pope Innocent III.5 Thus nothing was left to the later scholastics, but to answer still more subtle questions, such as : In what respect can it be said that the body of Christ is actually broken together with the bread ?8 Do animals partake of the body of Christ, when they happen to swallow a consecrated host ?7 Is the bread used in the Lord's Supper changed only into the flesh of our Lord, or also into his blood ? (the doctrine of what is called concomitance .)8 Is the bread, in the former case, changed only into the flesh of Christ, or also into his body and soul, or into his divinity itself, or even into the Holy Trinity ?9 Does the change take place gradually, or sud¬ denly ?10 Is there only one body in the multitude of hosts, so that the same Christ is sacrified at the same time upon all altars, which constitutes the mystery of the mass P11 — By the institution of the Corpus-Christi-day by Pope Urban IY. (a. d. 1264), and Pope Clement Y. (a. d. 1311), at the Synod of Yienne, the doctrine in question was expressed in a liturgical form, and its popularity secured.18 Henceforth the sacrifice of the mass formed more than ever the centre of the catholic ritual,13 and reflected new glory upon the priesthood. Nevertheless many pious minds found elevation and powerful motives, in the idea of a special presence of the Redeemer, and the daily repetition of his sacrifice, as well as in that of the mystical 96 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. union with him in the act of communion. Thus here again it be¬ came the office of the idealising mystics, by the spirit of inward contemplation, to transform into a heavenly manna, what the scholastics had brought down into the sphere of the external and earthly.14 1 In Sermo YI. Opp. Col. 689 ; comp. Sermo Y. in Ccena Domini, Opp. Col. 422; and De Sacram. Altaris, Opp. Col. 1106, quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 249, 250. [In his Sermo VI. Opera, 689 : eum profero verba Canonis (sc. Missae), et verbum Transsubstantiationis. In his Sermo Y. he defines: — ita ut panis substantia non remaneat . et sub ilia specie veram corporis substantiam latere : ne, si in ea qualitate in qua revera est appareret, verum liominis sumere abhorreret.] 3 Thus by Hugo of St. Victor , see Liebner , p. 455, ss. 3 Anselm , a disciple of Lanfranc, followed the example of his master in his Tractatus bipartitus de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, sive de Sacramento Altaris. (Disputatio dialectica de grammatico, P. ii.) P. i . Sicut in mensa nuptiali aqua in vinum mutata solum adfuit vinum, in quod aqua mutata erat : sic in mensa altaris solum corpus Domini, in quod vere mutata est vera panis substantia; nisi, quod de aqua nihil remansit in mutatione ilia, de pane vero mutato, ad peragendum sacri institutum mys- terii, sola remanet species visibilis. (He expressly condemns the hereti¬ cal doctrine of Berengar.) Yet we ought not to think of the transaction as something magical : Nihil enim falsum factum putandum est in sacri- ficio veritatis, sicut fit in magorum praestigiis, ubi delusione quadam falluntur oculi, ut videatur illis esse, quod non est omnino. Sed vera species visibilis panis, quae fuit in pane, ipsa facta paeter substantiam suam quodammodo in aliena peregrinatur, continente eum, qui fecit earn et ad suum transferente corpus. Quae tamen translata ad corpus Domini, non eo modo se habet ad illud, quomodo accidens ad substantiam : quia corpus Domini in substantia sua, nec album efficit albedo ilia, nec rotundum rotunditas, sicque de reliquis. — Nor ought we to rest satisfied with the mere carnal participation. P. ii. c. 12 : Et cum de altari sumimus carnem Jesu, curemus solicite, ne cogi- tatione remaneamus in carne, et a spiritu non vivificemur ; quodsi non vivificamur a spiritu, caro non prodest quicquam, etc. (comp, note 12.) The principles of Lanfranc were also partially adopted by Durandus , Abbas Troarnensis (he died, a. d. 1088), De Corp. et Sang. Domini, c. Bereng. (in Bibl. PP. Max. T. xviii. p. 419; Galland, T. xiv. p. 245), and Guitmundus Archiepisc. Aversanus, de Corporis et Sanguinis Christi Veritate in Euchar- istia, libr. iii. (in Bibl. PP. Max., T. xviii. p. 441). Eusebius Bruno (bishop of Anjou), whom Durandus numbered among the followers of Berengar, wished to have a stop put to all discussions concerning this sacrament (see Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 247, 248.) — But in vain ! The theory of Paschasius and Lanfranc gained the victory. — Hugo of St. Victor himself called the few advocates of Berengar’s doctrine “ perverters of Scripture,” and distinctly opposed a mere symbolical interpretation, though he would have retained it together with the real (see Liebner , p. 453, ss.) — Peter Lorn- lard appealed, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 10. D. to (Pseudo-) Ambrose, De initiand. § 194. Transubstantiation. 97 mysteriis (Yol. i. § 138, note 3) : Ex liis (continues he) aliisque pluribus constat, verum corpus Christi et sanguinem in altari esse, immo integrum Christum ibi sub utraque specie et substantiam panis in corpus, vinique sub- stantiam in sanguinem convert! — But he confesses his inability to explain the mode of that change, Dist. xi. A. : Si autem quaeritur, qualis sit ilia con- versio, an formalis, an substantialis, vel alterius generis, definire non sufficio. Formalem tamen non esse cognosco, quia species rerum, quae ante fuerant, remanent, et sapor et pondus. . Quibusdam esse videtur substantialis, dicen- tibus sic substantiam tmnverti in substantiam, ut haec essentialiter fiat ilia, si sensui praemissae auctoritates consentire videntur. — B. : Sed huic sententiae sic opponitur ab aliis : Si substantia panis, inquiunt, vel vini convertitur sub- stantialiter in corpus vel sanguinem Christi, quotidie fit aliqua substantia corpus vel sanguis Christi, quae ante non erat corpus, et hodie est aliquid corpus Christi, quod heri non erat, et quotidie augetur corpus Christi atque formatur de materia, de qua in conceptione non fuit factum. Quibus hoc modo responderi potest, quia non ea ratione dicitur corpus Christi confici verbo coelesti, quod ipsum corpus in conceptu virginis formatum deinceps formetur : sed quia substantia panis vel vini, quae ante non fuerunt corpus Christi vel sanguis, verbo coelesti fit corpus et sanguis. Et ideo sacerdotes dicuntur conficere corpus Christi et sanguinem , quia eorum ministerio sub¬ stantia panis fit caro, et substantia vini fit sanguis Christi, nec tamen aliquid additur corpori vel sanguini, nec augetur corpus Christi vel sanguis. — C. : Si vero quaeris modum, quo id fieri possit, breviter respondeo : Mysterium fidei credi salubriter potest, investigari salubriter non potest. Comp. Dist. xii. k : Si autem quaeritur de accidentibus, quae remanent, i. e. de speciebus et sapore et pondere, in quo subjecto fundentur, potius mihi videtur fatendum existere sine subjecto quam esse in subjecto, quia ibi non est substantia, nisi corporis et sanguinis dominici, quae non afficitur illis accidentibus. Non enim corpus Christi talem habit in se formam, sed qualis in judicio apparebit. Remanent ergo ilia accidentia per se subsistentia ad mysterii ritum, ad gustus fideique suftragium : quibus corpus Christi, habens formam et naturam suam, tegitur. [4 The Decretum Gratiani was a “ Concordia discordantium Canonum in Lib. iii.” composed about the year 1150, by Gratianus , a Benedictine monk; it was also called Codex decretorum, Decreta Gratiani, and more frequently Decretum Grat. See Gieseler , 1. c. ii., § 60, note 5. ilaliam’s Middle Ages, ii. p. 2, 8th edit. Thomas Greenwood , Cathedra Petri, vol. iii. Lond., 1859. Book vi., chap, viii.] 6 Cone. Lat. IV. c. i. (quoted by Munsclier , edit, by von Colin, p. 251) : Una est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur. In qua idem ipse sacerdos est sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter conti nentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro. Et hoc utique sacramentum nemo potest conficere nisi sacerdos, qui rite fuerit ordinatus, secundum claves ecclesiae, quas.ipse concessit Apostolis eorumque successoribus Jesus Christus. Pope Innocent III. himself main tained, de Mysteriis Missae. 1. iv. c. 7 : Non solum accidentales, sed etiaL 98 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. naturales proprietates remanere : paneitatem , quse satiando famem expellit et vineitatem , quse satiando sitim expellit. 6 Thomas Aquinas (Summ. P. iii. Qu. 75, Art. 6, and 7, Qu. 76, Art. 3) made the assertion, that the body is broken only secundum speciem sacra- mentalem, but is itself incorruptibile et impassibile : see the passages quoted by Munscher, edit, by von Colin, pp. 253, 254. [Aquinas argues, in Art. 6, against those who maintained, that the forma substantialis of the bread re¬ mained ; for, 1. if the substantial form remains, the mere matter alone is changed, and not the form, whereas the words of institution say, This is my body. 2. Because this substantial form remained, it must be either in, or separate from the matter ; both of which are in the case impossible, etc. Qu. 77, Art. 1 : Relinquitur quod accidentia in hoc sacramento maneat sine subjecto, quod quidem virtute divina fieri potest. Eaur, p. 267 : Aquinas says, transubstantiation is neither an annihilation nor a continuance of the substance ; if the accidents abide without the substance, this is like the case of all miracles, a working of the first cause without the second causes. The whole Christ was conceived as being in each part of the species ; and to ex¬ plain how this could be, how a body of greater quantity could be in a smaller, not dimensive, but as a substantial quantity, the scholastics made distinction, which at last run out into this — that existence in space does not belong to the essence of things that appear in space. Aquinas, Dist. 76, Art. 4.] Christ is whole and undivided in every particle of the host. In the same way the consecrated wine, though other liquids may be added, remains the blood of Christ as long as it does not cease to be wine. Fortunately these subtile de¬ finitions required only a fides implicita, but not explicita ; see Cramer, vii. pp. 728, 729. The theory of Thomas is more fully developed by Engel - hardt, Dogmengeschichte, ii. p. 214, ss., note; Ebrard , i. 487. [Hampden’s Bampton Lectures, Lect. vii.] 7 Peter Lombard, started this question, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 13, A., and decided : Illud sane dici potest, quod a brutis animalibus corpus Christi non sumitur, etsi videatur. Quid ergo sumit mus vel quid manducat ! Deus novit hoc. — Alexander Hales, however, who lived about a century later, pre¬ tended to a better knowledge respecting this point (Summa P. iv. Qu. 45, Mcmbr. 1, Art. 1 and 2). He took the affirmative side of the question, in support of which he asserted, that, if a sinner could receive the body of Christ, the same might be supposed, with much more propriety, in the case of an innocent animal : on the other hand, he professed to be aware that God abhors only the sin of the sinner, but not his human nature, which alone is susceptible of the beneficial effects of the sacrament. Nevertheless he was compelled to admit, that if a dog or a pig swallowed the unbroken host, the body of our Lord entered into the belly of the animal. — Thomas Aquinas held similar views, P. iii. Qu. 80, Art. 3 : Etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus, quamdiu species illse manent, hoc est quamdiu substantia panis maneret ; sicut etiam si projiceretur in lutum. — On the other hand, Bonaventura expressed himself with more propriety (after he had stated all that might be said for and against the doctrine) in Comment, ad. Sent. iv. Dist. 13, Art. 2, Qu. 1; Quantumcunque haec opinio muniatur, nunquam § 194. Transubstantiation. 99 tamen ita munitur, quamquam aures pice hoc abhorreant audire , quod in ventre muris vel in cloaca sit corpus Christi, quamdiu species ibi subsistunt. Propter haec est alia opinio, quod corpus Christi nullo modo descendit in ventrem muris . Et haec opinio communior est, et certe lionestior et rational)]' lior. Nevertheless this more appropriate and rational view was de¬ termined by the Synod of Paris, a. d. 1300, to be one of those articles, in quibus Magister Sententiarum non tenetur ( Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 255). — Thomas Aquinas, however, held, that an animal can partake of the body of Christ only accidentaliter, but not sacramentaliter : and Pope Inno¬ cent III. endeavored (De Myst. Missae iv. 21,) to get rid of all difficulties by supposing that the body of our Lord left the host in the same miraculous way in which it had entered it (reconversio.) Compare Wilhelm Holder1 8 satire : Mus exenteratus, etc., published in the sixteenth century, in Meiners and Splitters Neues Gotting. historisches Magazin. Vol. ii. p. 716-734, where some other curiosities are collected. 8 See the next section. 9 The elements are, properly speaking, changed only into the body and blood of Christ, but his soul is united to his body, and his divine nature to his soul ; see Thomas Aquinas , P. iii. Qu. 76, Art. 1. On the controversy which took place in the kingdom of Valencia, a. d. 1382 (respecting the transubstantiation of the bread into the whole Trinity), see Haluze , Notae ad Vitas Paparum Avenionensis, T. i. p. 1368, ss. (from an ancient MS.) ; and Schrockh , xxxiii. p. 325. 10 The transubstantiation takes place in instanti, not successive. Comp. Alex. Hales , P. iv. Qu. 10, Memb. 5, Art. 4. Thom. Aquinas , P. iii. Qu. 75, Art. 7. Albertus Magnus , Sentent. iv. Dist. 10, Art. 3. (Klee, Dogmen- geschichte, ii. p. 204.) 11 Thus Anselm said, 1. c. P. ii. c. 4 : Sic ergo constat, in diversis locis uno hone momento esse posse corpus Christi, sed lege creatricis naturae, non creatae. The other scholastics adopted the same opinion. Similar views were also entertained by the mystics. Compare Ruysbroek, Specul. aeternae Salutis c. 8, and Engelhardt1 s monograph, p. 261 : “All the bread which our Lord himself consecrated for his body (at the institution of the Lord’s Supper),* as well as the bread which the priests now everywhere consecrate, is, according to its true nature, only one bread (only one bread in its nature.) In the act of consecration all the hosts, by means of the secret intention of the priest, and the enunciation of the words of consecration, are united into one matter, and one substance, and what was formerly bread, now becomes en¬ tirely the body of Christ. . . .Every bit of bread, every drop of wine, con¬ tains the whole Christ, who is in heaven, but not confined to any particular place, as the one undivided soul is equally diffused throughout the body. . . . The body of Christ is present in all countries, places, and churches ; hence we may preserve it in various ways, and keep it in various places ; we may * It was thought that Christ himself partook, by way of accommodation, of his own body, at the institution of the sacrament in question; see Thomas Aquinas. 1. c. Qu. 81, Scrhockh , xxxix. p. 163. On a chalice at Hildesheim is inscribed : Rex sedet in ccena, turba cinctus duodena, se tenet in manibus, se cibat ipse cibus. Comp. Eiemer , Mittheh lungen uber Grothe, ii. 7 04. 100 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. have it, receive it, and give it in the casket. But as he exists in heaven having his hands, his feet, and all his members, and is seen by the angels and the redeemed in all his glory, he does not change his abode, and is ever present.” — In illustration of such things, the instance was adduced of a mirror com¬ posed of many pieces in which a single image is variously reflected ; see Klee, ii. p. 211.* 12 Respecting the institution of this festival (whether in consequence of a revelation to Juliana of Liege?), see Gieseler , ii. §77, notes 15 and 16. 13 The idea of a sacrifice is intimately connected with that of transubstan- tiation. Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 12, g. : Breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et reprassentatio veri sacrificii et sanctse immolationis factae in ara crucis. Et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipso (Heb. vii. 27), quotidie autem immolatur in sacramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel. Thomas Aquinas entered into more lengthened discussions, Summ. P. iii. Qu. 83, Art. 1, ss. quoted by Munscher, edit, by von Colin, pp. 270, 271. [Aquinas, after giving the aspects under which it can not be called an immolatio, says : duplici ratione celebratio hujus sacramenti dicitur immolatio Christi. Primo quidem quia .... imago qucedam est reprcesentativa passionis Christi, quae est vera ejus immolatio. . . . Alio modo quantum ad effectum passionis Christi, quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur fructus Dominicae passionis.] The mystical theory was, that Christ is both priest and sacrifice at the same time ; see Cone. Lateran. IV. can. 1, note 4. Concerning the usual canon of the mass, the various kinds of mass (missae solitarae) etc., comp, the archeological and liturgical works of Calixt (Dissert, de Pon- tificio Missae Sacrificio Francof. 1644, and de Missis Solitariis. Helmst. 1647-8) ; JSuddeus (Dissert, de Origine Missae Pontificiae, in Miscell. Sacra, Jen., 1727, T. i. p. 1-63) ; and Augusti (Archaeologie, vol. iv. and viii). — On the adoration of the host during the mass, as well as at other times (e. g. when it was carried to the sick, etc.), which may be dated from the thirteenth century, see Ccesarius of Heisterhach, De Miraculis et Visionibus sui Tem- poris Dialog, lib. ix. c. 51, quoted by Gieseler, ii. p. 485, § 77, note 14; and C. de Lith., de Adoratione Panis consecrati et Interdictione sacri Calicis in Eucharistia. 1753-8. Decret. Gregorii IX. Lib. iii. Tit. 41, c. 10, (quoted by Munscher, edit, by von Colin, p. 262) : Sacerdos vero quilibet frequenter doceat plebem suam, ut, cum in celebratione missarum elevatur hostia salu- taris, quilibet se reverenter inclinet, idem faciens cum earn defert presbyter ad infirm um. 14 This is the more cheering aspect of the history of the doctrine in ques¬ tion, which has too often been overlooked in works on the history of doctrines. Thus Anselm said, De Sacram. Altaris P. ii. c. 8 (p. 75) : Cum ergo de carne * Since every host contains the body of Christ, and one priest may lift up one host at the same time when another priest lowers down another, it follows, according to W. Occam, that a body may move at one and the same time in two different directions : Aristotle indeed makes the opposite assertion, yet this is because he looked at the matter merely from the natural point of view: see Centiloq. conclus. 27. Rettberg in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 1, p. 76. § 194. Transubstantiation. 101 sua amandi se tantam ingerit materiam, magnum et mirificam animabus nostris vitae alimoniam ministrat, quam tunc avidis faucibus sumimus, cum dulciter recolligimus et in ventre memoriae recondimus, quaecunque pro nobis fecit et passus est Christus. Hoc est convivium de carne Jesu et sanguine, qui cum communicat, habet vitam in se manentem. Tunc enim communi- camus, cum fide ardente, quae per dilectionem operatur, reposuimus in mensa Domini, qualia ipsi sumsimus, videlicet, ut, sicut ille totum se praebuit pro salute nostra nulla sua necessitate, sic nos totos fidei ejus et cbaritati exhi- beamus necessitate salutis nostrae. In hoc convivio quicunque saginatur, nescit panem suum otiosus comedere, sed solicite cum muliere ejus ardet de nocte hujus seculi consurgere ad lucernam verbi Dei, ut labores manuum suarum manducet, et bene sit ei. Sique in Christo manet bonus conviva Christi propriae dilectionis aflectu, habetque Christum in se manentum per sanctae operationis effectum. Quod cum utrumque donum Dei sit, totum accrescit magis ac magis ad cumulum amoris in ilium, quem perfecte amare est perfecte bonum esse. Hunc autem cibum plus manducat, qui amplius amat, et plus amando rursus qui plus et plus manducat, et plus et plus amat. Licet hujus amoris in hac vita non nisi pignus quoddam accipiamus, plenitu- dinem ejus, in praemium, in futuro seculo expectantes. Et ecce hoc est man- ducare illam carnem, de qua dicit Jesus [John, vi.] : Qui manducat carnem meam, in me manet et ego in eo.— Similar language was used by Hugo of St. Victor , who here again, “ combined the dialectic prudence of the scholas¬ tics with the warmth and depth of the mystics .” He expressed himself as follows (Lib. i. P. viii. c. 5) : — “ He who eats without being united to Christ, has the sacrament indeed, but he has not the essence of the sacrament. On the contrary, he who eats and is united to our Lord, has the essence of the sacrament, because he has faith and love. Even suppose he could neither take nor eat, yet he would be far more esteemed by our Lord than he who takes and eats, but neither believes nor loves, or he who believes, *but does not love.” ( Liebner , p. 435.) Comp. Bonaventura , Sent. iv. Dist. x. P. 1, Qu. 1, Art. 1, quoted by Klee, Dogmengesch. ii. p. 190. [B. says: “As many we need union, as pilgrims we need food, as sinners, a daily sacrifice : that which unites, feeds and purifies, can only be God, or what is joined to God, that is, the body of Christ.” He further shows how faith, hope, and love, and humility were nourished by this sacrament.] Comp. Breviloq. vi. 9, Centiloq. iii. 50. — Tauler, 4 Predigten auf unsers Herrn Frohnleichnams- tag (vol. ii. p. 1 V8, ss.) ; 2 Predigten von dem heiligen Sacrament (ibid. p. 294, ss., comp. p. 333, ss.) Buysbroek , 1. c. — Gerson , Sermo de Eucharistia in Festo Corporis Domini ; Opp. P. i. p. 1284-92. His illustrations are all pervaded by the spirit of mysticism; thus he says, p. 1219 : Est panis an- gelorum, qui factus fuit et formatus in pretioso ventre Virginis gloriosae et decoctus in fornace ardente dilectionis, in arbore crucis, qui manducari debet cum baculo spei, cum boni exempli califactorio, cum acetosis lachrymis bonse patientiae, velociter recordando finem nostrum, in una domo per unitatem integre, per veram credulitatem, tostus per ignem charitatis, etc. — Stiso calls the Lord’s Supper the sacrament of love, and celebrated in it the mystic union of the soul with God ; see his Ewige Weisheit, fob (in Schmidt, loc. cit. 51 ; Diepenbroek, 350). — In like manner Thomas a Kempis, De Imit. 102 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. Christi Lib. iv. 4 : Ecce, unde dilectio procedit, qualis dignatio illucescit ! quam magnae gratiarura actiones et laudes tibi pro his debentur ! 0 quam salutare et utile consilium tuum, cum istud instituisti ! quam suave et jucun- dum convivium, cum te ipsum in cibum donasti ! O quam admirabilis operatio tua, Domine ! quam potens virtus tua, quam inefi’abilis veritas tua ! Dixisti enim, et facta sunt omnia, et hoc factum est, quod ipse jussisti. 5 : Mira res et fide digna, ac humanum vincens intellectum, quod tu, Domine Dens meus, verus Deus et homo, sub modica specie panis et vini integer con- tineris, et sine consumtione a sumente manducaris. Tu Domine universorum, qui nullius babes indigentiam, voluisti per Sacramentum tuum habitare in nobis : conserva cor meum et corpus immaculatum, ut lseta et pura con- scientia ssepius tua valeam celebrare mysteria, et ad meam perpetuam acci- pere salutem, quae ad tuum prsecique honorem et memoriale perenne sanxisti et instituisti. — 6: Laetare, anima mea, et gratias age Deo pro tarn nobili munere et solatio singulari in hac lacrymarum valle tibi relicto. Nam quoties hoc mysterium recolis et Christi corpus accipis, toties tuae redem- tionis opus agis, et particeps omnium meritorum Christi efficeris. Charitas enim Christi nunquam minuitur et magnitudo propitiationis ejus nunquam exhauritur. Ideo nova semper mentis renovatione ad hoc disponere te debes, et magnum salutis mysterium attenta consideratione pensare. Ita magnum, novum et jucundum tibi videri debet, cum celebras aut Missam audis, ac si eodem die Christus primum in uterum Yirginis descendens homo factus esset, aut si in cruce pendens pro salute hominum pateretur et moretur. — Wessel entertained similar views (though he somewhat differed from the ecclesiastical doctrine, see § 196, note 7), comp. De Orat. viii. 6, p. 148 ; de Sacrament. Eucharist. C. 26, p. 699, quoted by Ullmann , p. 329: “ The bread set before believers, is the purest and most perfect mirror of love, lifted up on the hills, that all may see it, and none hide himself from its warming beams,” etc. § 195. THE WITHHOLDING OP THE CUP PROM THE LAITY. CONCOMITANCE. *Spittler, Gescliichte des Ketches im Abendmahl. Lemgo, 1780. In the Western Church the custom was gradually adopted of administering to the laity only the consecrated host, while the priests alone partook of the cup.1 In defence of such a practice, theologians advanced the doctrine of concomitance , developed about the same time, according to which Christ exists wholly in each of the elements, so that those who receive the consecrated host, par¬ take of his blood no less than of his body.3 Robert Pulleyn is said to have been the first who claimed the participation of the cup as the prerogative of the clergy.8 Alexander Hales , Bonaventura, and Thomas Aquinas , followed him. But Albertus Magnus , while conceding that the blood of Christ was also present in the body, § 195. Concomitance. 103 said that this was — ex unione naturali, and not, ex virtute saera- mentali.6 In the fifteenth century the cup was again violently re¬ claimed in Bohemia. It was not at first, Hus, but his colleague, Jacobellus of Misa , who demanded, in the absence of the former, that the laity should be readmitted to the participation of the Lord's Supper sub utraque forma. Hus afterwards approved of what he had done.8 It is well known that this demand, which was in opposition to the Synod of Constance,7 gave rise to the wars of the Husites. The consequence was, that the council of Basle con¬ firmed the doctrine of the Church, according to which it is sufficient to partake of the Lord's Supper sub una forma ; but it permitted exceptions when the Church deemed it desirable;8 1 Had this custom its origin in the apprehension that some portion of the wine might be spilt ? Concerning the clipping of the bread — the introduction of the Fistulae (cannae eucharisticae), etc., see Spittler , 1. c. and the works on ecclesiastical history and archaeology : Augusti , Archaeologie viii. p. 392, ss., comp. p. 485. (Comp. § 194, note 12.) 2 Peter Lombard taught, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 10, D (in calce) : Integrum Christum esse in altari sub utraque specie, et substantiam panis in corpus, vinique substantiam in sanguinem converti. Thomas Aquinas was the first who made use of the term concomitantia in Summa, P. iii. Qu. Yb. Art. 1 : Sciendum, quod aliquid Christi est in hoc Sacramento dupliciter: uno modo quasi ex vi sacramenti, alio modo ex naturali concomitantia. Ex vi quidem sacramenti est sub speciebus hujus sacramenti id, in quod directe convertitur substantia panis et vini praeexistens, prout significatur per verba form*©, quae sunt effectiva in hoc Sacramento . Ex naturali autem concomitantia est in hoc sacramento illud, quod realiter est conjunctum ei, in quod praedicta conversio terminatur. Si enim aliqua duo sunt realiter conjuncta, ubiounque est unum realiter, oportet et aliud esse. Sol enim operatione animse discer- nuntur, quae realiter sunt conjuncta. (He made use of the same concomi¬ tance to explain the union of the soul and the divine nature of Christ with his body. Compare above § 194, note 9.) [On Folmar , of Traufenstein, in Franconia, who opposed the Concomitance, see Neander , Hist. Dogm. 535.] 3 Sent. P. viii. c. 3 (he spoke of the danger alluded to above). The com¬ mand of Christ : “ Drink ye all of it” was applied to the priests, as the successors of the apostles. See Cramer , vi. pp. 515, 516. 4 Alexander Hales , Summa, P. iv. Qu. 53, Membr. 1, quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 263. [ Alexander here says, the church gives the sacrament — sub specie panis tantum, turn propter periculum effusionis , quod forte accideret si sub specie vini dispensaretur ; turn propter vitii infidelitatis, amotionem, quod se non immerito simplicium mentibus ingereret, si semper sub speciebus panis et vini daretur ; quia si ita fieret, possent simpliciores credere, quod Christus non contineretur integre sub altera specie, sicut, con- tingit quandoque. JBonaventura assigns the same reasons.] Bonaveutura in Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 11, p. 2, Art. 1, Qu, 2 (ibidem.) Thomas Aquinas, seQ above, note 2. 6 Gieseler , Dogmengesch. 544. 104 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. 6 JEneaz Sylvii Historia Bohemica c. 35. Hermann von der Hardly Acta Cone. Constant. T. iii. p. 338, ss. Gieseler, Church History, ii. p. 32, § 151. The approbation of IIus was given later. Comp. De Sanguine Christi sub Specie vini a Laicis sumendo, qusestio M. Joannis Hus, quam Constantise conscripsit priusquam in carcerem conjiceretur, in Joannis Hus Historia et Monument. Norimb. 1558, T. i. fol. xlii. ss., loc. cit. iii. 431, sq. 7 Sess. xiii. (a. d. 1415, June 15th) see in Herm . von der Hardt , Tom. iii. Col. 646, ss., quoted by Gieseler, 1. c. p. 382, note 6, and Munscher, edit, by von Colin, p. 266 : Firmissime credendum et nullatenus dubitandum, integrum corpus Christi et sanguinem tarn sub specie panis quam sub specie vini vera- citer contineri. 8 Mansi T. xxx. Col. 695 : Sancta vero mater ecclesia, suadentibus causis rationabilibus, facultatem communicandi populum sub utraque specie potest concedere et elargiri. — Nevertheless the council adhered to the earlier canon : Nullatenus ambigendum est, quod non sub specie panis caro tantum, nec sub specie vini sanguis tantum, sed sub qualibet specie est integer totus Christus, etc.; compare also Sess. xxx. (a. d. 1437, Dec. 23d) in Mansi xxix. Col. 158. Gieseler, 1. c. p. 441. Munscher, ed. by von Colin, pp. 267, 268. § 196. DISSENTING OPINIONS. After the doctrine of transubstantiation had been thus established, it was only now and then that a few individuals ventured to dissent from it, or, at least, to modify the commonly received notion. Thus in the twelfth century, Rupert of Duytz (Rupertus Tuitiensis), judging from some passages in his works, supposed that the body of Christ is united in a wondrous way with the bread, without any disturbance of the sensible elements.1 John of Paris (Johannes Pungens-asinum) narrowed the notion of Rupert into the scholastic idea of impanation , according to which the corporeitas panis (pane- itas) forms a union with the corporeitas Christi — an idea which would readily work upon the fancy in a more repulsive way than the more daring doctrine of transubstantiation.* William Occam also inferred the co-existence of Christ's body with the accidents, from the nominalistic theory about the quantity of things, and thus partly prepared the way for the later Lutheran view.3 Similar opinions were taught by Durandus de Sancto Porciano* On the other hand, Wycliffe combated the doctrine of transubstantiation, as well as that of impanation, with acute polemics.5 His views were probably adopted by Jerome of Prague , while Hus expressed himself in accord with the orthodox doctrine of the Church.8 John Wessel attached particular importance to spiritual participa¬ tion in the Lord's Supper, and asserted that none but believers can § 196. Dissenting Ohnions. 105 partake of the body of Christ. Though he retained the idea of a sacrifice, allied to the Catholic view, he applied it mystically to the spiritual priesthood.7 1 “ Concerning Rujpert of Duytz , it is difficult to state his opinion in pre¬ cise terms, inasmuch as he expressed himself at different times in different ways.” Klee , Dogmengesckickte, p. 202. But compare his Commentary in Exod. Lib. ii. c. 10 : Sicut naturam humanam non destruxit, cum illain operatione sua ex utero Virginis Deus Verbo in unitatem personae conjunxit, sic substantiam panis et vini, secundum exteriorem speciem quinque sensibus subactam, non mutat aut destruit, cum eidem Verbo in unitatem corporis ejusdem quod in cruce pependit, et sanguinis ejusdem quern de latere suo fudit, ista conjungit. Item quomodo Verbum a summo demissum caro factum est, non mutatum in carnem, sed assumendo carnem, sic panis et vinum, utrumque ab imo sublevatum, fit corpus Christi et sanguis, non muta¬ tum in carnis saporem sive in sanguinis horrorem, sed assumendo invisibiliter utriusque, divinse scilicet et humanse, quae in Christo est, immortalis sub¬ stantiae veritatem. — De div. Off. ii. 2 : Unus idemque Deus sursum est in came, hie in pane. He called the bread, Deifer panis. — Panem cum sua carne, vinum cum suo jungebat sanguine. But he also spoke of the bread and wine being converted and transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Compare the passages quoted by Klee , 1. c. [Panis et vinum in verurn corpus et sanguinem Domini transferuntur ; Div. Offic. ii. 2. Cum igitur vino ver¬ bum crueis et passionis accedit, quae ratio vetat, ut non idem sanguis, qui pro multis in remissionem peccatorum fusus est, debeat credi ?. . . . Non percipiens ea, quae sunt Dei, videlicet, quia nec panis, nec vinum, aliquid de exteriori specie mutavit, idcirco sapere non potes, nec vis, quod vere factum sit corpus et sanguis Domini : in Johan, vi. On Rupert , comp. Neander , Hist. Dogm. 531. On Malachias , abp. of Armagh, see ibid. 532.] 2 He died a. d. 1306. He wrote . Determinatio de Modo existendi Cor¬ pus Christi in Sacramento Altaris alio quam sit ille quern tenet Ecclesia ; this work was published Lond. 1686, 8. Comp. Cas. Oudinus , Dissertatio de Doctrina et Scriptis Jo. Parisiensis, in Comment, de Scriptt. Eccles. T. iii. Col. 634, ss. Schrockh , Kirchengesch. xxviii. p. VO, ss. Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 256-58.* 3 It is of special importance that he acknowledged the impossibility of proving the doctrine of transubstantiation from Scripture (Quodl. iv. Qu. 35). He developed his own views in his Tractatus de Sacramento Altaris, and elsewhere ; the passages are collected by Rettberg (Occam und Luther, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 1). Though Occam retained the orthodox doctrine of the accidents (§ 193, note 6), he could not attach any distinct meaning to the notion that the substance of the elements had vanished, because he was still obliged to conceive of the body of Christ and the bread 9 * As early as the middle of the thirteenth century several professors in the University of Paris had been charged with holding incorrect opinions concerning the Lord’s Supper ; see the letter addressed to Pope Clement IY. in Bulseus, vol. iii. pp. 372, 373 :. . . .Esse Parisiis celebrem opinionem tunc temporis de mysterio Eucharistiae, qua contendebatur, corpus Christi non esse vere in altari, sed sicut signatum sub signis. 106 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. as being in one and the same place. Thus we may “ suppose the real theory of Occam to have been this , that the body of Christ is contained in the host in the same manner in which soul and body together occupy one and the same space ; and as the soul exists wholly in every member , so Christ exists wholly in every single host Rettberg , p. 93. Occam carried out his notion of the ubiquity of the body of Christ in the most paradoxical manner. The stone thrown into the air, is, in its transit, in the same place where the body of Christ is, etc. This ubiquity, however, is not the foundation, but the con¬ sequence, of his doctrine. See Rettberg , p. 96. — The systems of Occam and of Luther are compared with each other, ibid. p. 123, ss. 4 See Cramer , vii. pp. 804, 805, who says, “ none of the scholastics enter¬ tained views more nearly allied to those of Luther than Durandus He did not directly oppose transubstantiation, but he conceded that there were other possible ways in which Christ might be present, and particularly this, that the substance of the bread might remain, and the substance of the body of Christ be united with it. The hoc est might mean the same as — conten- tum sub hoc est. He distinguished between the matter and the form ; the matter of the bread, he says, exists under the form of the body of Christ. 5 Trialogus Lib. iv. c. 2-10, e. g. c. 6, p. 127 (alias, p. cix.) : Inter omnes haereses, qua3 unquam pullularunt in ecclesia sancta Dei, non fuit nefandior, quam hseresis ponens accidens sine subjecto esse hoc venerabile sacramen- tum. He also opposed the doctrine of impanation, c. 8 : Sum certus quod sententia ista impanationis est impossibilis atque haeretica. He could not endure the thought, that in that case the baker would prepare the body of Christ, instead of the priest ! — According to Wycliffe, Christ is not present in the bread realiter, sed habitudinaliter, secundum similitudinem. In illus¬ tration of his views, he also referred to mirrors, in which the one counte¬ nance of Christ is reflected in various ways to the eyes of the devout. The conversio which takes place, is a change from the inferior to the superior (this was the ancient opinion, which was also adopted by Berengar). He distinguished (in his confession in presence of the Duke of Lancaster) a — triplex modus essendi corpus Christi in hostia consecrata : 1. Modus virtualis, quo benefacit per totum suum dominium secundum bona naturae vel gratiae ; 2. Modus spiritualis, quo corpus Christi est in eucharistia et sanctis per Spiritum Sanctum ; 3. Modus sacramentalis, quo corpus Christi singulariter est in hostia consecrata. On the other hand, Christ is only in heaven, sub- stantionaliter, corporaliter, dimensionaliter. Of like import are the following three, of the 10 Conclusiones Haereticae, which were condemned by the Lon¬ don Council of 1382 (Mansi, xxvii. 691) : 1. Quod substantia panis mate- rialis et vini maneat post consecrationem ; 2. Quod accidentia non maneant sine subjecto; 3. Quod Christus non sit in sacramento altaris identice, vere et realiter. Comp. Ebrard, i. 501. Schrockh, xxxiv. 501, sq. [Vaughan's Life of Wycliffe.] 8 Jerome of Prague at least was charged by the Council of Constance with holding such opinions as follows : Quod panis non transubstantiabatur in corpus Christi, nec est corpus Christi in sacramento prsesentialiter et cor¬ poraliter, sed ut signatum in signo. Item, quod in hostia sive sacramento altaris non est vere Christus. — Christus passus est in cruce, sed hostia altaris § 197. The Greek Church. 107 nunquam est passa neque patitur ; ergo in hostia in sacramento altaris non est Christus. — Mures non possunt comedere Christum ; sed mures possunt hostiam consecratam comedere : ergo hostia in sacramento altaris non est Christus ; see Hermann von der Hardt , T. iv. P. viii. p. 646. — On the other hand Poggi (Ep. ad Aretin.) gives the following, relation : Cum rogaretur, quid sentiret de sacramento, inquit : Antea panem, postea vero Christi corpus, et reliqua secundum fidem. Turn quidam : Ajunt te dixisse, post consecra- tionem remanere panem. Turn ille : Apud pistorem, inquit, panis remanet ; see Klee , Dogmengesch. ii. p. 205, note 7. — Hus did not oppose the doctrine of the church in decided terms ; he only endeavored to justify himself on the point, that he believed in the real presence of the body of Christ, with¬ out entering into any further explanation of the modus ; see his Tractatus de Corpore Christi in the above Histor. et Monum. fol. cxxiii. ss. Munscher , edit, by von Colin, p. 260. 7 See Ullmann , p. 328-340 (where extracts are given from Wessel's trea¬ tises : De Oratione VIII., de Sacram. Eucharistise, especially c. 10, 24, 26, 27 ; Seal. Medit. Exempl. i. ii. iii.) In his opinion the Lord’s Supper is the realization and appropriation of the love of Christ ; but he is not aware of any essential difference between the presence and appropriation of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and that of which believers are conscious without the sacrament. The spiritual participation of the body of Christ is the princi¬ pal thing, not the sacramental. The sacramental act (the sacrifice of the mass) can be performed by none but the priest ; the inward communion with Christ may be renewed by every Christian. § 197. THE GREEK CHURCH. The use of unleavened bread at the commemoration of Christ's death, which had been introduced into the Latin Church from the . ninth century,1 gave rise to a controversy with the Greek Church, in the course of which the latter went so far as to charge the former with the corruption of pure religion.2 As regards the doctrine of the sacrament itself, the Greek theologians agreed in the main with the divines of the Western Church, so far as this, that some of them propounded the doctrine of consubstantiation,3 while others taught that of transubstantiation,4 but without inferring from it all the consequences which we find in the writings of the scholastics. The Greek Church also preserved the ancient custom of admin¬ istering the Lord’s Supper to the laity sub utraque forma.5 1 On this point see Neander , Church Hist. iii. 584. The hosts, properly so called (i. e ., the consecrated wafers), did not come into use till later, and, according to some writers, not till the second half of the twelfth century. Compare J. A. Schmidt , de Oblatis Eucharisticis, quae Hostiae vocari solent. Ed. 2. Helmst. 1733-4. Augusti viii. p. 375, ss. j.08 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. 2 This was clone by Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo of Acrida with him, in a letter addressed to John, Bishop of Trani, in Apulia (in Baronins Annals, ad ann. 1053, No. 22, and Canisius Lect. Antt. ed. Basnage, T. iii. P. 1, p. 281). He derived, strangely enough, the noun ciprog from the verb aqxe, and appealed, in support of his theory, to Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, 20, 26-28, as well as to Matt. v. 13, and xiii. 33 (the three measures of meal are, in his opinion, an image of the Trinity !) — Division into Azymites and Prozymites (Fermentarii). Vain attempts of the Emperor, Constantine Monomachus, and the Pope Leo IX. to make peace. — The reply of Humbert (prim. ed. Baronius, in Append. T. xi. ; Canisius, 1. c. T. iii. P. 1, p. 283, ss.) is given by Gieseler , ii. § 42, note 5. After the con¬ troversy had been carried on for some time (pEVOV rcvpi. Ovtgj nal 6 apTog Trjg noLvivviag ovn apTog hiTog egtlv , ahh * pviopEVog Oeothtl’ Gojpa 6e 7)vo)pEVov 0e6tt)tl , ov pia (pvoiq egtlv , ahha pia psv tov odpaTog , Tijg de rjvcvpEvrig avTO) OEOTT^Tog ETEpa' gjgte to ovvapcjjoTEpov, ov pia (ftvoLg, ahha 6vo. See p. 273, where he shows in what sense the elements may be called dvTLTvna (after the example of Basilides). [Aawr, Dogmengesch. 217 : In the Greek Church the develop¬ ment of doctrine attained in John of Damascus the point in which the old theology is summed up. He expressly declares, that the body in the Lord’s Supper is the body of Christ born of the Virgin Mary : only with this dif¬ ference, that the body raised to heaven does not actually descend ; but it is his body, because the bread and the wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. The Holy Ghost effects this change in a supernatural way. On Zacharias of Chrysopolis, see Neander , Hist. Dogm. 531.] The views which the Greek theologians entertained with respect to the Lord’s Supper, were also connected with the part which they took in the controversy con¬ cerning images ; those who opposed the worship of images appealed to the fact, that we have an image of our Saviour in the Lord’s Supper, which was denied by the advocates of that doctrine. Hence the decisions of the Synod of Constantinople (a. d. 754), and of the second Council of Nice (a. d. 787), contradict each other: see Mansi , T. iii., Col. 261, ss. 265, and Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 222. In the decrees of the Council of Nice it is dis¬ tinctly stated, that neither Christ nor his apostles had called the elements used at the Lord’s Supper images. Comp. JRucJcert , Das Abendmahl, 441, sy. Gieseler , Dogmengesch. 533. [Constantinople declared the bread and § 198. The Sacrament of Penance. 109 wine to be rr\v dXqOrj rov Xptarov ebcova ; Nice said it was not an eIku iv, but the body and blood itself, avro ocbpa nal avro alfia .] 4 Thus the expressions fieranocelodai and fiETapdXkeoOai were employed by Theophylact in his comment on Matt. xxvi. 28. Compare also what JEuthymius Zigabenus said on this passage ; in Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 223. Nicolas of Methone made use of the same expression in his trea¬ tise quoted by Ullmann , p. 97 (Biblioth. PP. T. ii. Graeco Latinus ; Auctuar. Biblioth. Ducaean. Par. 1624, p. 274) ; he also there speaks of a change of the added water, into the blood of Christ. He entertained, in addition, the scholastic notion, that the bread and wine do not change their external ap¬ pearance, lest men might be terrified by the sight of the real flesh and blood. The true design of the Lord’s Supper he conceived to consist in the | uerovola Xpiorov. “ The beginnings of theological speculation may be traced in the theory of Nicolas , but he rested satisfied [like the Greek theologians of the present period in general] with mere suggestions, while the scholastics of Ihe Western Church fully exhausted such subjects .” U11- mann. 6 See Augusti , Archaeologie, vol. viii. p. 398. On the question whether it was sufficient to administer only wine at the communion of children, see ibidem.* t § 198. THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. The doctrine of penance, which is properly speaking implied in the ordo salutis , presupposes the sacrament of baptism. In the scholastic system it found its place among the sacraments.1 Though it is only by a most unnatural interpretation that this sacrament can be proved to possess a visible sign, both Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas endeavored to show that it had the matter, as well as the form, of a sacrament, and, as far as possible, to distinguish the one from the other.3 The scholastics taught that penance is composed of three parts : contritio cordis (in distinction from attritio), confessio oris , and satis/ 'actio op'erisj Pious minds took offence, not so much at the formal error of regarding penance as a sacrament, as at the lax, and merely external theory of penance in general. Thus the Waldenses, while formally adopting the three¬ fold division of penance, rejected the mechanical ecclesiastical prac¬ tice in the matter.4 John Wessel found fault, not only with the threefold division of penance, but also with the definitions of its * Concerning the communion of children, which ceased to be practised from the twelfth century, see Zorn , Historia Eucharistise Infan tium. Berol. 1136, 8. Gieseler , Dogmengesch. 542. [The custom was abolished for fear of profanation. It had been ad¬ ministered to children, following Augustine’s interpretation of John vi. 54, because com¬ munion thought was necessary to salvation. But Fulgentius of Ruspe suggested, that in baptism children were incorporated into Christ, and so partook of his flesh and blood.] 110 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. component parts.6 Gerson and others opposed the sale of indul¬ gences.6 Wycliffe attacked auricular confession.7 But the discus¬ sion of these points belongs more properly to the history of the Church, and of ethics, than to that of doctrines.8 1 The earlier custom of bringing penance into connection with baptism (by making a distinction between sins committed before and after baptism — by the notion of a baptism of tears — by calling it the second plank after shipwreck, etc.) led the scholastics to enumerate penance among the sacra¬ ments. Comp. Peter Lombard , Sent. iv. Dist. 14. A. Thomas Aquinas , P. iii. Qu. 86, Art. 4. Klee, Dogmengesch. ii. p. 326, ss. 2 Peter Lombard observed (Dist. 22, C.) that some theologians regarded the external performance of the works of penance, which is perceptible by our bodily senses, as the signum. The external works of penance are the signs of inward penance, as the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper are the signs of the body and blood of Christ which are contained in the accidents. Thomas Aquinas , also conceived (Qu. 84, Art. 1,) the res sacra - menti to consist in internal penance, of which the external is only the sign. (Every outward act might in that sense be called a sacrament !) In the second article, he further distinguished between materia and forma. The materia of penance are the sins which are to be removed, the form consists in the words of the priest : Absolvo te. Compare the passages quoted by Munscher , edit, by von Colin, pp. 276, 277. [Th o, proximate matter of the sacrament consists in the acts of the penitent — the remote matter consists in the sins, non acceptanda, sed detestenda et destruanda. The form consists in what is done by the priest. Cum autem sacramenta novae legis efficiunt quod figurant. . . .oportet quod forma sacramenti significet id quod in Sacra¬ mento agitur proportionaliter materice sacramenti . . . .But as the sacrament is not in the consecration or use of anything, but in the removal of sin, the form consists in the formula of absolution.] 3 This distinction was made by Hildebert of Tours (who referred it to Chrysostom and Augustine), see his Sermo iv. in Quadrag. (Opp. col. 324) ; Sermo xv. col. 733 ; quoted by Munscher, edit, by von Colin, p. 274 ; and Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 16, Litt. A.: In perfectione autem poe- nitentias tria observanda sunt, scilicet compunctio cordis, confessio oris, satis- f actio operis . Hsec est fructifera poenitentia, ut, sicut tribus modis deum offendimus, scilicet corde, ore et opere, ita tribus modis satisfaciamus . Huic ergo triplici morti triplici remedio occurritur, contritione, confessione , satisfactions . Cone. Florent. 1439 (under Pope Eugen IV.) in Mansi xxxi. Col. 1057; Munscher, edit, by von Colin, p. 284: Quartum Sacramentum est poenitentise, cujus quasi materia sunt actus poenitentis, qui in tres distin- guunter partes. Quarum prima est cordis contritio, ad quam pertinet ut doleat de peccato commisso cum proposito non peccandi de csetero. Secunda est oris confessio, ad quam pertinet ut peccator omnia peccata, quorum memoriam habet, suo sacerdoti confiteatur integraliter. Tertia est satisfac- tio pro peccatis secundum arbitrium sacerdotis, quae quidem praecique fit per orationem, jejunium et eleemosynam. Forma hujus Sacramenti sunt verba absolutions, quae sacerdos profert cum dicit : Ego te absolvo, etc. Minister § 198. The Sacrament of Penance. Ill hujus sacramenti est sacerdos, liabens auctoritatem absolvendi vel ordinariam, vel ex commissione superioris. Effectus hujus sacramenti est absolutio a peccatis. — On the difference between contritio and attritio, see Alexander of Hales , P. 4, Qu. 74, membr. 1 : Timor servilis principium est attritionis, timor initialis ( i . e. that with which the life of sanctification begins)* prin¬ cipium est contritionis . Item, contritio est a gratia gratum faciente, attritio a gratia gratis data. Comp. Thom. Aquinas , Qu. 1, Art. 2 ; Bona - ventura in Lib. iv. Dist. 17, P. 1, Art. 2, Qu. 3. — [ Attritio proceeds from fear, and not from love to God : contritio is the real sorrow for sin, proceed¬ ing from love ; attritio is the terminus a quo, contritio is the terminus ad quem. Contritio is necessary to forgiveness, But a special satisfaction to justice is required for past sins’; hence penance involves opera poenalia. The church prescribes these, and they deliver from the severer punishments of the purgatorial fire.] The necessity of confessio oris (i. e. that it was ne¬ cessary to confess our sins not only to God, but also to the priest) was asserted by Thomas Aquinas , in Supplem. tertise Part. Qusest. 8, Art. 1 ; Peter Lombard , expressed himself more indefinitely on this point, Sent. iv. Dist. 17, Litt. B. — The ecclesiastical institution of auricular confession was established by the fourth Council of the Lateran (under Pope Innocent III.) Can. xxi. in Decretis Greg. L. v. Tit. 38, C. 12 : Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua solus peccata confitea- tur fideliter, saltern semel in anno, proprio sacerdoti,f et injunctam sibi poeni- tentiam studeat pro viribus adimplere, etc. Gieseler , ii. § 81, note 5 ; Mun- scher , ed. by von Colin, p. 282. The satisfactio operis consisted in fastings, prayers, alms, pilgrimages, mortifications, etc. Thomas Aquinas , 1. c. Qu. 15, Art. 3 (quoted by Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 279.) The practice of imposing fines instead of bodily punishments, gave rise to the sale of in¬ dulgences. 4 The Waldenses even attempted to vindicate this threefold division by allegorizing. The spices with which the women went to anoint the body of the Lord on Easter morning, were myrrh, aloes and balsam. From these three costly spices is prepared that spiritual ointment, which is called penance. See Herzog , Die Romanischen Waldenser. But the Waldenses still differed from the Catholic Church in this, that confession was not necessarily to be made to a priest of that church, and that they went beyond the external works of penance to the internal penitence of the heart. 6 De Sacramento Poenitentise, p. 782 : Est enim actus mentis poenitentia sicut peccatum : utrumque enim voluntatis. Et sicut peccatum voluntatis tantum est, ita poenitentia solius est voluntatis. For further particulars, see Ullmann, p. 340, ss. * On this account, others (such as Thomas and Bonaventura) also called the contritio, timor filialis, as opposed to the timor servilis. f In the absence of a priest it was permitted to confess to a layman ; but this led to the question as to how far the sacrament was complete in such a case ? See Thom. Aquinas , in Suppl. Qu. 8, Art. 2 : on the other side, Bonaventura P. iii. ad Expos, text, dub. 1. p. 229. Buns Scotus , in lib. iv. Dist. 17, Qu. 1. — The sects of the middle ages, even the Flagellantes, preferred confession to a layman. Comp. Munscher , ed. by von Colin, pp. 283, 284. Gieseler , ii. 197. Klee , Dogmengesch. ii. p. 252, ss. 112 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. 8 Epistola de Indulgentiis (Opp. T. ii.) c. 3-5, and c. 9. T Trialog. libr. iv. c. 32. See Gieseler , Church Ilist. vol. ii. passim. § 199. THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION. (Sacramentum Unctionis Extremse, Unctionis Infirmorum.) The apostolic injunction respecting the sick, James v. 14 (comp. Mark vi. 13), which probably had a symbolical and religious sig¬ nificance, as well as a medicinal and therapeutic,1 gave rise to the institution of a new sacrament, which came into general use from the ninth century, and could be administered only in the dying hour.2 But various opinions obtained on the question, whether it was proper to repeat the administration of the sacra¬ ment in the case of a dying person who had received it on a former occasion, but who had recovered, and been restored to life ; or, whether it was sufficient to have administered it once ? The Church did not ascribe a character indelebilis to this sacrament.3 Its sign is the consecrated oil, its essence consists in the forgiveness of sin, and partly also in the alleviation of bodily sufferings.4 1 See the commentators on this passage ; the Venerable Bede , Opp. T. v. Col. 693 ; and on Mark vi. 13, ibid. Col. 132 (quoted by Munscher , edit, by Yon Colin, p. 297. [ Bede on Mark vi. 13 : Unde patet ab ipsis Apostolis hunc sanctum Ecclesise morem esse traditum, ut energumeni, vel alii quilibet segroti, unguantur oleo pontificali benedictione consecrato.] Innocent I. Ep. 21, ad Decentium Ep. Eugubinum (written about the year 410) Cap. 8 ; ibid. p. 298. [Innocent III. : Quod non est dubium de fidelibus segrotantibus accipi vel intelligi debere, qui sancto oleo chrismatis perungi possunt : quod ab Episcopo confectum, non solum sacerdotibus, sed omnibus uti Christianis licet in sua, aut in suorum necessitate ungendum.] 2 Concil. Regiaticinum (a. d. 850) Canon 8 : in Munsclier , ed. by von Colin, p. 298. [This Council says of it: Magnum sane ac valde appetendum mysterium, per quod, si fideliter poscitur, et remittuntur [peccata], et conse- quenter corporalis salus restituitur.] — Among the scholastics Hugo of St. Victor was the first who spoke of extreme unction as a sacrament ; de Sacram. ii. P. xv. ; comp. Summa Sent. Tract, vi. c. 15 ( Liebner , p. 481). The doctrine of extreme unction formed, in his system, the transition to eschatology. — Peter Lombard, Sent. iv. Hist. 23, mentioned three different kinds of consecrated oil (^phr/mTa) : 1. That with which priests and kings are anointed (on the head), or those who are confirmed (upon the forehead). 2. That with which catechumens and newly baptized persons are anointed (upon the chest, and between the shoulders). 3. The unctio infirmorum § 199. The Sacrament of Extreme Unction. 113 (which may be performed on various parts of the body. Compare note l.)* He also distinguished between the sacramentum, and the res sacramenti. B : Sacramentum est ipsa unctio exterior, res sacramenti unctio interior, quae peccatorum remissione et virtutum ampliatione perficitur. Et si ex contemtu vel negligentia hoc praetermittitur, periculosum est et damnabile. 3 Ivo of Chartres (Ep. 225) ad Radulfum, and Geoffrey of Vendome (who lived about the year 1110), Opusculum de Iteratione Sacramenti (in Ser- mondi Opp. T. iii.), opposed the repetition of extreme unction (Comp. Munscher , ed. by von Colin, p. 299) : Peter Lombard pronounced in favor of it, 1. c. Lit. C. [. Lombard here follows Hugo St. Victor almost verbally : Sacramentum unctionis spiritualis est quaedam medicina, corporis et animae languores mitigans et sanans : nam oleum membra dolentia sanat. Itaque oleum ad utrumque curandum prodest. Si morbus non revertitur, medicina non iteretur ; si autem morbus non potest cohiberi, quare deberet medicina prohiberi ? . . . . Quare ergo negatur quod unctionis sacramentum super infir- mum iterari possit ad reparandam saepius sanitatem, et ad impetrandam saepius peccatorum remissionem. | — On the controversy concerning this point, which arose on the occasion of the death of Pope Pius II., see above § 190, note 6. — The opinion also obtained during the middle ages, that extreme unction does away with all the relations in which man stands to the present world ; the person who had received exlreme unction immediately renounced all kinds of meat, and the continuance of matrimony. Bishops, however, as well as councils, e. g. the Concil. of Worcester (a. d. 1240), combated this notion. See Klee , ii. p. 272. 4 Comp, the opinion of Peter Lombard , note 2, and Hugo of St. Victor, De Sacram. Fid. Lib. ii. P. xv. c. 2 : Duplici ex causa sacramentum hoc institutum, et ad peccatorum scilicet remissionem, et ad corporalis infirmitatis allevationem. Comp. Thomas Aquinas , P. iii. in Supplem. Qu. 30, Art. 1. — Decret. Eugenii IV. in Cone. Florent. a. 1439 [Mansi, T. xxxi. Col. 1058) : Quintum Sacramentum est extrema unctio. Cujus materia est oleum olivae per episcopum benedictum. Hoc sacramentum nisi infirmo, de cujus morte timetur, dari non debet. Qui in his locis ungendus est : in oculis propter visum, in auribus propter auditum, in naribus propter oderatum, in ore prop¬ ter gustum vel locutionem, in manibus propter tactum, in pedibus propter gressum, in renibus propter delectationem ibidem vigentem. Forma hujus sacramenti est haec : per istam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam, quicquid peccasti per visum, etc . et similiter in aliis membris. Minis¬ ter hujus sacramenti est sacerdos. Efiectus vero est mentis sanatio, et, in quantum autem expedit, ipsius etiam corporis (he appeals to Jam. v. 14). * On the further significance of consecrated oil, see Thom. Aquinas, Supplem. Qusest xxiv. Art. iv. — Klee , ii. pp. 268, 269. 114 * Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. § 200. THE SACRAMENT OF ORDERS. (Sacramentum Ordinis.) This sacrament is intimately connected with the doctrine of the Church, and with the distinction made between the laity and the clergy. It is that sacrament by which men are fitted to administer the other sacraments.1 Accordingly, its essence lies in the ecclesiastical power which it communicates.2 None hut bishops can ordain,3 and only baptised and grown-up males can receive ordination.4 Theologians differed in their opinions respecting the validity of ordination by heretical bishops.6 Further regulations (concerning ordines majores et minores, etc.) belong to the canon law.6 This sacrament has a character indelebilis.7 1 Thomas Aquinas , Pars iii., Supplem. Qu. 34, Art. 3 : Propter Ordinem fit homo dispensator aliorum sacramentorum, ergo Ordo habet magis rationem, quod sit sacramentum, quam alia. — Raimund of Sabunde says, that the administrators to the sacraments stand in the same relation to the sacred acts in which parents stand to the act of generation. They dispense the ex¬ ternal signs, God effects the inward grace ; as parents beget the body, but God creates the soul (the creatianist view) ; see Matzke , Raimund von Sa¬ bunde, p. 101. 2 The statements are very vacillating as to what really constitutes the material (in distinction from the formal) part of ordination. As regards the external sign of ordination, there was a considerable difference of opinion. The earlier Church regarded the laying on of hands (xeLP0T0VLa) as having a higher, a magical virtue, while the later theologians attached no great im¬ portance to it; comp. Klee, ii. pp. 280, 281. \Klee , loc. cit., says: The ancient church, in accordance with the Scriptures, made the laying on of hands to be the matter of the ordination ; by this is effected the elevation and consecration to the episcopate, the presbyterate and the diaconate. Anointing is also very early mentioned in the inauguration of bishops and priests (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. x. 4 ; Greg. Naz. Orat. IV. ; Greg. Nyss. Virg. cap. xxiv. ; Leo, often) ; and the laying the Gospels on the head, at the ordi¬ nation of bishops (Hippolytus, De Chrism, cap. 1 : Chrysost. Homil. quod Veteris Test. Unus Legislator, in Photii Cod. cclxxvii.)] The consecrated oil also was only occasionally mentioned. Thomas Aquinas. 1. c. Art. 5, can¬ didly avowed, that while the efficacy of the other sacraments consisted in the matter, quod divinam virtutem et significat et continet, it depended, in the present case, on the person who administered the sacrament, and that it was transmitted by him to the person to be ordained. Therefore, in his view, the act of ordination is the material, — not the symbols, which are used at its administration. Nevertheless, it is said in the Decret. Eugenii IV. in Cone. Florent. a. 1439, 1. c. col. 1058 : Sextum Sacramentum est § 200. The Sacrament of Orders. 115 Ordinis, ..jus materia est illud, per cujus traditionem confertur Ordo : sicut Presbyteratus traditur per calicis cum vino et patense cum pane porrec tionem ; JDiaconatus vero per libri Evangeliorum dationem ; Subdiaconatus vero per calicis vacui cum patena vacua superposita traditionem, et similiter de aliis per rerum ad ministeria sua pertinentium assignationem. Forma sacerdotii tabs est : Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in ecclesia pro vivis et mortuis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Et sic de aliorum ordinum formis, prout in pontificali remano late continetur. Com¬ pare also Peter Lombard , Lib. iv. Dist. 24. He calls (Lit. B.) the tonsure (corona) the signaculum, quo signantur in partem sortis ministerii divini . . . Denudatio capitis est revelatio mentis [God grant it !]. Clericus enim secre- torum Dei non ignarus esse debet. Tondentur etiam capilli usque a,d reve- lationem sensuum, scilicet oculorum et aurium, ut vitia in corde et opere pullulantia doceantur prsecidenda, ne ad audiendum et intelligendum verbum Dei prsepediatur mens, pro quo servato reddetur in excelsis corona. 3 Decret. Eug. IV. loc. cit. : Ordinarius minister hujus sacramenti est Episcopus. Comp. Thom. Aqu ., Qu. 38, Art. 1. 4 This is self-evident. Concerning the age at which persons may be or¬ dained, the following regulations were made : ut Subdiaconus non ordinetur ante quatuordecim annos, nec Diaconus ante viginti quinque, nec Presbyter ante triginta. Deinde, si dignus fuerit, ad episcopatum eligi potest ; see Peter Lombard , loc. cit. lit. I. The priests were to be thirty years old, because Christ (according to Luke iii.) commenced his public ministry at the age of thirty years. 3 The views of Peter Lombard on this point were still unsettled, Sent. iv. Dist. 25, De ordinatis ab hsereticis. Thomas Aquinas P. iii., in Supplem. Dist. 38, Art. 2, gave it as his final opinion, quod (hseretici) vera sacramenta conferunt, sed cum eis gratiam non dant, non propter inefficaciam sacramen- torum, sed propter peccata recipientium ab eis sacramenta contra prohibi- tionem ecclesise. As the present question was analogous to that concern¬ ing the baptism of heretics, it was to be decided on the same principles; see Auxilius , quoted by Klee , ii. p. 282. [Si enim non perdit baptizatus baptismum, etiam eliminatus ab ecclesia, quo facto perdit sacratus licet ex- communicatus sacramentum suse impositionis posse nisi ad tempus obtem- perando priori, ut paulo post absolutus iterum fungatur officio, sicut et baptizatus ecclesise ingressum ? Est igitur posse, sed non in actu. Auxilius , Libell. super Caus. et Negot. Fonnosi Papse.] 6 Peter Lombard , loc. cit. The seven classes of Holy Orders are enu¬ merated in the following succession, commencing with the lowest : Ostiarii, Lectores, Exorcistse, Acoluthi — Subdiaconi, Diaconi, Presbyteri. 7 Thomas Aquinas , Qu. 25, Art. 2, Qu. 37, Art. 5, quoted by Munscher, edit, by von Colin, p. 303. [To the objection, that the character conferred was not indelible, because the person could return to the laity, Aquinas re¬ plied : Quantumcunque homo ad laicatum se transferat, semper tamen manet in eo character. Quod patet ex hoc quod, si ad clericatum revertatur, non iterum Ordinem quern habuerat suscipit.] 116 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. § 201. THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY. (Sacramentum matrimonii conjugii.) One of the strange contradictions found in the general views of the Catholic Church during the middle ages, was, that, while on the one hand single life was thought to he a special virtue, on the other hand matrimony was numbered among the sacraments.1 Much in¬ genuity was indeed required to show the true signs of a sacrament in matrimony in the concrete, as they were specified by the Church itself in the abstract. In the absence of a visible material element, matrimony itself was regarded as a type of the union of Christ with the Church (according to Eph. v. 32), and the word yvarrjpLov , translated sacramentum, as the Vulgate has it.2 That it was a divine institution was more easily shown ; in fact, as regards an¬ tiquity, matrimony occfipied the first place among the sacraments, since it was instituted in Paradise.3 Though it has not a character indelebilis, it is indissoluble as a sacrament, even where bodily separa¬ tion may have taken place.4 Further regulations concerning con¬ jugal duties, prohibited relationships, etc., belong partly to the canon law, partly to ethics.6 According to the laws of the Western Church, the two sacraments of matrimony ^and of holy orders so exclude each other, that he who receives the one must, as a general rule, renounce the other.6 1 Peter Lombard , loc. cit. Dist. xxvi. F. Thomas Aquinas , Qu. 53, Art. 3. — Some scholastics, however, restricted the idea of sacrament ; thus Duran- dus, Sent. iv. Dist. 26, Qu. 3. No. 8, quoted by Klee, Dogmengesch. ii. p. 302. (Cramer, vii. p. 807) : Quod matrimonium non est sacramentum stricte et proprie dictum, sicut alia sacraraenta novae legis. On the opinions of Abelard and Peter John Oliva , see ibidem. — \_Abelard , Theol. Christ, cap. xxxi. : Quod (conjugium) quidem sacramentum est, sed non confert aliquod donum, sicut caetera faciunt, sed tamen mali remedium est, datur enim propter incontinentiam refraenandam, unde magis ad indulgentiam. Peter Oliva held the same view, but retracted.] — That which constitutes the sacrament of matrimony is not the performance of the ceremony by the priest, hut the consensus of husband and wife. Peter Lombard , Dist. xxvii. C. Respecting particular decrees of popes and councils, see Klee, ii. p. 305. [The scholastics generally held, that the will of the contracting parties con¬ stitutes the marriage ; they complete the sacrament ; secret marriages, though forbidden, are valid. In none of the ancient rituals is there a sacramental form of marriage to he spoken by the priests.] 3 Peter Lombard, loc. cit....Ut enim inter conjuges conjunctio est secundum consensum animorum, et secundum permixtionem corporum : sic § 201. The Sacrament of Matrimony. 117 Ecclesia Christo copulatur voluntate et natura, qua idem vult cum eo et ipse formam sumsit de natura hominis. Copulata est ergo sponsa sponso spiri- tualiter et corporaliter, i. e. charitate ac conformitate naturae. Hujus utriusque copulae figura est in conjugio. Consensus enim conjugum copulam spiri- tualem Christi et ecclesiae, quae fit per cliaritatem, significat. Commixtio vero sexuum illam significat, quae fit per naturae .conformitatem. — Eugen. IV. in Cone. Florent. loc. cit. col. 1058, s. : Septimum est sacramentum Matri¬ monii, quod est signum conjunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae secundum Apos- tolum dicentem (Eph. v. 31) : Sacramentum hoc , etc. * Compare above § 190, note 1. A distinction, however, should be made — viz. prior to the fall matrimony was instituted, ad officium, posterior to it, ad remedium (propter illicitum motum devitandum) ; see Peter Lombard , loc. cit. Dist. xvi. B. Thomas Aquinas , Qu. 42, Art. 2, Conclus. 4 Peter Lombard , loc. cit. Dist. xxxi. lit. B. : Separatio autem gemina est, corporalis scilicet et sacramentalis. Corporaliter possunt separari causa for- nicationis, vel ex communi consensu causa religionis, sive ad tempus sive usque in finem. Sacramentaliter vero separari non possunt dum vivunt, si legitimae personae sint. Manet enim vinculum conjugale inter eos, etiamsi aliis a se discedentes adhaeserint. — Eugen. IV. in Cone. Florent. 1. c. : Quamvis autem ex causa fornicationis liceat tori divisionem facere, non tamen aliud matrimonium contrahere fas est, cum matrimonii vinculum legitime contracti perpetuum sit. — The notions of the Greeks concerning the indis¬ solubility of matrimony were less rigid ; the Nestorians alone form an excep¬ tion; see Klee , ii. pp. 297, 298. [ Assemanus , Diss. de Nestorian. in Bib. Orient. Tom. iii. Pars. iii. p. 326.] 5 The theologians of the time treated of all those regulations in their works on dogmatic theology. Peter Lombard had set them an example, Comp. Dist. xxiv.-xliii. — Many definitions of Peter Lombard, Bonaventura, and others, do not at all involve the idea of sacrament; such as, that matri¬ mony is conjunctio legitima maris et feeminae, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens, etc. The same may be said with regard to their statements, that the design of matrimony is the propagation of the human race, to be a safeguard against sin, etc. 8 Thomas Aquinas , Qu. 53, Art. 3 : Ordo sacer de sui ratione habet ex quadam congruentia, quod matrimonium impediri debeat, quia in sacris Ordinibus constituti sacra vasa et sacramenta tractant, et ideo decens est ut munditiam corporalem per continentiam servent. Sed quod impediat matri¬ monium ex constitution e ecclesiae habet. Tamen aliter apud Latinos, quam apud Graecos. Quia apud Graecos impedit matrimonium contrahendum solum ex vi Ordinis, sed apud Latinos impedit ex vi Ordinis et ulterius ex voto continentiae, quod est Ordinibus sacris annexum : quod etiamsi quis verbotenus non emittat, ex hoc ipso tamen, quod Ordinem suscipit secundum ritum occidentalis eccle¬ siae, intelligitur emisisse. Et ideo apud Graecos et alios Orientales sacer Ordo impedit matrimonium contrahendum, non tamen matrimonii prius contracti usum : possunt enim matrimonio prius contracto uti, quamvis non possunt matrimonium denuo contrahere. Sed apud occidentalem ecclesiam impedit matrimonium et matrimonii usum, nisi forte ignorante aut contradicente uxore vir Ordinem sacrum susceperit, quia ex hoc non potest ei aliquod prae- 118 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. judicium generari. The priests, on the one hand, are excluded from the sacrament of matrimony, nor are the laity, on the other, under any necessity of observing it. Therefore matrimony is neither a sacramentum necessitatis, as baptism, penance, and the Lord’s Supper, nor a sacramentum dignitatis, as Holy Orders, but a sacramentum consilii. Alanus ab Insulus in his Ex- positio (quoted by Klee , ii. p. 304, note.) Protestant writers on the history of doctrines can not he expected to investigate fully the history of each separate sacrament. But this much appears to be certain, that it is exceedingly difficult, in the case of most of the so-called sacraments, to prove that they are founded upon a definite idea of sacrament, according to the canon established by the Church itself. In the case of some (such as penance, the ordination of priests, and matri¬ mony) we have no visible element, properly speaking, which might be regarded as sacrae rei signum (as the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, or the water of baptism, or the XP~U 7/xa)i unless we transpose the whole thing, and convert into the symbol that which is properly the res sacramenti. In the case of others, the divina institutio is either altogether wanting ( e . y., in the case of confirmation), or it can only be demon¬ strated by that sort of interpretation by which we may prove anything (thus in the case of extreme unction). But as. these theologians were accustomed to regard the ex¬ ternal element in the Lord’s Supper as mere accidens, and thus destroyed its originally symbolical character, they did not think it necessary to be very precise in the case of other sacraments. And as for the divina institutio, they were to appeal not only to Scrip¬ ture, but also to tradition. SEVENTH DIVISION. ESCHATOLOGY. § 202. MILLENNARIANISM. THE APPROACHING END OE THE WORLD. ANTICHRIST. Though Millennarianism (Chiliasm) had been suppressed by the earlier Church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by the heretical sects of the present age. Millennarian notions were pro¬ pounded in the prophecies of Joachim, , Abbot of Flore, and the Evangelium ceternum of the Fratricelli, which was based upon his works.1 The dynasty of the Father and the Son was to be followed by the golden age — viz., the dynasty of the Holy Spirit.2 On the other hand, the almost universal expectation of the approaching end of the world, which was to take place about the year 1000, was founded upon a too literal interpretation of Scripture, rather than upon Millennarian enthusiasm. A similar expectation repeatedly manifested itself at other important epochs of the middle ages.3 It was connected with the expectation of Antichrist, concerning whom several theologians adventured various suggestions, while many of those who were enemies to the Komish hierarchy, thought that he was none other than the Pope himself.4 This view was transmitted to the age of the Eeformation. 4 1 Admiranda Expositio venerabilis Abbatis Joachimi in librum Apocalypsis b, Joannis Apostoli et Evangelistae. — Liber Concordias Novi ac Veteris Tes¬ tament — Psalterium decern Chordarum — Interpretatio in Jeremiam Pro- phetam. Comp. Engelhardt, kirchenhistor. Abhandlungen, p. 1, 150. Lucke , Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis, p. 519. — Gieseler , ii. § 70, p, 433. — On the Fatricelli who originally belonged to the order of the Franciscan monks but were excommunicated in the 14th century, comp, Gieseler, ii. 439, iii. 119, 173. [ Friederich on Joachim, and the commentaries on Isaiah and Jerem. in Zeitschrift f. Wiss. Theol., 1859. Communicated by Bauri] 3 Compare Engelhardt and Lucke , as above. The first status lasts 5000 years (from Adam to Christ), the second lasts 1000 years, from Christ to the commencement of the last age of the world. This last age is the seventh sabbatical period of a thousand years. Joachim further divided the ages of 120 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. the world into forty-two generations ({states) after the forty-two periods in the genealogy of Christ, etc. * 3 “ It was a 'prevailing tradition among commentators , that the period of a thousand gears , spoken of in Rev. xx., commenced with the manifestation , or the passion of Christ , and that the establishment of the Christian Church was to be regarded as the first resurrection , and the first epoch of the kingdom of a thousand years . This interpretation , which had been adopted in the West , especially from the time of Augustine , had the advantage of precluding the fancies of millennarian enthusiasts , and accustoming the minds of Chris¬ tians to a more spiritual apprehension of the Apocalypse. But the tradition of the Church had not decided whether the computation of the thousand years was to be founded upon the common system of chronology , or whether that number was to be looked upon as an apocalyptical symbol. Inasmuch as the literal interpretation of the numbers was generally adopted by the common mind , notwithstanding all allegorical conceits , the notion began to spread in the Christian world with the approach of the year 1000 — that , in accordance ivith Scripture, the millennial kingdom would come to a close at the completion of the first period of a thousand years after Christ : that , further, Antichrist would then appear, and the end of the world take place! Lucke, loc. cit. pp. 514, 515. On the commotions which happened at that time in the Church, comp. Trithemii Chronic. Hirsaug. ad ann. 960. Glaber Badulphus, Hist, sui Temp. Lib. iv. c. 6 (in Duchesne , Scriptt. Francorum T. iv. p. 22, ss.) Schmid, Geschichte des Mysticismus im Mittellalter, p. 89. Gieseler, ii. p. 159. The crusades were also connected with millenna¬ rian expectations, see Corrodi, ii. p. 522, ss., Schmid, 1. c. — When, in the course of the fourteenth century, the plague, famine, and other divine pun¬ ishments, reminded men of the uncertainty of all that is earthly, and signs were seen in the heavens, it was especially the Flagellantes who announced that the end of the world was nigh at hand ; the same was done by Martin Loquis a native of Moravia, and priest of the Taborites, see Schrockh, xxxiv. p. 687. [Comp. Hecker, Epidemics of Middle Ages, Lond., 1846, and B. D. Hitchcock, in Am. Theol. Review, i. 241, sq.] 4 Comp. John Damascenus De Fide Orthod. iv. 26. Elucidarium c. 68.* It was a current opinion during the middle ages, that Antichrist would either be brought forth by a virgin, or be the offspring of a bishop and a nun. About the year 950, Adso, a monk in a monastery of western Fran¬ conia, wrote a treatise on Antichrist, in which he assigned a later time to his coming, and also to the end of the world (see Schrockh, Kirchengesch. xxi. p. 243.) He did not distinctly state whom he understood by Antichrist. For a time it was thought that Mohammed was the Antichrist. He was thus designated by Pope Innocent III. (a. d. 1213.) The numeral 666 in¬ dicated the period of his dominion, which was therefore now about to come to an end. — The antichristian prophets spoken of in the book of Revelation, were thought to denote the heresy which spread, with increased rapidity, from the close of the twelfth century. On the other hand, during the strug- * Concerning this work, which was formerly ascribed to Anselm, see Schrockh , xxviii. p. 42 7, § 203. Mediaeval Tendencies and. Christian Art. 121 gles of the German emperors with the popes, it happened more than once that the former applied the title Antichrist to the latter ; we find instances of this as early as the times of the Hohenstaufen. Emperor Lewis, sur- named the Bavarian, also called Pope John XXII. the mystical Antichrist (, Schrockh xxxi. p. 108). The fanatical sects of the middle ages agreed, for the most part, in giving that name to the popes. Thus Amalrich of Bena taught : Quia Papa esset Antichristus et Roma Babylon et ipse sedet in monte Oliveti, i. e. in pinguedine potestatis (according to Ccesarius of Heis- terbach), comp. Engelhardt , kirchenhistorische Abhandlungen, p. 256. The same was done by the Spirituales, etc., see Engelhardt, 1. c. pp. 4, 56, 78, 88 ; Lucke , 1. c. pp. 520, 521. Even Wycliffe agreed with them (Trialogus, quoted by Schrockh, xxxiv. p. 509), as well as his disciples, Lewis Cobham (ibid. p. 5 57), and Janow : Liber de Antichristo et membrorum eius anato- mia (in Historia et Monumento Joh. Huss. P. i. p. 423-464, quoted by Schrockh , 1. c. p. 572). — Most of the orthodox theologians, e. g., Thomas Aquinas, were opposed to all literal interpretation of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, there were some, such as Roger Bacon, who delighted in apocalyptical interpretations, and calculations of the time of Antichrist ; see his Opus Majus ed. Jebb. p. 169. Lucke , 1. c. p. 522. § 203. THE INFLUENCE OF MEDIAEVAL TENDENCIES AND OF CHRISTIAN ART UPON ESCHATOLOGY. The tendency of the age manifested itself in the works of Chris¬ tian art,1 * in which those subjects were preferred which -had reference to the doctrine of the last things. While the hymn a Dies irce sounded the terrors of the general judgment into the ears and heart of Christendom, painters were employed in keeping alive a remem¬ brance of the end of all things, by their representations of the dances of death, and of the general judgment ;3 and Dante disclosed in his Divina Commedia the worlds of hell, purgatory, and paradise.4 There was an evident action and reaction between these works of imagination on the one hand, and the subtle reasonings and defini¬ tions of the scholastics on the other, so that the one may be ex¬ plained by the other. 1 Thus most of the magnificent cathedrals on the continent were built at that very time, when the end of all things was supposed to be nigh at hand ; see Gieseler, ii. § 27, note 8. 3 The author of it was Thomas of Cellano; see Lisco , Dies Irse, Symnus auf das Weltgericht, Berlin, 1840. 4. [See Gieseler, ii. 416, notes 4, 5; 506, note 3. A collection of different versions by Dr. Coles, published in New York, 1860. Mohnike, kirchen-und literarhist. Studien. Stralsund. 1834.] 122 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. 3 Gruneisen , Beitrage zur Geschichte und Beurtheilung der Todtentanze (im Kunstblatte zum Morgenblatt. 1830, No. 22-26,) and bis Nicholas Manuel, p. 73. 4 Dante Alighieri was born a. d. 1265, and died A. d. 1321. (As a theo¬ logian he belonged to the school of Thomas Aquinas.) There are German translations of his Divina Comedia by Streckfuss, Philalethes, Gusek, Kopisch, and others. [The Vision, or Hell, Pugatory, and Paradise, of Dante Alig¬ hieri. Translated by the Rev. H. T. Cary , A.M., Lond., a new edit., 1847. F. X. Wcgele , Dante’s Leben, Jena, 1852. E. Magnier , Dante et le moyen age, Paris, 1860. M. Fauriel , Dante, etc., 2, Paris, 1854. Recent Transla¬ tions of D., Christ. Remembrancer, April, 1857 *, Westminster Review, Jan., 1861, (sixteen English versions noticed). R. de Vericour , Life and Times of Dante, Lond., 1858. Count Cesare Balbo , Life and Times of Dante, tran si. by J. F. Bunbury , 2. 8vo., Lond., 1852. Besides the above version of Cary, there have been published in English, translations of the Commedia by C. B. Cayley, 1854 ; P. Bannerman (Edinburgh), 1850; J. C. Wright, 1845 ; H. C. Jennings ; F. Pollock, 1854 ; E. O’Donnell, 1852 ; T. Brooks- bank, 1854; H. Boyd, 1802; J. W. Thomas, 1850. The Inferno was translated by J. Dayman, 1843 ; C. A. Carlyle, 1840 ; T. W. Parsons, Bos¬ ton, 1843 ; Bruce Whyte, 1859.] § 204. X* THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. The resurrection of the human body, with all its component parts, was, from the time of Jerome and Augustine, regarded as the orthodox doctrine of the Catholic Church. John Scotus Erigena adopted the earlier notions of Origen,1 but his views did not obtain the approbation of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the Bogomiles, Cathari, and other heretical sects, revived the erroneous notion of the Gnostics, who, looking upon matter as the seat of sin, rejected the resurrection of the body.2 Moneta , a Dominican monk, defended the ecclesiastical doctrine in opposition to the Cathari.3 It was then further developed into particulars by the scholastics,4 espe¬ cially by Thomas Aquinas , with many strange conjectures respect¬ ing the nature of the resurrection-body.6 The theologians of the Greek Church held more closely to Scripture and the received tradi¬ tion of the Church. 1 De Div. Nat. iv. 12, 13, p. 193 : Omne siquidem quod in mundo ex mundo compositum incipit esse, necesse est resolvi et cum mundo interire. Necessarium erat exterius ac materiale corpus solvi in ea elementa, ex quibus assumtum est : non autem necessarium perire, quoniam ex Deo erat, manente semper interiori illo et incommutabiliter stante in suis rationibus, secundum quas cum anima et in anima et per animam et propter animam constitutum § 204. The Resurrection of the Body. 123 est. - Quoniam vero illius corporis materialis atque solubilis manet in anima speues, non solum illo vivente, verum etiam post ejus solutionem et in ele- menta mundi reditum . Est enim exterius et materiale corpus signacu- lum interioris, in quo forma animse exprimitur, et per hoc forma ejus rationabiliter appellatur. Et ne me existimes duo corpora naturalia in uno homine docere : verum enim est corpus, quo connaturaliter et consubstan- tialiter animae compacto homo conficitur. Illud siquidem materiale quod est superadditum, rectius vestimentum quoddam mutabile et corruptibile veri ac naturalis corporis accipitur, quam verum corpus : non enim verum est, quod semper non manet (Aug.) . Inde fit, quod semper non simpliciter, sed cum additamento aliquo ponitur corpus mortale vel corruptibile vel ter- renum vel animale, ad discretionem ipsius simplicis corporis, quod primitus in homine editum est, et quod futurum est. — Compare ii. 23, p. 71 : Semel enim et simul animas nostras et corpora in Paradiso conditor creavit, corpora dico coelestia, spiritualia , qualia post resurrectionem futura sunt. Tumida namque corpora, mortalia, corruptibilia, quibus nunc opprimimur, non ex natura, sed ex delicto occasionem ducere, non est dubitandum. Quod ergo naturae ex peccato adolevit, eo profecto renovata in Christo, et in pristinum statu m restituta, carebit. Non enim potest naturae esse coaeternum, quod ei adhaeret propter peccatum. 3 The Beguines are said to have asserted, quod mortuo corpore hominis solus spiritus vel anima hominis redibit ad eum, unde exivit, et cum eo sic reunietur, quod nihil remanebit, nisi quod ab aeterno fuit Deus ; quoted by Mosheim, pp. 257, 258, compare § 206, note 9. — On the notions of the Bogomiles, see Engelhardt, kirchenhistorische Abhandlungen, pp. 187, 188. 3 Sumrna adv. Catharos, Lib. iv. Cap. 7, § 1. 4 Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. iv. Dist. 43, ss. (he follows for the most part Augustine’s Enchiridion), and Hugo of St. Victor de Sacram. ii. 1, 19. The former still modestly expresses himself as follows : Omnibus quaestionibus, quae de hac re moveri solent, satisfacere non valeo. 6 These definitions are also for the most part founded upon Augustine (comp. vol. i. § 140.) All men will die previous to the general resurrection (on account of original sin) ; the resurrection will probably take place to¬ wards evening, for the heavenly bodies which rule over all earthly matter must first cease to move. Sun and moon will then meet again in that point where they were probably created. The resurrection will take place sud¬ denly in relation to the effects produced by the divine power ; it will be gradual in relation to the part the angels will have in it. Thomas Aquinas denied that dust and ashes have a natural tendency to re-unite themselves to the souls to which they were united in this world (a kind of pre- established harmony), but supposed that no other matter would rise from the grave, than what existed at the moment of death. If that substance were to rise again which has been consumed during the present life, it would form a most unshapely mass. — According to Qu. 81, those who are raised from the dead, will be in the setas juvenilis, quae inter decrementum et incremen- tum constituitur. The difference of sexes will continue to exist, but without sensual appetites. All the organs of sense will still be active, with the ex¬ ception of the sense of taste. It is, however, possible that even the latter 124 Third Period. The Age of Scholasticism. may be rendered more perfect, and fitted for adequate functions and enjoy¬ ments. Hair and nails are one of the ornaments of man, and are therefore quite as necessary as blood and other fluids. The resurrection-bodies will be exceedingly fine, and be delivered from the corpulence and heavy weight which is now so burdensome to them ; nevertheless, they will be tangible, as the body of Christ could be touched after his resurrection. Their size will not increase after the resurrection, nor will they grow either thicker or thinner. To some extent they will still be dependent on space and time ; yet the resurrection bodies will move much faster, and more easily, from one place to another, than our present bodies ; they will be at liberty to follow the tendencies and impulses of the soul. They are glorified, bright, and shining, and can be perceived with glorified eyes alone. But this is true only in reference to the bodies of the blessed. The bodies of the damned are to be ugly and deformed, incorruptible, but capable of suffering, which is not the case with the bodies of the saints. Thom. Aquinas, Sumra. P. iii. in Supplem. Qu. 75, ss. Cramer, vii. p. 777, ss. Comp, also Elucidar. c. 69. On the opinions of Duns Scotus, see Ritter, Gesch. der Philos, viii. 459, sq. 6 John Damasccnus, iv. 27, p. 303 : ’AAA’ epel rig' Ilwf ey eipovrai oi venpoL ; ”£2 rrjg duiGTiag' gj rrjg a; .Christ. Remembrancer, Load., 1855.] § 216. The Theology of the Lutheran Church. 153 * scholasticum, liolcoticuin, scoticum ac tenebrosum. See Scherzeri Pro¬ legomena, quoted by Heinrich , p.333. TholucJc , Theolog. Wittenb. 164, sq. Gass , 316. 12 Dannhauer, born a. d. 1603, at Kondringen, in the county of Baden- Ilochberg, was professor of theology in the university of Strassburg, instructed Spener, and died a. d. 1666. “ He had considerable influence , chiefly from his profound exegetical lectures , delivered in a popular style T Hossbach (Spener. i. p. 17.) He wrote: Hodosophia Christiana s. Theol. Posit, in Methodum redacta. Argent, 1649, 66, 8, Lips., 1713, 4. Spener arranged this work in the form of tables, Franc., 1690, 4. On the so-called phe¬ nomenal method which Dannhauer adopted (i. e ., the symbolico-allegorical representation of man under the figure of a pilgrim, etc.), see Hossbach , 1. c. p. 23. Semler, p. 85. Heinrich , p. 331. — In addition to the above work he composed : Christosophia, 1638, and Mysteriosophia, 1646. See Gass , p. 318. 13 Calov was born a. d. 1612, at Morungen, filled the office of Superin¬ tendent at Wittenberg, and died a. d. 1686. He used daily to offer this prayer : Imple me, Deus, odio hsereticorum ! He wrote : Sy sterna Locorum Theol. e Sacra potiss. Script, et Antiquitate ; nec non Adversariorum Con- fessione Doctrinam, Praxin et Controversarium Fidei cum veterum turn im¬ primis recentiorum Pertractationem luculentam exhibens. Yit. 1655-77, 12 Voll. 4. Theol. Positiva per Definitiones, Causas, Adfectiones et Dis¬ tinctions Locos Theol. universos . proponens, seu Compendium System. Theol. Yiteb. 1682, 8. See Tholuck , ubi supra, 185, and particularly Gassi 332, sq. 14 Konig was born a. d. 1619, at Dresden, and died a. d. 1664, at Rostock, where he was professor of theology. He wrote : Theologia Positiva Acroa- matica synoptice tractata. Rost., 1664. An improved edition of it ap¬ peared in J. Casp. Haferungi Colleg. Thet. Yiteb., 1737, 8. According to Huddeus (Isagoge, p. 399), it is a mere skeleton of a system of doctrinal theology, without sap or force. But compare Gass , 321, who reckons him among the “ dogmatic virtuosi.” 16 Quenstedt, born at Quedlinberg, a. d. 1617, was professor of theology in the university of Wittenberg, and died a. d. 1688. He wrote : Theologia Didactico-polernica s. Systema Theol. in duas sectiones . divisum. Yiteb., 1685, and 96, Lips., 1702,15, fol. Comp. Semler, p. 103, ss. Tholuck , 214, sq. Gass , 357, sq. 16 Baier was born a. d 1647, at Niirnberg, and died a. d. 1695, at Weimar, where he was Superintendent. He composed a Compendium Theol. Posi¬ tive. Jen., 1686, 8. An improved edition of it was edited by Reusch , 1757. See Gass , p. 353. It was founded upon the “Einleitung in die Glaubens- lehre,” and some shorter doctrinal treatises, composed by John Musceus (who died 1681 at Jena.) — Concerning the analytic method adopted by its author, see Heinrich , p. 348, ss. Gass , ubi supra. 17 \David Hollaz, was pastor at Jacobshagen : died 1730 : he wrote Ex- amen Theologicum acroamaticura Universam Theologiam thetico-polemicam compiectens, 1707 ; edited by Teller , 1750, with additions.] 18 As, e. g.} the theologians of the school of St. Victor manifested a lean- 154 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. ing towards mysticism, so John Gerhard , Dannhauer , and others, endea¬ vored to combine strict science with practical piety. On the scholasticism of the Lutheran divines in the seventeenth century, see Tholuck, Der Geist d. lutherischen Theologen, etc., p. 246, sq. On the needful limitation of the notion of “ Protestant Scholasticism,” ibid. p. 55, sq. On the grandeur of the Protestant dogmatic system, see Gass , Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, p. 6, sq ., who says that it was “ more profound than the theology of the Fathers of the Church , more true and consistent than that of the scholastics , and more scientifically developed and honestly outspoken than the theories of the Roman Catholic Church .” § 217. LUTHERAN MYSTICISM, THEOSOPHY, AND ASCETICISM. Baur , Zur Geschichte der Protest. Mystik, in Zeller’s Jahrbiicher, 1848, 1849. Koack, Die christliche Mystik seit dem Reformationszeitalter (see § 153). Hambergsr, Stimmen aus dem Heiligthum d. ckristliehen Mystik und Theosophies, Stuttg., 1857. [R. A. Vaughan , Hours with the Mystics, 2d ed. 2 vols., 1860. Gieseler , Church History, iv. § 50. Erhkam , Gesch. der Protest. Secten., Hamb., 1848.] As the scholasticism of the middle ages had been counterbalanced by mysticism, so the new scholastic tendency of the Lutheran Church, during the present period, was accompanied by a mystical tendency, representing the deeper interests of practical religion. And further, as we had there to distinguish between the mysticism of the sects, and orthodox mysticism (though its advocates spiritualized, and sometimes idealized, the doctrines of the Church, by internal inter¬ pretation), so here again we must distinctly separate these two ten¬ dencies from each other. Even in the lifetime of Luther, Andreas Carlstadt / Sebastian Frank * and John Casper Scliwenkfeld ,3 en¬ deavored (in a manner similar to that adopted by the prophets of Zwickau, and the Anabaptists)4 to break up the rigid adherence to the letter of Scripture, by a fantastic idealism, and a spiritualizing theology running over into pantheism. In later times, the mystico- theosophic writings of Theophrastus Paracelsus ,6 Valentin Weigel ,° and Jacob Bohme,7 on the one hand, exerted a quickening influence, yet on the other, they perplexed the minds of the people, and threat¬ ened to destroy the unity of the Church. On the contrary, the more considerate John Arndf and his followers,9 sought to intro¬ duce “ True Christianity” into all the relations of life, and to revive, by means of godly sentiments and spiritual exercises, the spirit of true religion, which had been buried under a load of scholastic defi¬ nitions. J. G. Arnold was induced, by his preference for mysticism, to undertake the defence of the heretical sects against the sentence which the orthodox passed upon them.10 1 On Carlstadt , see Gdbel} Andreas Bctdenstein von Carlstadt nach seinem § 218. Lotheran Mysticism. 155 Charakter unci Yerhaltniss zu' Luther, in the Stuclien und Kritiken, 1841, s. 44, sq . Erbkam , Geschichte der Protestantischen Secten im Zeitalter der Reformation, Hamb., 1848, s. 174, sq. *C. F. Jdger , Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, Stutt., 1856. Baur , ubi supra (Zeller’s Jahrb., 1848.) Carl- stadt belongs here only in part, for he held more strictly than the rest of the mystics to the letter of Scripture. 3 Sebastian Frank was born at Donauworth, in the beginning of the six¬ teenth century ; died in 1545. His chief works are : Weltbuch— Zeitbuch — Encomium MoriEe — Spriichworter — Paradoxa. Compare Wackernagel , Proben deutseher Prosa, i. s. 319, sq. K. Hagen , Geist der Reformation und seiner Gegensatze, ii. 314, sq. SchenJcel , Wesen des Protest, i. 136, sq. ErbTcam , loc. cit. 286, sq. Baur , loc. cit. p. 490, sq. “It is only in the most recent times that the originality of Sebastian Frank has been particu¬ larly recognised , and that a place has been assigned him among those men , in whose varying tendencies are found the elements that determine the character of the period of the Reformation .” [Hase's Church History, New York, ed., p. 436.] 3 Schwenkfeld was born a. d. 1490, at Ossing, in Silesia, and died 1561. (Luther called him Stenkfeld.) Concerning Schwenkfeld and his friend Valentin KrautwalJc , see Planck , v. i. p. 89, ss., and compare special history of doctrines. See also, *G. L. Hahn , Schwenckfeldii Sententia de Christi Persona et Opere Exposita. Vratislav., 1847. Erbkam , 357, sq. Baur , 502, sq. “ With Schioenkfeld we come first into the real sphere of Protes¬ tant mysticism ; he , if any one of the olden time , is the representative of the Protestant , and especially of the Protestant Lutheran , Mysticism .” [Comp, especially Gieseler , Church Hist. iv. § 33. Baur's Dreieinigkeit, iii. 219, 244. j Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 573, 624. Niedner's Gesch. d. Kirche, 673-677.] 4 See below § 231. Erbkam , loc. cit. 479, sq. 6 His proper name was Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus Paracelsus ab Hohenheim ; he was a native of Switzerland, and died a. d. A541. His works were published at Basle, 1585, ss., xi. 4. Compare H. A. Preu , die Theologie des Theophrast. Paracelsus, Berlin, 1837, 8. M. Carriere , Philosophische Weltanschanung der Reformationszeit., Stuttg., 1847. [Gieseler, Church Hist. iv. 566. Tennemann's, Gesch. d. Phil. ix. 205. Ritter's Gesch. d. Phil. v. 517 ; Christi. Phil. ii. 155, sq. Hagenbach , Yorlesungen tiber die Reformation, iii. 337, sg'.] 6 Weigel was born A. d. 1533, at Hayn, in Misnia, and died 1588, at Tschoppau, where he was a pastor. His writings were not published till after his death — viz., gtildener Griff, d. i. alle Dinge ohne Irrthum zu erken- nan, 1616. Erkenne dich selbst, 1618. Kirchen und Hauspostill, 1618. .. Comp. Arnolds Kirchen und Ketzerhist. ii. vol. xvii. c. 17. Walch, Einlei- tung in Die Religions Streitigkeiten, iv. p. 1024-1065. Planck, Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 72, ss. Hagenbach, Yorlesungen fiber die Reformation, iii, p. 337, ss. [See also Gieseler, Church Hist. iv. 567. Dorner's Person Christi, ii. 224. Baur, Versohnungslehre, 463 ; Dreieinig¬ keit, iii. 257. Ritter , Gesch. d. Philos, vi. 77. Niedner . Gesch. d. Kirche, 156 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 7 37, sq. L. Pertz , Der Weigelianismus, in the Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1857.] 7 Bohme was born a. d. 1575, at Altseidenburg, in Upper Lansatia, and lived at Gorlitz, where he was a shoemaker; died 1620. His writings were edited by Gichtel , Amstel., 1682, 1730, 6 vol. 8. Schiebler , Leips., 1831 ; 6 Bde. and Stuttg., 1835, sq ., 5 Bde., with an account of his life by Albert Von Franckenberg. Comp. Wullen. J. Bohme’s Leben und Lehre, Stutt- gard, 1836, 8. By the same : Bliithen aus J. Bohmes Mystik. Stuttg., 1838. A. E. Umbreit, Jacob Bohme, Hiedelberg, 1835. Baur , Gnosis, p. 558, ss. Hagenbach , Vorlesung. tiber die Reform. 1. c. p. 345, ss. Baur , Zeller’s Jahrb., 1850. Hamberger , Die Lehre des deutschen Philosophen J. Bohme, Miinchen, 1844. Carriere , ubi supra, 609. TholucJc , in Zeitschrift f. Christl., Wissenschaft, 1852, No. 25, sq. Auberlen, in Herzog’s Realency- clo)3. ii. 265, sq. [AT. A. Fechner , Bohme’s Leben und Schriften (a prize essay), 1857. Hegel , Gesch. d. Phil. iii. 296. Bitter , Christl. Philos, ii. < 165, sq. A. Peip , Jac. Bohme, der Yorlaufer christlicher Wissenschaft, 1860. Life by Bialloblotzky, in the Penny Cyclopedia. Schaff’s Kirchen- freund, 1853. Christian Review, July, 1854. Works transl., 4 vols., fob, Lond., 1764-81. Ellistone was the chief translator, and Law proposed an¬ other edition ; see Law’s Animadversions on Dr. Trapp.] 9 Arndt was born a. d. 1555, at Ballenstadt, in the duchy of Anhalt, suf¬ fered much from persecution, filled the office of Superintendent in Celle, and died 1621. He wrote: Yier Bucher vom wahren Christenhum, 1605, often reprinted (which were combated by Luc. Osiander) ; Paradiesgartlein voll christlicher Tugenden ; Evangelienpostille, and other works. Comp. Freheri Theatr. Yiror, Eruditione Claror. p. 409. Tzschirners Memorabilien iii. 1, Lpzg., 1812. Hagenbach, Vorlesungen, etc., 1. c. p. 371, ss. M. Goebel, Gq sch. des christl. Lebens in der rheinisch-westphal. evang. Kirche, Coblenz, 1852, ii. 464, sq. H. L. Pertz, De Johanne Arndio. Hanov., 1852, 4to. SJGieseler^ Church Hist. iv. 573. O. Wehrhan's Lebensgesch. Joh&nn. Arndt’s Ham¬ burg, 1848. Arndt’s True Christ, transl. by Hoffmann, Chambersb., 1834.] 9 Joach. Lutkemann , Heinr. Muller , Christian Scriver , and others. The better class of preachers, and especially the authors of spiritual songs, ex¬ erted also a beneficial influence upon the religious belief of the people. Comp. Hagenbach , Yorlesungen, p. 163, ss. 10 Arnold was born a. d. 1665, at Annaberg, and died 1714 at Perleburg, where he was a pastor. — He wrote : Unparteiische Kirchen und Ketzerhis- torie, Frankf., 1699, fol. Schafh., 1740, ss., 3 vol. fob — Wahre Ausbildung des inwendigen Christenthums — erste Liebe — geistliche Frfahrungslehre, and several other treatises. See Goebel, as above. Lutheran mysticism degenerated especially in the case of Quirinus Kuhlmann (1651-89), John George Gichtel (1638-1710), and his co-laborers Breckling , Ueberfeldt , eta Compare Hagenbach Yorlesungen, iv. p. 328, ss. These enthusiasts are of no importance in thi history of doctrines. [Hase, Church History, 508.] § 218. Reforming Tendencies. 157 § 218. REFORMING TENDENCIES. JOHN YALENTIN ANDREW, CALIXT, SPENER, THOMASIUS. Not the mystics alone, but also theologians of common sense and sound judgment, having thrown off the yoke of the theology of the schools, united with those of a more pious tendency, for the purpose of reforming the Church. John Valentin Andrece combated with the weapons of satire, and yet with due earnestness, both the cor¬ ruptions of the schools and the mysticism of his age.1 George Calixt , guided by a spirit of Christian moderation, endeavored to reduce the doctrines necessary to salvation to the Apostles' Creed, and thus, by degrees, to effect a union of the different denomina¬ tions, hut exposed himself, in consequence, to the charge of Syncre¬ tism? The influence which he exerted upon his age was less positive than that of Philip Jacob Spener , whose sermons, writings, and life, were in this respect, of great importance.3 Proceeding from the central point of Christian experience, and resting on the basis of Scriptural truth which he had practically studied, he equally avoided scholastic subtilty and theosophic fancies, and was animated by the pure and glowing mysticism of the heart alone. He, as well as* his followers (the Pietists), were at first attacked with rage and scorn, but nevertheless imparted a most beneficial impulse to their age. He was upheld by the jurist Chris¬ tian Tliomasius , who took part in preparing the more enlightened culture of a new .century, rather, however, by his scientific and polit¬ ical attainments, than by profound and original views in theology.4 ~ 1 Valentin Andrese was the nephew of Jacob Andrese (who was one of the authors of the Formula Concordiae), and died a. d. 1654. On his life, as well as on the sect of the Rosi crucians, who stand in close connection with the history of mysticism, see Hossbach , Val. Andrese und sein Zeitalter, Berlin, 1819 ; Also, Vita ab ipso conscripta, Berol., 1849 [ed. F. H. Rhein- wald. Niedner's Gesch. d. Kirch e, 740, sq. Pabst , Andrew's entlarvter Apap., 1827. Gieseleds Church History, iv. 569, sq., where is a full account of the “ Chymical Marriage of Christian Rosenkreutz,” and of the “Fama Fraternitatis.” See also, Guhrauer in Niedner’s Zeitschrift, f. d. hist. Theol- ogie, 1852, Ueber den Verfasser, Sinn und Zweck der Fama Fraternitatis. The Fama and Confessio were republished at Frankfort, 1827. On the Rosicrucians, see Figuier , L’Alchimie, Paris, 1854, chap. v. pp. 247-266 ; Notes and Queries, Vol. vii. viii. 2 Calixt was born a. d. 1586, in the duchy of Holstein, and was professor of theology in the University of Helmstadt. His works are mentioned § 214, note 7. Compare * Henke, Calixts Briefe. Halle, 1833. By the 158 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. same: die Univ. Helmstadt im 16, Jahrh., Halle, 1833. Planck, Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 90, ss. G . W. Gass, Georg Calixt und der Synkretismus, Bresl., 1846. Schmid Heinr., Geschichte der synkretis- tischen Streitigkeiten in der Zeit des Georg Calixt., Erlang, 1846. Gass says, “ Calixt , to a certain extent, wished to maintain a Lutheran Protestant¬ ism, but not a Protestant Lutheranism ; he sought Protestanism in Luther¬ anism, but not the converse Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, s. 308. [Comp. Gieseler, Church Hist. iv. § 52, pp. 584-593. Baur, d. Calixtin. Synkretis¬ mus, in the Theol. Jahrb. (Tubing.) Bd. vii. Henke , Calixtus nnd seine Zeit. i. ii. 1, 2, Halle, 1853-60: comp, the Christ* Remembrancer, Lond., 1855. Schweizer , Protest. Central-Dogmen. i. 171, ii. 532. Niedner, Ge¬ schichte d. Christlichen Kirche, 743-7.] 3 Spener was born a. d. 1635, at Rappoldsweiler, in Alsatia. Strassburg,- Frankfort, Dresden, and Berlin, were successively the scenes of his labors. He was a prebendary at Cologne on the Spree, and died 1705. He wrote : Das geistliche Priesterthum., Frankfurt, 1677, 12, and other editions. — Pia Desideria., Francof., 1678, 12. — Theol. Bedenken., Halle, 1700, ss., 4 voll. — Consilia et Judicia Theol. Frankof., 1709, iii. 4. — Letzte Theol. Bedenken., Halle, 1721, iii. 4. Hossbach , Spener und seine Zeit. Berlin, 1827, ii. 8. — At the same time Aug. Herm. B\ancke exerted a considerable influence rather on the life of Christians than on systematic theology. Nevertheless the pietistic tendency is of importance in the history of doctrines, on the one hand, because it was indifferent to all scholastic definitions ; on the other, because it laid great stress upon the doctrines concerning sin, repent¬ ance, etc. ; and lastly, on account of the peculiar coloring which it gave to the theology of the evangelical Church. The diligent study of the Bible, which he insisted on, could not but produce good fruit. See Lllgen, C. F., Historia Collegii philobiblic!.. Lips., 1836-40, 3 Progr. [See Rose and Pusey, on German Rationalism, 1835. L. Woods , in Preface to his Trans¬ lation of Knapp’s Christian Theology. Tholuck , in Princeton Essays, vol. i. p. 530, sg.] 4 He died a. d. 1728. Comp. Luden, Thomasius nach seinen Schicksalen und Schriften, Berlin, 1805. § 219. ZWINGLE AND CALVIN. 159 II. THE REFORMED CHURCH. § 219. ZWINGLE AND CALVIN. Hundeshagen , Die Conflicts des Zuinglianismus, Lutheranismus und Calvinismus in jler Berniscben Landeskirche, Bern., 1842. Al. Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehre der Re¬ form. Kirche dargestellt, 2, 8vo., Zurich, 1844-7 ; Ibid., Nachwort zur Glaubenslehre, in Zeller’s Jahrb., 1848; [Ibid., Protestant. Centraldogmen, 2 Bde., Zurich, 1854.] Baur, Princip und Charakter des Lehrbegriffs der Ref. Kirche, in Zeller’s Jahrb., 1847. Schneckeriburger , Reform. Dogmatik mit Riicksicht auf Schweizer’s Glaubensl., in the Stud, und Kritiken, 1848, 1st and 3d, Heft. ; Ibid., Die neueren Verhandlungen betreffend das Princip des Ref. Lehrbegriffs, in Zeller’s Jahrb., 1848; [Ibid. Zur Kirchlichen Christologie, Neue Bearbeitung, Pforzheim, 1848.] Ebrard , Vindicise Theol. Reform. Erlangen, 1848. Al. Schweizer , Die Synthese des Determinismus und der Preiheit in der Reform. Dogmatik (against Ebrard, in Zeller’s Jahrb., 1849). Ebrard , Das Verhaltniss der Ref. Dogmatik zum Determinismus, Zurich, 1849. Zel¬ ler, Das Theologische System Zwingli’s (Tubing. Jahrb., 1853). Gh. Sigwart, Ulrich Zwingli, Stuttg., 1835. J. G. Scholten , Die Lehre der ref. Kirche nach ihren Grund- satzen aus den Quellen dargestellt, 3 Aufl. Lpz., 1855. Comp. § 223. [Zeller, Charakter des Zwingl. Lehrbegriffs, in Theol. Jahrb., 1857. Jdger, in Studien und Kritiken, 1856. J. W. Roder, Der Schweizer. Reform. Zwingli. St. Gallen, 1855. Stahl, in Luther. Kirche und Union, Berl., 1859, reviewed by Stier and Baxmann in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, Berlin, 1859. Gieseler , Church History, iv. § 35. Heinrich Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangel. Reform. Kirche, aus den Quellen Elberfeld, 1861.] * In the Swiss cities of Gilarus, Einsiedeln, and Zurich, Ulric Zwingle preached the pure evangelical doctrine, and combated the abuses of the Papacy, independently of Luther.1 In consequence of a difference of opinion concerning the doctrine of the Lord's Sup¬ per,3 which manifested itself as soon as Luther's views became known in Switzerland, Zwingle and the other Swiss reformers were compelled to adopt their own course, and a new Church was formed, along side of the Lutheran, based on peculiarities of its own, in respect to doctrinal matters, as well as in its constitution and mode of worship, called, by way of distinction, the Reformed Church, though it did not receive this appellation until a later period.3 Zwingle himself propounded the principles of pure evangelical faith in sev¬ eral writings, which may be regarded as the beginning of a system¬ atic theology of the Reformed Church.4 But it was reserved for the French reformer, John Calvin ,6 after the death of Zwingle, to compose the work entitled : Institutio Religionis Christiance, in which those principles were arranged in a system more comprehen¬ sive, well-arranged, and connected, than the Loci of Melancthon.6 1 He was born a. d. 1484, Jan. 1st, at Wildhaus, in Toggenburg. Con¬ cerning his life, compare the biographies composed by Oswald Myconius , 160 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. JVuscheler , Hess , Schuler , Hottinger [transl. by A7. (7. Porter, Harrisb., 1850*] ; Roder [der Schweizer Ref. Huldr. Zwingl. St. Oallen, 1856] ; Chris- tojfel, Ulr. Zwing. Leben und ausgewalilte Schriften, Elberfeld, 1857 [transl. by John Cochrane, Edinb., 1858. Life, by Prof. Robbins, in Bibl. Sacra, Andov., vols. viii. xi. Hess's Life transl. by Lucy Aiken, Lond,, 1812.] His works were edited by Gualther, Tig., 1545, ss., 1581, Tom. iv. fob, and by * Schuler and Schulthess , Zwingli’s Werke, voi. i. and ii. in German, vol. iii. v. vi. vii. in Latin.- — Leading historical points in the Swiss Reformation during its first period : 1. Disputation at Zurich (a. d. 1523, Jan. 29th.) — Zwingle’s interpretation of the articles, and his reasons. — 2. Disputation (Oct. 26th-28th.) Zwingle’s treatise entitled : christenliche Ynleitung. — Decree of the magistracy respecting images, the mass, etc. — Final establish¬ ment of the Reformation at Zurich. Disputations at Baden (1526) and Berne (1528.) — The Reformation of Berne ( Bernard Haller , Sebastian Meier , and others.) — The Reformation of Basle (1529, Oecolampadius.) The war of Cappel. — The death of Zwingle, 1531, Oct. 11th. — For further particu¬ lars see Bullinger , Reformationsgeschichte herausgeg. von Hottinger and Vogeli. iii. Frauenf., 1838. J.J. Hottinger , evangelische Kirchengeschichte, Zurich, 1708, iv. (A new edition by Wirz-Kirchofer was published, Zurich, 1813-19.) Johannes von Muller , Geschichte der schweizerischen Eidgenos- senschaft, fortgesetzt von J. J. Hottinger , Vol. 6 and 7. Comp. Gieseler, iv. pp. 12, 13. The more recent writings on this period, by Gobel, Lange, Goupp, Herzog, Meyer, reviewed by Ullmann , in the Studien und Kritiken, 1843. s See the special history of doctrines (on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper). 8 Theologians are still divided on the question, as to what constitutes the peculiarity of the Reformed Church (see § 212, note 3, and the works there referred to). According to Schweizer , the principle of the Reformed theology, running through all its doctrinal statements, is to be sought in the attempt to derive all salvation and all that leads it, absolutely from God alone (not from anything created) ; with which, too, is connected the more urgent emphasis laid on Scripture alone, and the closer relation made between the law and the gospel, in the Calvinistic system (opposition to all paganising, see above § 213). Baur sought for this peculiarity in the absoluteness of God. Schneclcenburger especially urges the Christological element, as the Re¬ formed theology makes the-historical side more prominent, and the Lutheran the speculative aspects of Christology (see his Christology, p, 190, note). However it may be with these statements, it is at any rate certain, that the differences, which it is the office of dogmatic science to search out, are en- , tirely subordinate in comparison with the essential and thorough going opposition between Catholicism and Protestantism ; and it would only im¬ pede the healthful growth of Protestantism, if the undeniable differences should be so exaggerated as to make out an irreconcileable antagonism among Protestants themselves. — While formerly the exact distinction between the Lutheran and Reformed systems was hardly stated, dogmatic acumen is now in danger of running out into subtle refinements. The times recommend holding to that in which they agree. On the shaping of the Reformed theology in distinction from the Lutheran, see Gass, s. 82, sq. § 219. Zwingle and Calvin. 161 * Luther and the Lutherans called them Sacramentarians, enthusiasts, etc. (afterwards Calvinists). It was in France that the name “ religion pretendue reformee” took its rise. \Heppe, TJrsprung und Geschichte der Bezeich- nungen, “ Reformirte” und “ Lutherisclie” Kirche, 1859.] 6 In addition to the polemical writings, sermons, letters, etc., of Zwingle, we may mention as bearing upon systematic theology : Commentarius de Vera et Falsa Religione (it was addressed to Francis I.) Tigur., 1525. — Fidei Ratio, ad Carol. Imp. Tig. 1530, 4. Christianae Fidei brevis et clara Exposi- tio, ad Regem christ. (ed. Bullinger.) Tig., 1536. On Zwingle’s importance as a systematic theologian, see the works of Zeller and Sigioart ; also Gass , i. 91. 6 He was born at Noyon, in Picardy, a. d. 1519, July 10th, and died at Geneva, 1564, May 27th. Concerning his life, see *Henry, Leben Calvins, Hamb., 1835-45, 4 vol. Bretschneider , Bildung und Geist Calvins und der Genferkirche (Reformations- Almanack, 1821). [. Biographies of Calvin: Henry's Life, transl. by Stebbing, 2 vols., Lond. and N. Y., 1854; Beza's Life of C. transl. by Gibson , Phil., 1836 ; Dyer ; T. Smyth , 1835 ; Audin , (Rom. Cath.) from the French (3d ed. 1845), Louisville; M. Haag , in La France Protestante ; Robbins, in Bib. Sacra, ii., iii. ; Kitto's Journal, vols. iii., vii. ; Deutscher Kirchenfreund, Phil., 1857; Christian Examiner, 1860; New American Encyclopedia. Correspondence, ed. by Bonner, transl., 3 vols., Edinb. and Phil.; Life and Selections from his writings by Stdhelin, 1861, in Hagenbach’s Leben und Schriften der Vater der Reformirten Kirche. British and Foreign Quarterly Review, Edinburgh, I860.] 7 Christianae Religionis Institutio, totam fere pietatis cummam, et quic- quid est in doctrina salutis cognitu necessarium, complectens : omnibus pietatis studiosis lectu dignissimum opus (the preface was addressed to Francis I). It was composed at Basle, a. d. 1535. Only the edition of 1536 (published in Basle by Thomas Plater) is extant at present as the first : but it was undoubtedly preceded by an anonymous edition written in French (see Henry, i. p. 102, ss.) — The edition of Basle was followed by those of Strasburg (published by Rihelius), 1539 (some copies under the name AU cuinus ), 1543, 45, and Geneva, 1550, 53, 54. — An entirely new edition ap¬ peared, 1559, at Geneva (published by Robert Stephanus), from which the later editions were reprinted. Comp. Henry, 1. c. p. 286, ss., and the opinions of Bretschneider and Krummacher, which he cites. The German translation of Bretschneider appeared 1823, at Elberfeld. — In addition to his Institutio, Calvin composed many other doctrinal and exegetical works, which will be mentioned in the special history of doctrines. — The complete works of Cal¬ vin were published, Geneva, 1617, xii. fob Amst., 1671, (1677), ix. fol. Comp, also the Anecdota edited by Bretschneider, Lips., 1835 (from the library of Gotha). See Gass, i. 99. [His whole works, transl., Edbg., 51 vols., completed, 1855. His Institutes, frequent English editions (Allen) ; Phil. Presb. Board, in 2 vols. New Test. Comm., and Institutes, ed. Tholuck, Halle. A French transl. of the Institutes, reprinted in Paris, 1859; new edition of his Comm, on New Test., in French.] 11 162 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. § 220. THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH. Compare the collections mentioned vol. i. § 13. [The collections of Augusti , 1828 ; Mess, 1830; Niemeyer, 1840; Sylloge Confess., Oxon., 1821. Harmony of Confess., 1586, 1846. E. G-. A. Bockell, Bekenntnisschriften, Leipz., 1847. Heppe , Die Bekenn- twisschriften d. reform. Kirche Deutschlands, 1860. Helvetic Confess., by Trechsel , in Herzog’s Realencyclopadie.] The different mode of development of the Eeformed Church on the one side, and of the Lutheran Reformation in Germany on the other/ accounts for the difference in the character of their symbol¬ ical writings. In the case of the Eeformed Church they were less complete in themselves, being at first restricted to confessions of faith drawn up by individuals, or in separate localities, and only by degrees coming into general use as representations of the doctrines held by the Church. Nor should we overlook the evident difference between the characters of Zwingle and Calvin.1 2 3 Hence in forming a more precise estimate about the doctrines, it is important to make a dis¬ tinction between those symbolical writings which were composed before , and those after, the influence of Calvin was felt.3 From what has already been said, it follows that we are not to expect a definitely limited number of Calvinistic symbolical writings, inas¬ much as only some of them acquired general authority in the Eeformed Church, though not all in the same degree ; while the importance of others was limited to certain localities,4 or to indi¬ viduals,5 or to certain periods at the expiration of which they lost their authority.6 1 Compare Hagenbach , Vorlesungen uber Wesen und Geschichte der Reformation ii. p. 98, p. 103, ss. Schweizer , ubi supra, s. 7, sq. [Heppe, Dogmatik d. ref. Kirche.] 2 As regards his personal character, Zwingle probably had far more of Luther in him than Calvin, while the latter is rather to be compared with Melancthon (at least as regards his scientific attainments and writings). Yet we must not exaggerate the doctrinal differences between Calvin and Zwin¬ gle (see the special history of doctrines.) [See the works of Zeller , Stahl , and Sigwart , ubi supra.] 3 Compare Winer, pp. 18 and 19 of his Comp. Darstellung. 4 E . g. the First Confession of Basle. Nor were the Confessions of different countries (such as the Gallicana, Anglicana, Scotica, Belgica, Marchica, etc.), in the first instance, adopted by any but the Protestants of the respective countries, though the principles contained in them were tacitly recognised in other Protestant countries, and sometimes signed by their representatives. 6 This was the case with the said Fidei Ratio of Zwingle, as well as with his Clara et Brevis Expositio; comp. Winer, p. 18. On the other hand, the § 221. Symbols of the Reformed Church. 163 private confession of Bullinger obtained such authority, as to become the second Confessio Helvetica ; the private confession of Guido de Bres stood in the same relation to the Confessio Belgica. See § 222, notes 4 and 9. [Comp. Niemeyer , Col lectio Confess.] 6 Thus the Confessio Tetrapolitana, which fell into oblivion, the second Confessio of Basle (the first Confessio Helvetica 1536), the Formula Con¬ sensus, and several others ; see the subsequent sections. § 221. A. SYMBOLICAL WHITINGS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF CALVIN. Esclier , in the Encyclopaedia published by Ersch and Gruber, 2d Section, Vol. v. p. 223, ss. [Niemeyer, ubi supra. Heppe , ubi supra. Hall's Harmony Of Confessions ; In¬ troduction.] As early as the Diet of Augsburg, the four cities of Strasburg , Constance , Memmingen , and Lindau , in Upper Germany, which were favorably disposed to the doctrines of Zwingle, presented a separate confession of faith, which is on that account called Con¬ fessio Tetrapolitana (or sometimes Conf. Argentinensis, Suevica) and Zwingle also presented a statement of his faith to the Emperor Charles V.1 2 The Church of Basle gave (a. d. 1534) the first pub¬ lic testimony of its evangelical faith by the publication of a creed, which was also adopted in Miilhausen (Confessio Basiliensis I., Miilhausana).3 The continuance of the controversy respecting the Lord's Supper, and the efforts made by Bucer and others to restore peace, gave rise to the Second Confession of Basle , or the First Confessio Helvetica , which was drawn up A. d. 1536, signed by various Swiss cities, and transmitted to the Lutheran theologians then assembled at Smalcald.4 1 It was drawn up by M. Bucer , and published a. d., 1531, 4to., both in German and Latin. German editions of it also appeared, Neustadt, on the Hardt, 1580, and Zweibrticken (Deux Ponts), 1604, 4 to* It consists of 23 articles. The 18th article, concerning the Lord’s Supper, differs but little from the Confessio Augustana (see the special history of doctrines). Planck, iii. 1, p. 83, ss. — The Latin text is given in the Corpus et Synt., i. p. (215, ss.), 173, ss., and by Augusti, p. 327. Comp. Winer, 1. c., and Wernsdorf His- toria Confess. Tetrapol. Vite., 1721, 4. [Also in HalVs Harmony, and Niemeyer , pp. 740-770.] The four cities afterwards, at the Schweinfurt Convention, subscribed the Augsburg Confession. See Heppe , Confessionelle Entwicklung, 72. 2 Comp. § 219, note 4. Winer, 1. c. [Niemeyer, in his collection, gives Articuli sive Conclusiones LXYII. H. Zwinglii, with the Theses Ber- nenses appended, pp. 3-15 ; Z.’s Fidei Ratio, pp. 17-35 ; and his Exposi- tio, pp. 36-77.] I 164 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 3 “ Bekanntlinuss vnsres heyligen Christenlichen Gloubens wie es die kylch zu Basel haldt” (witli the motto : Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem fit confessio ad salutem. Rom. x.), in 12 articles ; it was founded upon a sketch drawn up by Oecolampadius (see Hagenbach , Geschichte der Basler Confession. Basle, 182V. Appendix A.) ; the German copy of it is given, ibid. p. 3V, ss., the Latin in Corpus et Synt. i. (93), 72, ss. Augusti , p. 103, ss. 4 It was composed at a synod in Basle, 1536, by theologians deputed by the cities Zurich, Berne, Basle, Schafhausen, St. Gallen, Mtilhausen, and Biel (drawn up by H. Bullinger, Oswald Myconius, Simon Gryneaus, Leo Judse, and Casper Grosmann), with the assistance of Bucer and Capito, the delegates from Strasburg. — On the cause and origin of the said confession, see *Kirchofer , Oswald Myconius, Zurich, 1813, p. 271-316. Hess, Lebens- geschichte Heinrich Bullingers, vol. i. p. 199, ss., 21 7, ss. JEscher , 1. c. On the relation in which it stood to the first confession of Basle, see Hagen - bach , Geschichte der Basler Confession, p. 67. [ Niemeyer , pp. 78-122.] § 222. B. SYMBOLICAL WRITINGS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CALVIN. The Church of Geneva having been at first founded upon the basis of the Calvinistic doctrine, independently of the Church of Zurich, was brought into closer connection with it (a. d. 1549) by means of the Consensus Tigurinus (which had reference to the doc¬ trine of the Lord's Supper);1 while the doctrine of predestination, more fully developed by Calvin, was established in the Consensus Genevensis (a. d. 1552).2 But it was not until Frederick III., Prince Elector of the Palatinate, had joined the Reformed Church, that symbols were adopted which bound the Churches more closely together. These were, on the one hand, the Catechism of Heidel¬ berg (a. d. 1562), drawn up by Caspar Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus ;3 on the other, the Second Confessio Helvetica , composed by Bullinger, and published at the request of the Prince Elector, a. d. 1564.4 The principles contained in them are also set forth more or less distinctly in the other Reformed creeds, e. g. in the Confessio Gallicana ,5 Anglicana* Scoticana ,7 Hungarica (Czen- gerina),8 Belgica? the Confessio Sigismundi (Brandenburgica, Marchica),10 the Catechismus Genevensis ,“ the Declaratio Tho - runensisf etc. And lastly, the controversies carried on between the different sections of the Reformed Church (especially concerning the doctrine of predestination),13 showed the necessity of symbolical definitions similar to those contained in the Formula Concordice of the Lutheran Church. Such were the Decrees of the Synod of Dort (a. d. 1618), 14 and the Formula Consensus drawn up in Swit¬ zerland.16 § 222. Symbols of the Beformed Church. 165 Consensio Mutua in Re Sacramentaria Ministror. Tigur. et J. Calvini, consisting of 36 articles, in Calvini Opp. viii. p. 648, ss., and in his Tract. Theolog. (Geneva, 1611, Amst., 1667, fol.) It was separately printed, 1554, by Robert Stephan. Winer , p. 19. Comp. Hess, Lebensgeschichte Hein¬ rich Bullingers, ii. p. 15-20. Henry , Leben Calvins, ii. 473, note and ap¬ pendix 181. “ Calvin's spirit showed itself in such a way in relation to the Swiss type of theology, and to the German- Luther an form , that he was able to develop the former, freeing it from what was rude and imma¬ ture, without merging it in the latter Gass, Gesch. d. Prot. Dogmatik, i. 126. \Niemeyer, loc. cit. 190-217.] 2 De seterna Dei Prsedestinatione, qua in salutem alios ex hominibus elegit, alios suo exitio reliquit, it. de providentia, qua res hum anas gubernat, Consensus pastorum Genevensis ecclesise, a J. Calvino expositus. Genev., 1552, 8. (in Opp. vii. 688, ss., and in vol. viii. of the Dutch edition, p. 593, ss. ; Tract. Theol., p. 688.) On the (erroneous) statement of Planck and Marheineke, that this Consensus had also been adopted by the citizens of Zurich, see Escher, 1. c. Hagenbach, Geschichte der Basler Confess, p. 83, and Winer, p. 19. Henry, ii. 42. \Niemeyer, 218-310.] 3 Its German title is : Christlicher Underricht, wie der in Kirchen und Schulen der churf. Pfalz getrieben wirdt ( i . e. Christian instruction, as im¬ parted in the churches and schools of the Palatinate). It was also called Catech. Palatinus, the Palatine Catechism. Joshua Lagus and Lambert Ludolph Pithopceus translated it into Latin. An edition, which contained both the Latin and the German, appeared, Heidelberg, 1563, 8. In later times it was translated into almost all modern languages, and very frequently commented upon : e. g., by H. Alting ; see the edition of E. A. Lewald, Heidelb., 1841. It consists of three principal parts: 1. Concerning the misery of man in consequence of sin ; 2. Concerning the redemption from that state ; and, 3. Concerning man’s gratitude for that redemption. It .is divided into 129 questions. (The 80th question concerning the mass was omitted in many editions.) Comp. Simon von Alpen, Geschichte und Literatur des Heidelberg Katechismus Frankf. a. M., 1810, 8. Reinacker (in the Allgemeine Encyclopaedic 2d sect., 4th part.) Beckhaus in Illgens historische Zeitschrift, viii. 2, p. 39, and Augusti (see p. 10.) Seisen , Gesch. der Reformation in Heidelb. bis zur Abfassung des Heidelb. Katechismus, Bern., 1848. Sudhoff, der Heidelb. Kat. Creuznach, 1851 ; ibid., Fester Grund christ. Lehre, ein Htilfsbuch zum Heidelb. Kat. (drawn up from the German writings of Caspar Olevianus, with dissertations by the author), Frankf. a. M., 1854. \Niemeyer gives both the German and the Latin form, pp. 390-461. English version in the Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America, Appendix, pp. 3-40. The literature of the Heidelb. Catechism, Mercersb. Quarterly, Oct. 1860; on English Versions, ibid., Jan., 1861. In England an edition, 1850, with bibliographical no¬ tices by Rev. A. S. Thelwall. — J. W. Nevin, History and Genius of the Heidelberg Catechism, Chambersburg, 1847. The Catechism was intro¬ duced in various parts of Switzerland (St. Gall., Zurich) ; in Hungary and Poland; in most of the German Reformed Churches; in the Netherlands, by the Synod of Wesel, 1688, of Dort, 1574 and 1618; in the Dutch 166 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Reformed, and German Reformed Churches of America — of the latter it is the only symbolical book. On Olevianus and Ursinus , see Sudhoff, in Hagenbach’s Leben und Schriften d. Vater der reformirten Kirche, Bd. viii. 1857 ; he shows that this Catechism was on the basis of those of Calvin and a Lasco. On the different early editions of the Catechism, on Qu. 80, etc., see Niemeyer , Praefatio, lvii., sg.] 4 Confessio Helvetica Posterior (it was also called : Confessio et Expositio brevis et simplex sincerae Religionis Christianse). At the request of Fred¬ erick III., Prince Elector of the Palatinate (1564), it was edited by Bul- linger, first in Latin (1566), and afterwards in a German translation made by the author himself. It has been often republished : by Kindler , 1825, 8, and by *0. F. Fritzsche , Tur., 1839 (with Prolegomena.) Compare Fscher , 1. c. It has 30 chapters. It was sanctioned not only in Switzerland,* but also in Germany (in the Palatinate), and Scotland, as well as by the Polish, Hungarian, and French Reformed churches. It was translated into French by Theodore Beza, Geneva, 1566, 8, and by Cellerier , ibid., 1819, 8. [ Niemeyer , pp. 466-536.] 5 It consisted of 40 articles. It was set forth and sanctioned, under the influence of the preacher Chaudieu, by the Synod of Paris, a. d. 1559, pre¬ sented first to Francis II., a. d. 1560, and afterwards to Charles IX., at Poissy, by Beza, a. d. 1561, and confirmed by Henry IV. and his mother, at the Synod of Rochelle, 1571. A Latin translation of it appeared, 1566. Comp. Corp. et Synt. i. p. (99) 77, ss. ; Augusti, p. 110, ss. A shorter Con¬ fession in 18 articles was handed in to Henry 1Y. ; see Henry , Leben Cal¬ vins, iii. 469, note. It is a different work from that which was published at Heidelberg, 1566, 8, under the title : Confession und Kurze Bekanntnuss des Glaubens der reformirten Kirchen in Frankreich (i. e . a Creed and short Confession of Faith adopted by the French Reformed Churches), which was intended to be given to Maximilian II., and the estates of the German Em¬ pire on the day of election. For further particulars, see Winer, p. 19. [See also, De Felice, Histoire des Protestants de la France ; transl. by Lobdell, X. Y., 1851 ; Merle d’Aubigne ; Puaux , Hist, de la Ref. Frang., Tom. iv. 1860 ; Soldan , Gesch. des Protest, in Frankreich, 2, Leips., 1855.] 8 Commonly called the XXXIX. (at first XLII.) Articles, drawn up by Cranmer and Ridley in the reign of King Edward VI. (a. d. 1551), re¬ vised in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and confirmed 1562, by a Synod at London. They were originally published under the title : Articuli, de quibus convenit inter Archiepiscopos et Episcopos utriusque Provincial et Clerum universum in Synodo, Londini anno 1562, secundum computationem Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem, et consensum in vera rel. firmandum; editi auctoritate serenissimae Reginae, 1571. The English edition is given in the Book of Common Prayer, the Latin in Corp. et Synt. i.?p. (125) 99, ss. Augusti, p. 126, ss. A Church Catechism was composed by John Poinet (1553) in four sections, by order of King Edward YI. Comp. Winer, p. 22. Marsh , Bp. [Comparative View of the Churches * Only in Basle it was not received until a later period ; this delay was occasioned by the Crypto-Calvinistic movements of Sulzer : see Hagenbarh, Gesch. d. Confess. § 222. Theology of the Reformed Church. 167 of England and Rome, 1814, 1841.] Germ, transl. by F. Eichel , Grimma, 1848. [CAs. Hardwick , Hist, of Articles of Religion (documents from 1536 to 1615) ; new ed., 1859. Burnet , Welchman , 1692, and Browne on the XXXIX. Articles. S hype's Annals. E. Cardwell , Hist, of Conferences on Book of Prayer (1558-1690), 3d ed., 1849 ; ibid., Documentary Annals of Church of England, 1546-1716, 2 vols., 1843 ; Formularies of Faith, put forth in the Reign of Henry VIII., and Three Primers, put forth in the same reign ; Collection of Articles, etc. Dean Nowell's Catechism, 1572, new ed. by W. Jacobson. Sparroiv's Hist, of Articles, Injunction, etc., 4to., 1684, 1846; ibid., Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer, 1724. E. Bulley, Tabular View of Variations in the Communion and Baptismal Offices of the Church of England, 1540 to 1662, Oxf., 1842. The Book of Common Prayer is to be taken with the XXXIX. Articles, in estimating the doctrinal position of the Church of England. Besides the above works, see Wheatley, Rational Illustration of Book of Common Prayer, 1720, 1846 ; Shepherd, 2 vols., 1801; Thos. Lathbury, Hist, of Book of Common Prayer, 2d ed., 1859; Procter, 1857. — The Homilies of the Church of England, 1st Book, 1547; 2d Book, 1563; edited by Prof. Corrie , Camb., 1850. — Gibson, Codex Juris. Ecclesiastici Anglicani, 2 fob, 1761. — First Prayer Book, 1549; revised ' 1552 ; XLII. Articles, 1552-3, by Cranmer, not adopted by Convocation — several of the articles from Augsb. Confession ; XXXIX. Articles, 1552, by Alp. Parker, making use of Wurtemberg Confes¬ sion; altered to XXXVIII. in 1563; in 1571 restored to XXXIX. and made binding. The XXXIX. Articles were ratified by the Protest. Episcopal Church in the United States ; the Book of Common Prayer, revised under direction of the First General Convocation, Phila., 1786 (omitting Nicene and Athanasian creeds, absolution, baptismal regeneration, etc.), but nearly all restored (excepting the Athanasian creed and absolution in visitation of the sick), in consequence of the objections of the English bishops.] 7 It was published, a. d. 1560, and consisted of 25 articles. Its principal author was the Scotch Reformer John Knox (his views on the doctrine of predestination were less Calvinistic than those on the Lord s Supper). Corpus et Syntagma i. (137) p. 109, ss. Augusti, p. 143, ss. Another confession from the year 1581 is appended. Different is the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1643. (Cantabr., 1659, 8 ; Edinb., 1671, 12). Comp. Gemberg , schottische National Kirch e, p. 11. Winer, 1. c. See note below. \Niemeyer , 340-359, gives the two Scotch Confessions.] 8 It was drawn up at a Synod of the Hungarian Reformed churches, a. d. 1557 or 1558, and consisted of 11 articles. Schrockh, Kirchenges- chichte nach der Reformation, ii. p. 737. Corp. et Synt. i. (186,) p. 148, ss., after the Debreczin edition, 1570. Winer, p. 20. Augusti, p. 241, ss, 8 It was originally a private confession of Guido de Bres, and was first published a. d. 1562, in the Walloon language (it consisted of 37 articles). It was soon after translated into Dutch, approved by the Dutch churches, and even signed by several princes. It was solemnly confirmed by the Synod of Dort. It was edited by Festus Hommius , Lugd. Bat., 1618, 4, and several times subsequently. See Augusti, p. 170, ss. [See Brandt's History of Ref., Lond., 1720, vol. i., p. 143, sq. Niemeyer, loc, cit, p, 360- 168 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 389 ; also Prsefatio, p. lii-lvii. Venema , Inst. Hist. Eccl. vii. p. 252, sq. It was at first a private document of de Bres ; revised by Saravia, Modetus, and Wingen ; published 1563 ; abbreviated by the synod of Antwerp, 1566. The longer form was adopted by the synod of Wesel, 1568, and of Embden, 1571. The Middleburg synod, 1581, ordered the shorter form to be abridged and translated into Belgic. The edition of Hommius, 1618, was published for the use of the synod of Dort ; but the formula as adopted at Dort differs considerably from that given by Hommius. Niemeyer , reprints the edition of Hommius. English version in the Appendix to Constitution of llutch Reformed Church, pp. 40-60.] 10 Its original title was : Des hochgebornen Fiirsten Johann Siegmund, etc., Bekanndniss von jetzigen unter den Evangelischen schwebenden und in Streit gezogenen Punkten, etc. (i. e. the Confession of the illustrious Prince John Sigismund, etc., concerning those points respecting which Protestants are now at issue). It consisted of 16 articles. It is not to be confounded with the confession of faith adopted by the Reformed evangelical churches of Germany, which was published at Frankfort on the Oder, 1614, by order of the same prince. For further particulars, see Winer, p. 21. It is re¬ printed by Augusti , p. 369, ss. 11 It was composed by Calvin , and appeared 1541, in a French edition, and 1545, in a Latin one. It consists of 4 principal parts (Faith, Law, Prayer, and Sacraments). Calvini Opera T. viii. p. 11, ss. Winer , p. 22. Augusti, p. 460. [Calvin drew up a Catechism in 1536, published in Latin, 1538. See Henry's Life of Calvin, ii. 150. In 1541, he revised it, and it was probably published first in French, and then in Latin. See Niemeyer , xxxvii.-xli. 123-190.] 12 Adopted by a General Synod in Poland, convened for pacification, under Vladislas IV., in Thorn, 1645, it came to be very generally received in a large part of the Reformed Church of Eastern Europe. [See also the Consensus Polonise in Niemeyer, 560-591.] 13 See the special history of doctrines (the chapters on predestination). 14 It lasted from a. d. 1618, Nov. 13th, to a. d. 1619, May 9th, and held 145 sessions. Its decrees, etc., were published in the Acta Synodi Nationalis, etc. Port, 1620, 4. [In Niemeyer, pp. 690-728. In English, in Appendix to Constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church, 60-75. Acts of the Synod of Dort, Bond., 1620, fol. See too, Vinke, Libri Symbolici Eccles. Reform. Nederlandiese, Traj. ad Rhenum, 1846, which also contains the First Confess, addressed to Philip II., the Confession Ancienne of 1-566, etc. The Articles of the Synod of Dort, and its Rejection of Errors, transl. by Thomas Scott , L2roo., Utica, 1831. Comp. Schweizer, Protest. Central Dogmen, ii. 31-201. Hales (John) Golden Remains; and, Hist. Concil. Dordrech. ed. Moshemius,x Harnb,, J728„ Graf, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. Synode von Dordrecht, Basel, 18.24] It was directed, in the first instance, against the theory of the univer¬ sality, ef; grace, advocated in the academy of Saumur (comp. § 225, note 3), and was instigated chiefly by Heinrich Heidegger, of Zurich, Francis Tur - retm, of Geneva, and Lucas Gernler, of Basle. The draft was drawn up by Heidegger ..under the title : Formula Consensus Ecclesiarum Ilelveticarum § 222. Theology of the Reformed Church. 169 Reform atar urn circa doctriuam de gratia universal], et connexa, aliaque nontmlla capita. It consists of 26 articles. As to its history, and the controversies to which it gave rise, as well as concerning its final abolition (by the intervention of Prussia and England, a. d. 1723,) see Pfaff , C. M., Schediasma de Form. Consens. Helvet. Tub. 1723, 4. — Hottinger , J. J., Succincta ac Genuina Formulae Consensus Helv. Historia (in the Bib!. Brem. vii. p. 669, ss. It was separately published, Zur. 1723). Memoires pour servir a l’liistoire des troubles arrivees cn Suisse a l’occasion du Consen¬ sus. Amst. 1726 (by Barnaud , pastor at La Tour, near Vevay). Leonh. Meister , helvet. Scenen der neuern Schwarmeri und Intoleranz. Zurich, 1785, p. 3, ss. j Escher, in the Allgemeine Encyclopaedic, 1. c. p. 243, ss. Alex. Schweizer , Die theologisch-ethischen Zustande (§ 223, note 21), s. 35, sq. [6rcm, Gesch. d. Protest. Dogmatik, ii. (1857), s. 328-374. Syntagma Thesium Theologicarum in Acad. Salmur., ed. 2, Salm., 1664. Aymon ., Tons les Synodes Nationales des Eglises Reform, ii. 604, sq. Dallaeus , Apologia pro duabus Synodis, Amst.., 1685. Rlveti Opera, iii. Tom : Synopsis Doctrinae de Natura et Gratia (Tom. iii. p. 830, sq.) Schiveizer, Protest. Centraldogmen, ii., Die Amyraldischen Streitigkeiten, s. 225-439 ; der Hel- vetische Consensusformel, s. 439-564, and s. 663-748 ; and in Theol. Jahrb. (Tubing.), 1852, i. 41, ii. 155.] Among the symbols of the Reformed Church are further enumerated : the Confessiones Polonicae, (1. Consensus Sendomiriensis, 1570. 2. Thoruniensis Synodi generalis, A. d. 1595, d. 21, Aug. celebratas canones). Confessio Bohemica, 1535 (1558, 4.) Colloquium Lipsiacum, 1631. Declaratio Thoruniensis, 1645. (They are all reprinted in the works of Augusti [and Niemeyer\ who also give all desirable historical information.) — On the symbols of the Puritans see, Niemeyer , G. A ., Collections Confessionum in Ecclesiis Re¬ formats publicatarum. Appendix., Lips., 1840. Conf. Westmonasteriensis (1659, 60, 64), and the two Catechisms (1647). Hallische Literatur Zeitung, Jan., 1841. [The Westminster Assembly , convened by order of Parliament, 1643, consisting of 151 members. The Confession was presented to the Commons, Dec. 11, 1646 : Shorter Cate¬ chism, Nov. 5, 1647 : Larger Catechism, April 5, 1648. The General Assembly of Scot¬ land ratified the Confession, Aug. 27, 1647, and the Catechism, July, 1648. The Synod „of Cambridge, New England, adopted the Confession in 1648. The Savoy Confession , drawn up by the Independents, 1658, is, in its doctrinal parts, nearly identical with the Westminster; a Boston Synod, 1680, adopted this Confession; in 1708 it was adopted at Saybrook, for the Connecticut churches. The West. Confess, was adopted by the Presb. church in America, 1729 (Adopting Act) ; it is also received by the various branches of Presbyterians in Scotland, Ireland, and the United States. The Baptists of England adopted a Confession of Faith, Bond., 1643. Conf. of the Seven Churches, published, 1646, in 52 articles; and the Confession of the Assembly in 1688 (London), in 35 chap¬ ters (called in the United States the Philadelphia Confession). Comp. S. S. Cutting , Histl. Vindication, Bost., 1859. Some English Baptists in Amsterdam, published a Con¬ fession in 1611 ; another London Confession, 1640 ; Somerset’s Confession, 1656. See Ed. Dean Underhill , Conf. of Faith of Baptists, for Hansard Knollys Society, LoncL, 1854.] 170 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. § 223. THE SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMED CHURCH. On the literature, compare § 216. Al Schweizer, Reformirte Glaubenslehre (Introduction), and his Protestant. Oentraldogmen, Zurich, 1854-6. Ebrard, Dogmatik i. 62, sq., [transl. in Mercersburg Qu. Rev., 1857. Gass, ubi supra. Heppe , Dogmatik des Deutschen Protest. Bd. i. s. 139-204, Entstehung und Ausbildung der deutsch-reformirt. Dog¬ matik. Twesten , Dogmatik. i. (1834), s. 226-273. Hagenbach's Leben und aus- gewahlte Schriften der Vater und Begriinder der reformirt. Kirche, IX. Bande.] Systematic theology was on the whole less cultivated in the Re- formed Church than exegesis, though it was not kept in the back¬ ground. In addition to the labors of Zwingle and Calvin (§ 219), many of their followers,* such as Heinr. Bulling ery Andr. Gerh. Hyperius ,2 Wolfgang Musculus [ Dusanus ],3 Ben. Aretius ,4 Wilh. Bucanus ,5 Theodore Beza ,6 Petrus Ramus / Daniel Chamier* and others, wrote compendiums of dogmatic theology. The scholastic method, too, soon found its way into the Reformed Church, as the representatives of which we may mention Bartholomew Keeker - mann ,9 Amandus Polanus a Polansdorff J. H. Alstedf John Sharp f John Wollebiusf Henry Altingf John Maccoviusf Gis - bert Voetiusf Mark Frederick Wendelinf John Hornbeck ,18 Samuel Maresiusf Andrew Rivelusf and, preeminently, John Henry Heidegger .21 A peculiar theological system, in the so-called federal method, was inaugurated by J. Cocceiusf and more fully developed by his followers, the most eminent of whom were Francis Burr mann ,23 Abraham Heidanusf Hermann WitsiusP Melchior Leydecker , on the other hand, treated the whole system of theology in the order of the three persons of the Trinity.26 Others, again, adopted other methods.27 1 Bullinger was born a. d. 1504, and died 1575. See Hess, Lebensge- schichte Heinrich Bullingers, 2 vol., 1828, 29. — He wrote : Compend. Eel. Christ, e puro Dei Verbo deproratum, Basil., 1556. Concerning the part which he took in the composition of various confessions of faith, see the preceding §. [On Bullinger, see Schenkel in Herzog’s Realencyclop. and * [Peter Martyr Vermilius, Bucer , Capito , Oecolampadius , Pictet , and Myconius also de¬ serve mention as helping to give shape to* the Reformed system. Peter Martyr, an Italian, taught in Strasburg, Oxford, and Zurich, died 1562. His theological system was first published in England, by Massonius : then more fully under the title Loci Communes (ed. Gualter), Zurich, 1580, 1626, Heidelb., 1622. Comp. G. Schmidt, in Hagenbach's Leben der Vater der Ref. K. McCrie's Reform, in Italy. Bucer (Butzer, Mart.) b., 1491, taught in Strasburg, in England, 1549, died, 1551. No complete edition of his works; one pro¬ jected in 10 vols. See Schenkel, in Herzog's Encycl. Baum, in Hagenbach's Leben d. Vater. — Capito (Kopfel), b., 1478, also in Strasburg, died 1541. See Ilagenbach in Herzog's Encycl., and Baum in the Leben der Vater.— Of Oecolampadius and Myconius , Hagen- bach has written the lives in his Leben d. Vater d. reform. Kirche.] § 223. Theology of the Reformed Church. 171 Schioeizer , loc. cit. Ilis Judgment in certeyne matters on Religion, transl., 1566; 50 Sermons in vol. 5 of Parker Soc. Publications; A hvndred Sermons, 1561 ; bis Decades, by Parker Soc., 4 vols., 1849-52; for a list of bis other works transl., see Lowndes’ Bibliog. Manual, Bobn’s ed., 1858, i. pp. 309, 10. B’s Leben und Scbriften, by C. Pestalozzi , in Hagenbacb’s Leben und Scbriften der Vater, etc.] 8 Hyperius was born, a. d. 1511, at Ypres, and died 1564, as professor of theology in the university of Marburg. His theological works are : Metbodi Theologise sive praecipuorum Christ. Rel. Locorum Communium Lib. iii. Basil., 1568, 8. Yaria Opuscula Tbeol. ibid., 1570, 71. Comp. Semler's Einleitung zu Baumgarten’s Glaubenslehre, p. 46, ss. Heinrich , p. 293, ss. [On Hyperius , compare Manggold in Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1855, and in Herzog’s Realen cyclop. Heppe , Dogmatik derdeutschen Protest, i. 145, sq, Gass , i. 131.] 3 His proper name was Muslin, or Mosel. He was born a. d. 1497, in Lothringia, and died 1563, as professor of theology in the university of Berne. He is the author of: Loci Communes Theol., Berne., 1573, 8. Opp. Bas. ix. fol. Semler , 1. c. p. 56, note 28. Gass , 131. 4 Aretius died a. n. 1574, as professor of theology in the university of Berne ; was previously professor in Marburg. He wrote : Theologica Pro- blemata sive Loci Communes, Bern., 1604. Semler , 1. c. p. 54, note 26. Heinrich , 296. Gass , 131. 3 Bucanus was professor of theology in the university of Lausanne, towards the commencement of the seventeenth century, and wrote : Institutt. Theol., etc., Brem., 1604. Genev., 1612. 6 JBeza was born a. d. 1519, at Vecelay, and died 1605. (Compare his biography by Schlosser , Heidelb., 1809.) QusestiomHn et Responsionum Christ. Libellus in his Tractt. Theol. vol. i. p. 654. Baum's Beza, 2 Bde., 1843-52, and Beilagen. [ Beza's Brief Declaration of the Table of Predes¬ tination, transl., London (no date) ; Sermons, 1687 ; other works translated, see in Lowndes , ubi supra, p. 169, Herzog in his Encyclopedia. Heppe' s Life of Beza is to form vol. vi. of Hagenbach’s Leben der Vater der reform. Kirche.] 7 Peter Ramus (de la Ramee) was born at Cuth, in Picardy, and died a martyr, St. Bartholomew’s night, Aug. 25, 1572. He wrote: Commenta- v riorum de Religione Christ, lib. iv., Francof., 1576. De Fide, de Lege, de Precatione, de Sacramentis.) [ Chs . Waddington , Ramus, sa Vie, ses Ecrits, Paris, 1855. Ritter, Gesch. der Christl., Phil. v. 471. Tennemann, ix. 420. Eclectic (Lond.), Sept. 1856. Hallam's Lit. Europe, i. 205.] 8 Chamier was born in Dauphiny ; died Oct. 16, 1621, professor at Mom tauban, during the siege of that city. He wrote : Panstratia Catholica, s. Corpus Controversiarum ad versus Pontificios, Genev., 1606, v. vol. fol. Cor¬ pus Theol ogicum, s. Loci Communes Theologici, ib., 1653, fol. (opus pos- thumum.) [Memoir of Chamier, with Notices of his Descendants, Lond., 1852. Haag, in La France Protestante, iii. 316. C. Schmidt, in Herzog’s Eneyclop.]* * Other Reformed divines of the 16th century are Francis Junius , died 1602, professor 172 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 9 Keckermann , born at Pantzic, was professor in the university of Heidel¬ berg, and died 1609, Aug. 25th (Adami Vitae Philos, p. 232, ss. Bayle , Piet. : “ his ivorks abound in plagiarisms , and have themselves been plagiar¬ ised by many others .”) He wrote : Systema Theol. tribus libris adornat. Hanoviae, 1607. Opp. Genev., 1614, 4. Gass, 408. 10 Polanus was born at Troppau, -in Silesia, a. d. 1561, delivered lectures in the university of Basle, and died 1610 (comp. Athenae Raur. p. 37.) He composed a Syntagma Theol. Christ. Han., 1610. See Gass , i. 396. [6ras$ says Polanus gave the first example of an elaboration of the doctrinal system, expounding and making distinctions, in the causal method.] 11 Alsted was born a. d. 1588, at Herborn, and died at Weissenbourg, a. d. 1638, where he was professor of theology. His works are very numerous: Theologia Naturalis Francof., 1615, 22, 4. — Theologia Catechetica, ib., 1622, 4, Han., 1722, 4. — Theologia Scholastica, ib., 1618, 4. — Theol. Didactica, 1627, 4.— -Theologia Polemica, ibid., eod. — Theologia Prophetica. ib., 1622, 4. — Theol. Casuum., Hanov., 1630, 4. Gass , 411. 12 Sharp (J. Scoto-Brittanus), was professor at Pie on the Prome, in Pauphiny. He wrote : Cursus Theologicus, in quo Controversies omnes de Fidei Pogmatibus inter nos et Pontificios pertractuntur, et ad Bellarmini Argumenta respondetur, ed. 2, Genev., 1620. See Schweizer , s. xxi. [He also wrote Symphonia Prophetarum et Apostolorum, Genev., 1670.] J3 John Wollebs was born 1586, died 1629, professor of theology at Basle. He wrote: Compendium Christ. Theolog., Basle, 1626 ; also trans¬ lated into English, Christian Pivinity [Abridgment of Christ. Pivinitie, by Bose , with the Anatomy of the whole Body of Pivinitie, 12mo., 1650.] He is distinguished for simplicity. Ebrard (Pogmatik), calls him “ one of the greatest theologians 'that ever lived? Comp. Gass, i. 397 [and Schweizer , 11. 26, who contest this judgment.] 14 John H. Alting, born at Emden, was professor at Heidelberg from 1613, died 1644, professor in Groningen. Works : Problemata turn theoretica, turn practica, Amst., 1662, 4to. — Theologia Elenchtica, Bas., 1670, Amst., 1664. — Method. Theol. Pidact., Amst., 1650. Tiguri, 1673. His son, Jacob Alting, was also distinguished in theology and polemics; Methodus Theol. in his Opera, Amst., 1687. See Gass , i. 434. [AT. Alting also wrote : Theologia Historica, Amst., 1664. Exegesis Augustan. Confess., 1652. See Schweizer, in Herzog's Realencyclop.] 15 His proper name was Makowsky ; he was born at Lobzenik, in Poland, a. d. 1508, professor of theology in Franecker, and died a. d. 1644. He adopted the Aristotelian method of investigation, and composed : Loci Com- mun. Theol. Fran., 1639, 8, ed. auct. Nic. Arnold, 1650, 4. An improved edition of this work appeared 1685. In addition he wrote : Qusestiones Theolog. Frankcof., 1626, 8. Pistinctiones et Regulae Theolog. Amst., 1656, 12. Heinrich, p. 355. Gass, 441. 16 Voetius was born a. d. 1589, at Heusden, in Holland, held a professor¬ ship of theology in the university of Utrecht, and died 1676. (He opposed at Leyden ; Anton Sardel (Chardieu) ; Hieronymus Zanchius , died 1590 ; Boquin, died 1582. See Gass , 139. Heppe, 148. § 223. Theology of the Reformed Church. 173 Cartesius.) Works: Theol. Naturalis Reformata., Lond., 1656, 4. Insti- tutiones Theol. Traj., 1642, 4. — Disputationes Selectse, ibid. 1684, Amst., 1669, 5 vols. 4. — See Buddceus , i. p. 417 (3 75.) Heinrich , pp. 355, 356. Gass, i. 460. [ Schweizer , ii. 802.] 17 Wendelin was born a. d. 1584, at Sandhagen, near Heidelberg, and died 1652, at Zerbst, where he was Rector Gymnasii. He wrote: Christ. Theol. Libri. ii. methodice dispositi, Han., 1634, 41, Amst., 46, Christ. Theol. Systema Majus., Cassel., 1656, 4. Buddceus , p. 416. Heinrich , p. 356. Gass , 416. [ Schweizer , ii. 522.] 18 Hornbeck, was born a. d. 1617, at Haarlem, and died 1666, as a pro¬ fessor in the university of Leyden. He composed : Institute Theol. Ultraj., 1653, Lugd. Bat. 58, 8. See Buddceus, p. 417. Heinrich, p. 357. [6rass, ii. 287, 293. Schweizer , i. 379. He also wrote Socinianismi Confutatio, 3 Tom., Amst., 1664.] 19 His proper name was des Marets ; he was born a. d. 1598, at Oisemont, in the province of Picardy, and died 1673, at Groningen. Works: Colle¬ gium Theologicum sive Systema Universale. Gron., 1658, 4. — Theologise Elenchticae nova Synopsis sive Index Controversiarum, etc., ibid., 1648, ii. 4, and several others. Gass, ii. 442. [He also wrote against Cocceius and Descartes : see Schweizer, ii., passim.] 30 Rivetus was born a. d. 1573, and died 1651. Most of his works were exegetical. The following is of a Polemico-dogmatic character : Catholicus Orthodoxus sive Summa Controversiarum inter Orthodoxos et Pontificios, Lugd. Bat., 1630, ii. 4. He also composed several controversial writings, and other treatises. Opp. Rotterd., 1651, 60, iii. fob [ Rivetus was espe¬ cially active against Amyraut and the school of Saumur. His writings against A. are in the 3d vol. of his Opera, pp. 828-878. Comp. Schweizer, ubi supra, s. 342-354. Gass, ii. 339-349. His collection of testimonies as to the doctrine of original sin in Theol. Essays, from the Princeton Rev. (Vol. I., 1846), pp. 196, sq .] 31 Heidegger was born in 1633 ; died, professor of theology, in Zurich, in 1698. He was the author of the Formula Consensus [see Schweizer, ii. 482, s^.] He also wrote: Medulla Theologise Christian. Tur., 1696, 1702, 17 13; Corpus Theol. Christ, s. Theol. didacticse, moralis et historicse Sys¬ tema, 2 fol. Tur., 1700, 1732.' Medulla Medullse, 1701. Also, many disser¬ tations. See Alex. Schweizer, Die theologisch-ethischen Zustande der 2. Halfte des 17, Jahrh. in d. Ztirich. Kirche Zur., 1857, s. 12, sq. [6r* Moulin (Peter Molinseus), born 1568, Prof, at Sedan, 1626, died 1658. See C. Schmidt , in Herzog , and Schweizer, ubi supra.] 11 [On the Formula Consensus, and its fate, see Schweizer , ii. 439-542, 663, sq. Gass , ii. 353-6.] § 225 b. [THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.] [The Anglican theology, like its polity, was gradually shaped, and occupied an intermediate position between the Roman Catholic and the Reformed systems. Doctrinal controversies were subordi¬ nated to ecclesiastical questions. The earlier reformers,1 Cranmer, Latimer , Hooper , Ridley , opposed chiefly the practical abuses of the papacy. The exiles under Mary returned (1559) from Frank¬ fort, Zurich, and Geneva, imbued with the principles of the Re¬ formed (Calvinistic) system. But the polity and faith of England, as shaped under Elizabeth, contained conflicting elements, repre¬ sented respectively by the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles (which latter were Calvinistic).2 An interme¬ diate position was occupied by Jewel* Grindal , Pilkington , and Abp. Parker .* The Puritan principles were advocated by Hooper ,a Thos. Cartwright ,6 Wm. Perkins .7 As late as 1578, Calvin’s Cate¬ chism was ordered to be used in the University of Cambridge. The Lambeth Articles of 1595,8 taught the strictest scheme of predestination. Ireland was represented by the learning and or¬ thodoxy of archbishop Usher .9 Scotland, with the Presbyterian system, also received from John Knox the principles of the school of Geneva, advocated by Andreiv Melville , Henderson , and others.10 At the end of the sixteenth century, and beginning of the seven¬ teenth, the Anglican system was represented by Richard Hooker 11 and others ;12 the episcopal system was defended by Donne , Field , Andrews , and Jackson.13 Abp. Laud,1* pressed the high church and sacramentarian tendencies, in conjunction with Arminian views, ( Montagu and Mainwaring ,)lb to their extreme consequences, op¬ posed in vain by the moderate Puritans,16 Davenant , Bp. Reynolds , Bp. Hall, Williams, Carleton, and Barlow. The conflict of the systems resulted in the temporary triumph of Presbyterianism and Calvin¬ ism in the Westminster Assembly 11 followed by the reaction under the Restoration (Charles II.) The Anglican system was subse¬ quently developed and expounded in a prolific and learned theologi¬ cal literature, which had for its ideal the theology of the church of § 225. Theology in England and Scotland. 183 the first four or five centuries, (Bp. Bull™ Jeremy Taylor,™ Isaac Barrow , " Bp. Cosin*1 Abp. Bramhall ,** Stillingfleet , Waterland, Sherlock , Abps. King and Wake , and was ably defended in its main doctrinal position by the non-jurors, Hickes, Leslie, Ket- tlewell, Johnson, Brett, and others).23 It reached the term of its development about the close of this period (1720). It was exhibited in its most systematic form in the works of Beveridge ,** Pearson ,25 and Burnet P Yet there were ..not wanting those in the established church, who still advocated the main principles of the Reformed theology (Abp. Leighton*1 South™ Ez. Hopkins , Manton , Barlow , and others.23) The more distinctive Puritan theology was advocated chiefly by the non-conformists, in thorough treatises and practical works by Charnock ,30 Thomas Watson,31 W. Bates,3* William Twisse 33 by Flavel and Bunyan ,34 by Thos. Goodwin , and many others ;36 and in a stricter and more comprehensive method by Richard Baxter,36 John Owen,31 John Howe,36 Theoph. Gale,3* Thos. Ridgeley,™ Matthew Henry and CalamyP The Antino- mian tendency was represented by Crisp P The Scotch divines,43 and the New England44 colonists from Great Britain remained faith¬ ful to the strict Calvinistic tradition.] [There weTe also other phases of theological opinion, of a less permanent influence. A Platonizing tendency was represented by Cudworth ,45 More and Norris,™ John Smith, of Cambridge, Gale, Culverwell, and others.47 Under Latitudinarianism was included a somewhat undefined class, as John Milton,™ Chillingworth ,49 arch¬ bishop Tillotson, 50 Samuel Clark, 51 Patrick, Whitby, Sykes, Whiston, and others.52 (The most important doctrinal controversy was the Trinitarian, in which Bull, Waterland, Samuel Clarke, Whiston, Sherlock, Watts, South, Stillingfleet, and Allix, bore a part. See § 234, 262.)] V 1 [The works of the early English Reformers are published most com¬ pletely by the Parker Society, 1840-1855, in 55 vols. Legh Richmond’s Fathers of the English Church, 8 vols., 1807-1812, contains the works of Frith , Barnes, Lancelot, Ridley, and other confessors under Henry VIII. Thomas Cranmer was born 1589, Abp. Canterb., 1532, burnt at the stake, Oxford, Mar. 25, 1556. He had chief part in drawing up the Prayer Books (1549, 1552), the Catechism of 1548, and the XLII. Articles of 1553. In the Homilies, he wrote that on Justification, 1547. Cranmer’s Bible, 1539. Works, Miscel. Writings and Letters, ed. J. E. Coxe, for Parker Soc.* 2 vols., 1844. Defence of Sacrament, 1550; and Answer to Stephen Gard¬ ner, on Eucharist, 1580, 4to. (Lat. transl. of Defence by Sir John Cheke, 1557). Works by Jenkyas, 4, 8vo., 1834. Life by Strype, Le Bas, BL J. Todd, and others. Compare Rev. J. J. Blunt, in Quarterly Review, rep. in his Essays, 1860. On Cranmer and his theological position, see Corres¬ pondence between the Bp. of Exeter and T. B. Macaulay, Lond^ 1861. Hugh Latimer, b. 1470; bp. Worcester, 1535 ; burnt at Oxford* 1555* 184 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Works by G. E. Corrie , for Parker Soc., 2 vols., 1845 (with Life by Wat¬ kins, 2 vols., 1824.) Life by G. L. Duyckink, N. Y., 1861. — Nicholas Rid¬ ley, bishop of Rochester, 1548, of London, 1550, burnt, 1555. Works, for Parker Soc., by H. Christmas, 1841.] 2 [See above § 222, note 6. See also note 15 below. In the Arian con¬ troversy, Dr. Waterland in his “ Case of Arian Subscription,” took the ground against Clarke, that an Arian could not subscribe, to which Sykes replied, that an Arian might, as well as an Arminian, since the Articles were Cal- vinistic. Waterland published a “ Supplement.” See also Toplady, 1769, and again, 1774, “ Historic Proof of the Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England,” 2 vols. Overton, True Churchman Ascertained, 1801, on the same side ; in reply, Archb. Daubeny, Vindici* Ecclesi* Anglican*, and Dean Kipling, Articles of the Church of Eng. proved to be not Calvinistic. Dr. Richard Laurence, Reg. Prof, in Oxf., the Bampton Lect., 1844, 4th ed., 1853, viz., An Attempt to illustrate those Articles of the Church of Eng¬ land, improperly considered Calvinistic. Bp. Tomline , Refutation of Cal¬ vinism, 1811. W, D. Matthias , of Dublin, Inquiry into the Doctrine of the Reformation, on the Calvinistic side ; and also Ed. Williams (b. 1730, d. 1813), Defence of Modern Calvinism against Bp. Tomline, 1812. W. Goode (Dean of Ripon), the Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants, enters largely into the same topic. See also Thos. Scott, Evang. Doctrine defended against Bp. Tomline, in his works, vols. 7 and 8. Comp. Brit, and For. Ev. Rev., Jan., 1861, on Theology of Church of England.] 8 [ John Jewel, b. 1522, bp. of Salisbury, 1560, died, 1571. “ The Church of England may be best studied in the writings of Jewel :” Warburton. “ It may be said of his surname, nomen omen Fuller. His Apologia Eccles. Anglic., 1522. (Eng. transl. by Lady Ann Bacon, 1562, and several others, last by Russell, Oxf., 1840), and Defence of the same against Hardinge, 1567, have been often reprinted. Works, 1609, 1611, etc. ; ed. by Jelf, 8 vols., 1847-8, and for Parker Soc., by Aiyre, 4, 1845-50. Life by Le Bas, 1835, and in Wordsworth's Eccles. Biog.] 4 [Edmund Grindel (Gryndall), b. 1517, bp. London, 1559, abp. York, 1570, of Canterb., 1575, d. 1583. Remains, for Parker Soc., by Nicholson, 1843. Life, by Strype, 1710. — James Pilkington, b. 1520, bp. Durham, 1561, d. 1575. Works, for Parker Soc., by Scholefield, 1842. — Matthew Parker, b. 1504, abp. Canterb., 1559, d. 1575 ; revised Bishop’s Bible, 1568 ; De Antiq. Brit. Eccl., 1605.] 6 [John Hooper, b. 1495, bp. Worcester and Gloucester, 1550; martyr, 1554. Works, for Parker Soc., by Carr and Nevinson, 2 vols., 1843-52. “The first Puritan.” Hopkins' Hist, of Puritans, Bost., 1858, vol. i.] 8 [Thos. Cartwright, b. 1535, Prof. Canbr., 1570-1, died 1603. Contest with Whitgift on the Admonition to Parliament, 1638, involving the ques¬ tions of episcopacy and the liturgy. — John Whitgift, b. 1530, Prof. Div. Camb., 1663, abp. Cant., 1583, d. 1603. Works, by Parker Soc., ed. John Ayre, 3, Camb., 1851-4. Life, by Stryke; by Sir E. Paul; Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog. Cooper's Athen* Cantabrig., vol. ii. (1586-1609) describes 92 works written by or ascribed to Whitgift.] § 225. Theology in England and Scotland. 185 7 [ William Perkins , b. 1558, d. 1602. Works, 3 fob, Lond., 1616. Ethica Christ., Basil, 1609. His Anatomy of Conscience, the first methodi¬ cal work in practical theology. William Whitaker , b. 1547, Prof, at Cam¬ bridge, 1579, d. 1595, also a Calvinist. On Bellarmine, Parker Soc., 1849. Works, Genev., 1610, 2, fol. — John Preston , b. 1587, d. 1628. See works in Darling , Cycl. Bibl. Ralph Hrownrig , bp. Exeter, b. 1592, d. 1659.] 8 [The Nine Lambeth Articles , were occasioned by Peter Baroe (French) Prof, in Cambridge, and Barret, of Caius College, teaching universal re¬ demption ; they inculcated predestination and reprobation. They had no formal church sanction in England, but were adopted by the Dublin Con¬ vocation, in Ireland, 1615. “ The Reformation in England ended by show - ing itself a decidedly Calvinistic movement ;” Christ. Remembrancer, Loud., 1845. The theological professors at Cambridge and Oxford were Calvinistic for fifty years from Elizabeth’s accession. Bucer and Peter Martyr were called by Cranmer to the chairs of divinity in Cambridge and Oxford, dur¬ ing the reign of Edward. Cranmer, too, in 1552, invited Calvin, Bullinger, and Melancthon to England, to aid in drawing up a Confession of Faith for the Protestant churches. Calvin’s Consensus Genevensis (on Predestina¬ tion), also had influence upon the framers of the Articles ; see Zurich Let¬ ters (by Parker Soc.) vol. 3, p. 325, where a letter by Traheren, dean of Chichester, to Bullinger is given, in which he says : “ The greater number among us, of whom I own myself to be one, embrace the opinion of John Calvin, as being perspicuous and agreeable to Holy Scripture.” See on the whole subject, Brit, and For. Evang. Rev., June, 1861, on Melancthon and the theology of the Church of England. The same article, p. 214, cites from bp. Jewel’s letter to Peter Martyr, 1562, after the articles had been passed : “ As to matters of doctrine, we have pared everything away to the very quick, and do not differ from your doctrine by a nail’s breadth.” Zurich Let¬ ters, 2d series, p. 59. See Princeton Review, July, 1855, on Zurich Letters and Character of the English Reformation.] 9 [ James Usher, b. 1580, bp. Meath, 1620 ; abp. Armagh., 1624, d. 1655. Wliole works, by Elrington, 16 vols., 8vo,, Dubl., 1847, sq. (vol. 3, on Rom. Cath. Controversy ; vol. 4, Gottschaleus de Predest. ; vol. 7, De Symbol. Apostol. ; vols. 8-10, Annals, etc). He proposed a modified episcopacy. Body of Divinity, 3d ed. fob, 1 648 (which “ he permitted, though not liking the whole see Notes and Qu. iv.)] 10 [ John Knox, b. at Gifford, East Lothian, 1505 ; Geneva, 1552-5 ; died, 1572. Conf. of Faith, 1560. Book of Discipline, 1560. Hist, of Ref., 1584, 1732. Works by Laing , 4 vols., 1846, sq. Life, by Thos. McCrie , Edinb., 1840. — Andrew Melville, b. 1545, Principal St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews, 1580 ; Prof, at Sedan; d. 1622. Life, by McCrie, 2 vols., 1824. — Alex. Henderson, b. 1583, Prof. St. Andrews ; leader of the Presbyte¬ rians ; d. 1646. Life, by McCrie and by John Alton , 1836. — George Gil¬ lespie, in Westminster Assembly, d. 1648; chief work, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Lond., 1646 (defence of Presbyterianism). — Robert Baillie, b. 1599, Principal of Univ. of Glasgow, d. 1662. Letters and Journals (2 vols., 1775), 3 vols. by Laing , 1841-3. — Samuel Rutherford, b. 1600 (?), Prof. 186 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. St. Andrews, 1639, d. 1665. Plea for Presbyterie, 1642 ; Christ dying, 1647 ; Letters, 1638 (1824.)] 11 [. Richard Hooker , b. 1553 ( ? ), master of Temple, 1585, Prebendary of Salisbury, 1591, died 1600. His Ecclesiastical Polity, more than any sin¬ gle work, has given shape to the Anglican divinity : first 4 Books, 1593, fol. ; fifth, 1597 ; seventh, 1617 ; sixth and eighth, posthumous, 1648, 4to. inter¬ polated (?). Works, fob, 1723. Keble's ed., 1836, 4, 8vo., repr., 3, 8vo., 1841 (New York, 2, 1857.) On first ed., see Notes and Qu. 2d Series, xi. 45. An edition by B. Hanbury, 1830, 3, 8vo. (with Life of Cartwright), from the Puritan side. Abridgments, 1705 ; Dubh, 1773 (Hemming’s) ; Analysis by Collinson, 1810. Life, by Isaak Walton, 1665, and often: by Gauden (in his ed. of 1662). Comp. Lowndes' Brit. Lit. “ There is no learning which this man hath not searched into ; nothing too hard for his understanding Stapleton. “The adamantine and imperishable worth of Hooker in his Eccl. Pol. Dr. Parr. Comp. Allibone , Diet, of Anthors. The work was in reply to Mr. Travers, of the Temple, who followed the views of Cartwright, whose lectures were prohibited by Abp. Whitgift ; Travers published a Memorial, to which Hooker replied. — Martin Marprelate Tracts , 1580, sq ., repr. as Puritan Discipline Tracts, Lond., 1843. Comp. Maskell’s Hist., 1845.] 12 [“ Hooker was not permitted to occupy the field of controversy alone, Bilson , Bancroft , Bridges , Cosin , and Dr. Adrian Saravia, a German, bene- ficed in England, appeared on the same side. Bradshaw defended the cause of the Puritans against Bilson, Fenner against Bridges, Morrice against Cosin, and Beza against Saravia, although the press was shut against them by law, and their books could only be published by stealth.” Bogue , cited by Allibone, u. s. — Thos. Bilson , b. 1536, d. 1616 ; bp. Worcester, 1596, of Winchester, 1597 : The Perpetual Government of Christ’s Church, 1593, and often; new ed. by Eden, Oxf., 1842. — Rd. Bancroft, b. 1544, abp. Can- terb., 1604, d. 1610. His sermon, 12 Jan., 1588, at St. Paul’s cross, started afresh the high church claims, and aroused a long controversy; John Bridges , bp. Oxford, d. 1618. Defence of Gov. of Church of England, 1587. — Cosin (see below). — Adrian Saravia, b. at Artois, 1531, Prof. Leyden, 1582, Prebendary of Canterb., etc., d. 1613 ; Divers. Tract. Theol., 1611, etc. — On the same side, John Overall, b. 1559, bp. Norwich, d. 1619 : Convocation Book, 1606 ; repr. Oxf., 1844. Rd. Crakanthorp , b. 1567, chaplain to Charles I., d. 1624 ; Defens. Eccl. Angh, 1625, new ed. in Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol., 1844. Henry Hammond, 1605-1660. Works, 4 fob, 1774. — Henry Thorndike, Prebendary of Westminster, d. 1672. Theol. Works in Lib. of Angl. Cath. Theol., 5 vol., 1844, sq. On Government of Churches; of Religious Assemblies; Principles of Christ. Truth, etc. — Wil¬ liam Bradshaw , Puritan, b. 1571, d. 1618; on English Puritanism, 1605 (Latin transl. by Ames); on Justification, 1615 (Lat. 1618). — William Fenner, b. 1600, d. 1640 (?) Works, fob, Lond., 1658. Jos. Bingham's Antiquities (1708-1722, 1726, Latin by Grischovius , Hal., 1724-29, 1751 ;) ed. Pitman. 9 vols., 1840 ; new ed. by Rd. Bingham, belong in part to the same controversy. Wm. Forbes, b. 1585, bp. Edinb., and died 1634 ; Con- siderationes Modestse ; also translated into English.] 13 [ John Donne, b. 1573, ordained at the age of 42, d. 1631, an eloquent § 225. Theology in England and Scotland. 187 preacher and poet ; Dryden calls him, “ the greatest wit of our nation.” Works, fol. 1640, 1644, 1660; new ed. 6 vols., 8vo., by Alford, Oxf., 1839. (Comp. Allibone , u. s.) — Rd. Field , dean of Gloucester, b. 1561, d. 1610; Of the Church, five Books, 1606, 3d ed. 1635 ; for Eccl. Hist. Soc., 4 vols., 1847-1852. Lancelot Andrews, b. 1555, bp. Winchester, 1618, d. 1626. Ninety-six Sermons, 5, 8vo., Oxf. Lib., 1841-3 ; Tortura Torti, ibid., 1851 ; Responsio ad Apolog. Card. Bellarmini, ibid., 1852. — Thos. Jackson , dean of Peterborough, b. 1579, d. 1640 ; originally a Calvinist, became an Armi- nian. Works, 3 fob, 1673 ; new ed., Oxf. 12 vols., 1844 ; 12 Books on the Apost. Creed ; Treatise on Church, ed. by Goode , 1843. Synoptical Table of his wrorks, J. H. Todd, 1838. Thos. Fuller, b. 1608, Prebend. Sarum, d. 1661, Church Hist. Britain, Nichols’ ed., 3 vols., 1837. Worthies of Eng¬ land ; Holy War ; Holy State, etc.] 14 [ William Laud,\>. 1573, abp. Canterb., 1633, beheaded, 1645. Re¬ mains, by Henry Wharton, 2 fob, 1695-1700. Works, in Lib. Angl. Cath. Theob, Oxf., 5 vols., 1847, sq . Life, by C. Webb Le Has , 1836 ; by J. P . Lawson, 1829; also by Heylin, 1668, and Prynne. Conference between Laud and Fisher (vol. 2 of works). On his Corresp. with Vossius, see Church Rev., Jan., 1854. Comp. Brit. Critic, vi. xix. New York, Rev., x.] 15 [ Richard Montagu (Mountague), b. 1578, bp. of Chichester and Nor¬ wich, 1638, d. 1641. Analect. Eccles. Exercitat., fob, 1622. On Baronins, Orig. Eccl. i., 1636. Acts and Monum. of the Church, 1642. Montagu was Laud’s agent in introducing Arminian views. He published, 1625, his Appello-Csesarem, to show that the formularies of the church allowed Calvinism ; replied to by bp. Carleton, of Chichester, see next note. In 1630, the jurist, Prynne, published his “ Anti-Arminianism, or the Church of England’s old antithesis to new Arminianism ; in which he said that up to that time only five men in England had publicly defended Arminian views viz., Barret and Baroe (note 8). Thompson, who wrote against the Perse¬ verance of the Saints, to which Prof. Abbot, bp. of Salisbury, replied ; Montagu and Dr. Thos. Jackson, who was originally a Calvinist. — Peter Heylin’ s Historia Quinqu-Articularis, 1659, is a prejudiced and untrust¬ worthy work on the Arminian side : replied to by Henry Hickman, in his Animadversiones, 1673. Comp. Brit, and For. Ev. Rev., Jan., 1861. An anonymous work by Samuel Hoard, rector of Morton, or Moreton, in Essex, was published in 1633, entitled, God’s Love to Mankind, manifested by dis¬ proving his Absolute Decree for their Damnation. Bp. Davenant replied to it in his Animadversione, 1641. Dr. William Twisse also answered it, 1653. And Amyraut, of Saumur, refuted it in his elaborate treatise, Doctrinse Joannis Calvini de absoluto Reprobationis Decreto Defensio adversus Scrip- torem anonymum, 4to., Salmurii, 1641. John Hales, b. 1584; at Synod of Dort, 1618; d. 1656. Golden Remains, 1673. Letters from Dort, etc. Works, by Lord Hailes , 3 vols., 1765. It is said that Hales became an Arminian at the Synod of Dort. On Jackson, see note 13, above. — On King James’s injunction to bishops, respecting Dort, see Neal's Hist. Puri¬ tans, vol. 2 ; Peter Heylin' s Hist, of the Five Articles.] 16 [John Davenant , b. 1576, bishop of Salisbury, 1621, d. 1641. Trea¬ tise on Justification, 1631 (in Latin), transh, 2, 8vo., Lond , 1844-6. Ex- 188 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. position of Colos., 1627, transl. with Life, by Josiah Allport , 2 vols., 1831. De Morte Christi et de Prsedest., fob, Cantab., 1630. Pralect. de Justitia habituali, 1631, etc. Joseph Hall , b. 1574, at Synod of Dort, bp. Exeter, 1627, of Norwich, 1641, d. 1656. New ed. of works, by Pratt, 1808, 10 vols. ; by Peter Hall, 12 vols., 1837-9. — George Carleton , bishop of Llandaff, 1618, at Synod of Dort, d. 1628. Examination of Montagu on Pelagianism and Arminianism, 1626. — Ed. Reynolds , b. 1599, bp. Norwich, 1660, d. 1676. Works, fob, 1658, 1679 ; 6 vols., 8vo-., 1826, by Rivelay (new ed. proposed by Nichol, Edinb.) Ralph Hrowning , b. 1592, bp. of Exeter, d. 1659. Serm., fob, Lond., 1645 ; a very able divine. John Prideaux , b. 1578, bp. Worcester, 1641, d. 1650. XXII. Lectiones de totidem Religionis Capitibus, fob, Oxon., 1648. Fasciculus Controvers. Theolog., etc., 1664.] 17 [See § 224, last paragraph of notes.] 18 [ George Bull , b. 1634, bp. St. David’s, 1705, d. 1 710 ; Harmonia Apostol. (Paul and James on Justification), 1670, transl. by Wilkinson, 1801. Oxf., 1842. Defensio Fidei Nicenae, 1685 ; new transl. Oxf., 2 vols., 1851-2. Judicium Eccles. Cathol. . . .de necessitate credendi quod. . . .Jesus Christus sit verus Deus, transl. York, 1825 (for which Bossuet transmitted “the con¬ gratulations of the whole clergy of France”). Latin works, ed. Grabe1 1703. Sermons and Disc., with Life, by Rob. Nelson , 4 vols., 1713 ; 3 vols., 1816, 1840. Works, ed. Burton , 8 vols., 1827, 1846. Latin works, transl. in Angl. Cath. Lib.] 19 [ Jeremy Taylor , b. 1613, sequestered, 1642, bp. Down and Connor, 1660, d. 1667. Works collected by Heber , 15 vols., 1822, 3d ed., 1839 ; by Eden , 10 vols.: Liberty of Prophesying; Unum Necessariuin — on Repentance; Deus justificatus — on Original Sin; Real Presence; Dissuasive from Popery ; Rule of Conscience, etc. Biography, by R. A. Wilmott, 1847.] 20 [Isaac Barrow , b. 1630, Master of Trinity Colb, Cambr., 1672, d. 1677. Theol. works by Tillotson, 3 vols., fob, 1683, vol. 4, 1687 ; 1741 : in 8 vols., Oxf., 1830. Eng. works, New York, 3 vols., 1847. Sermons on Creed. Pope’s Supremacy. Comp. Alliboned\ 21 [John Cosin, b. 1590, bp. Durham, 1663, d. 1672. Works in Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol., Oxf., 5 vols., 1843-53. Scholastical Hist. Canon, 1683 ; of Transubstantiation, 167 6 (in Latin, 1675), etc. 22 [John Bramhall , b. 1593, abp. Armagh, 1662, d. 1663. Works, 5 vols., in Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol., Oxf., 1842-5.] 23 [Edward Stilling fleet, b. 1635, dean St. Paul’s, 1678, bp. Worcester, 1689, d. 1699. Works, 6 fob, Lond., 1710. Origines Sacrse (1 70 1 , 1837). Orig. Britan., repr., 1842. Unreasonableness of Separation. Doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction (1697—1700). Yind. of Trinity. Letters to Locke, 1697. Grounds of Prot. Religion, 2d ed., 1681, repr., 2 vols., 1844. Against In¬ fallibility of Rome, 1673, etc. — William Sherlock, dean of St. Paul’s, b. 1641, d. 1707. Knowledge of Jesus Christ, 1674. Church Unit}7, 1681. Summary of Controversies with Church of Rome. Preservative against Popery, 1688 (in Gibson's Preserv. xi., 104.) Religious Assemblies, etc. — Daniel Waterland, b. 1683, archd. of Middlesex, 1730, d. 1740. Works, 11 vols. in 12, Oxf., 1823-28; 6 vols., 1843; Life, by bp. Van Mildert . Vindication of Christ’s Divinity in Reply to Clarke. Moyer Lectures. Hist. § 225. Theology in England and Scotland. 189 of Athanasian Creed. Importance of Doctrine of Trinity. Degeneration. Eucharist, etc. — Abp. King , b. 1650, bp. Derry, 1691, abp. Dublin, 1702, d. 1729. De Origine Mali, 1702; Origin of Evil, ed. by Edm. Law , 4th ed., 1758. Divine Predest., 1710, 1815, by Whately, 1821. Key to Divinity, Part 1, 1715. — Peter Heylin, b. 1600, Prebend. Westminst., 1631, d. 1662. Theologia Veterum, on Apostles’ Creed, fob, Lond., 1673. Hist, of Ref. of Chh. of Eng., 1674; 2 vols., 1849 ; by Robertson , for Eccl. Hist. Soc., etc. —George Hickes , b. 1642, non-juring bp. of Thetford, 1694, d. 1715. On Christ. Priesthood, 4th ed., 2 vols., Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol., Oxf., 1847. Order of Lord’s Supper. Controversial Discourses, 1705, 3d ed., 1727, etc. — Chs. Leslie (non-juror), d. 1722. Theol. Works, 2 fol., 1721, 7 vols., Oxf., 1832. John Kettlewell (non-juror), b. 1653, d. 1695. Works, 2 fob, 1719. — Matthew Scrivener , Course of Divinity, fob, 1674. — John Johnson , Vicar of Cranbrook, b. 1662, d. 1725 (a non-juror). The Unbloody Sacrifice, 2 vols., in Oxf. Lib., 1847. Collect, of Eccl. Laws, 2, 1720, Oxf. 1850-1 ; Discourses, etc. — William Wake , b. 1657, bp. Lincoln, 1705, abp. Canterb., 1716, d. 1737. Expos, of Doct. of Church of England, and Defence, 1686. Authority of Christian Princes, and Appeal, 1697-8. Comm, on Catechism. On Convocation, 1703 (most important of the works on this topic). Transl. of the Epistles of the Fathers. Sermons and Disc. — Thos. Brett , non-juror, b. 1667, d. 1743. An Account of Church Government, best ed., 1710. On Tradition, 1718 ; Liturgies, 1720; Episcopacy, 2d ed., 1728.] 34 [ William Beveridge , b. 1636, bp. St. Asaph, 1704, d. 1708. Works, by T. H. Horne, 9 vols., 1824. Eng. Theol. Works, 10 vols., Oxf., 1844-8 (vol. 7 contains the lost MS. Exposition of Art. 31-39, discovered by Routh). On Thirty-Nine Articles ; Church Catechism ; Thesaurus Theologicus (vols. 9, 10); Codex Canonum, 2 vols., Oxf., 1848, Synodicon: Pandectae Ca- nonum ab Eccles. Grsec. recept., 2 fob, Oxf., 1672-82 ; Vindication of same, 1679.] 35 [ John Pearson,}). 1612, Margaret Prof. Camb., 1661, bp. Chester, 1673, d. 1686. Exposition of the Creed, 3d ed. (last corrected by the author), fob, 1669 ; 12th ed. 1741 ; Dobson's ed., 1840 (repr. New York) ; Burton's ed., 1847; Chevallier's , 1849. Minor Theol. Works, ed. Churton, 2 vols., Oxf., 1844. Vind. Epist. S. Ignat., in Cotelerius, and in 2 vols. ed. Churton, Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol., Oxf., 1852. Annals St. Paul, Camb., 1825.] 26 [ Gilbert Burnet , b. 1643, Prof, in Glasgow, 1669, bp. Salisbury, 1689, d. 1714-15. Expos, of XXXIX. Articles, 1699, fob, revised ed. J. R. Page , 1843, repr. New York. Vind. of Ordinations of England, 1677 (in Gibson's Preservation, 2, 109.) Hist. Ref. Ch. Engl., vol. i. 1679, vol. ii. 1681, vol. iii. 1715 (The only work for which the English Parliament voted public thanks, with a request for its continuation. Bossuet was em- * ployed upon a reply) ; 7 vols., Oxf., 1829 ; 2 royal 8vo., By Nares, 4 vols. (restoring suppressed passages). Hist, of his Own Times, posthumous, 1724-34. For his other works, see Allibone , Lowndes , Darling. ] 27 [. Robert Leighton, b. 1613, principal Univ. Edinburg, Abp. Glasgow, 1670-4, d. 1684. Exposition of Creed. Theolog. Lectures (Praelect. Theol., Lond., 1808.) Comm, on 1st Peter. Works by Pearson, 4 vols., 1830; also in 2 vols.] 190 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 28 [ Robert South , b. 1633, Prebend, of Westminster, 1663, d. 1716. Sermons, 7 vols., Oxf., 1823; 5 vols., 1842; Lond. 4 vols. 1843 ; 2 vols., 1850. Animadversions on Sherlock’s Trinity, 1693.] 29 [ Ezekiel Hopkins , b. 1633, bp. of Derry, 1681, d.- 1690. Works fol., 1710; 4 8vo., 1809 ; 2 8vo., 1841, with life by Pratt. Doctrines of Two Covenants, 1712. — Thomas Manton , b. 1620, d. 1677 : “The best collector of sense of the age,” Charnock. Works, 5 fol. (see in Darling , Cycl. Bibb, not complete; new ed. projected by Nichol, Edinb.) — John Edwards, b. 1637, d. 1716. Theologia Reformata, 2 fob, Lond., 1713; Theol. Ref. (practical part), fob, 1726. Replies to Whitby, Clarke, Abp. King (on Pre- dest.) — Anthony Tuckney , b. 1599, Reg. Propat., Cambr., 1661, d. 1670. Forty Sermons, 1776, etc. — Thomas Barlow , b. 1607, bp. Lincoln, 1675, d. 1691, a learned Calvinistic divine. Popery, 1679. Brutum Fulmen (bull of Pius V. against Elizabeth), 1681. Rights of Bishops, 1680. Miscl. Cases and Genuine Remains (posthumous, against B.’s wish, by Sir Peter Pett, 1690-1, etc.] 80 [Stephen Charnock , b. 1628, d. 1680. Works (posthumous) 2 fob, Lond., 1682-3 ; 9 vols., 8vo., 1815, by Ed. Parsons , with Memoir. Disc, on the Attributes, 2 vols., 1834, New York, with life, by Symington , 1856. “ Perspicuity and depth ; metaphysical subtlety and evangelical simplicity;” Toplady. A new ed. of his works to be published by Nichol, Edinb.] 31 [ Thos . Watson, educated at Cambridge, minister in Lond., 1646-62, d. 1689. A Body of Divinity, on the Assembly’s Catechism, fob, 1692- 1741, New York, 1856.] 32 [ William Bates, b. 1625, d. 1699. Harmony of Divine Attributes in Redemption of Man, 1697. The Four Last Things, 1691. Works, 4 8vo., by Farmer, Lond., 1815. Vitae Select. Yirorum (anonym.), Lond., 1681.] 33 [William Twisse, b. 1575, Prolocutor of Westminster Assembly, in 1643. Opera, 3 fob, Amst., 1652 (De Yindiciis Gratise, agst. Arminius ; De Scientia Media). Edited (with Savile) Bradwardine’s De Causa Dei 1618.] 34 [ John Flavel , b. 1627, non-conform., d. 1691. Whole works, 2 fob, 1 7 01 , 1740; 6 vols., Lond., 1820. Fountain of Life. Method of Grace, 1698. Pneumatologia, 1698. Expos, of Catechism, 1692. — John Punyan , b. 1628, d. 1688. He wrote as many works as he lived of years (60). Pilgrim's Progress (“ the best Summa Theol. Evangelicae ever produced by a writer not miraculously inspired,” Coleridge ), original ed. repr. by Offer, 1849. Works, 2 fob, 1692, and often ; 6 vols. by Mason, 1684; best ed. by Offer, 3 vols., 1853. (Doctrines of Law and Grace. Defence of Justif. by Faith. Life by Southey, Offer , Philip, 1839), etc. On edition of Pilg. Prog., see Princeton Rev., 1859. Bunyan not the author of Vision of Heaven and Hell ; see Notes and Qu., 1st series, iii. iv. Cheever's Lect. on Pilgrim’s Progress.] 35 [Thos. Goodwin, b. 1600, member of West. Assembly, Prest. of Mag¬ dalen Colb, Oxf., 1649, d. 1679. Works, 5 fob, 1681. — Anthony Burgess, (Indp.) also of the Assembly; Vindiciae Legis, 1646. True Doctrine of Justif., 1655. — Jerem. Burroughes, (Indp.), b. 1599, d. 1646 ; see Darling, u s. — Thos. Doolittel, 1630-1707, Complete Body of Divinity, 1723, etc. — § 225. Theology in England and Scotland. 191 Geo. Walker , 1581-1651 : Socinianism and Justif., 1641. The works of a Sibbs, 1577-1635, Tlios. Adams , Brooks , d. 1680, D. Clarkson, (co-pastor with Owen), 1622-86, Puritan Divines, to be republished by Nichol, Edinb., 1861, sq.] 36 [ Richard JBaxter , b. 1615, minister at Kidderminster, 1640, d. 1691. He published 168 treatises. Practical Works, 4, fob, 1707 ; 23, 8vo., 1830, and 4, imp. 8vo. Life by Orme. Christian Ethics, Ecclesiastics, and Poli¬ tics. Gildas Salvianus, the Reformed Pastor. Reformed Liturgy. Saints’ Rest. Aphorisms on Justif., 1649, and Conf. of Faith, 1655 ; of Justif., 1658. Methodus Theol. Christianae, 1681. Catholick Theologie, 1675. (See list of works in’ Darling’s Cycl. Bibl.) — His theological system has been termed Baxterian, intermediate between Calvinism and Arminianism.] 37 [ John Oiven , the most eminent of the Independent divines, b. 1616, d. 1683. Works by Russell , 21 vols., 1826 ; and Comm, on Heb., 7 vols.; new ed., by Goold , Edinb., 16 vols. Life by Orme. Disc, concerning Holy Spirit. Display of Arminianism. Saints’ Perseverance. Yindicise Evan- gelicse (agst. Socinians). Justification by Faith. Christologia — the Power of Christ. QeoXoyovgeva navronada, sive de Natura, Ortu. . . . verae Theol., Brem., 1684.] 38 [John Howe , b. 1630, minister in London, d. 1675. Works, 2 fob, 1724, with life, by Calamy ; 3 vols., 1848, ed. by Hewlett ; by Hunt, 8 vols., 1810-20. New ed., Edinb., 1856, sq. Life by Rogers, 1836. Living Tem¬ ple (“ a masterpiece of profound argumentation Williams. Part 2 con¬ tains Animadversions on Spinoza). Blessedness of Righteous. Work of Holy Spirit. Possibility of a Trinity in God. God’s Prescience (“the most profound, most philosophical, and most valuable of his writings Robert Hall). The Redeemer’s Dominion over the Invisible World.] 39 [Theophilus Gale, b. 1628, d. 1678. The Court of the Gentiles, 1672 (the original of human literature from the Scriptures) ; Bk. 2 is on Divine Predetermination, a vindication of Calvinism. A Discourse of Christ’s Com¬ ing. Philosophia Generalis, 1676. The Ars Sciendi, ascribed to Gale by Wood, is denied by Calamy to be his.] 40 [Thos. Ridgeley, b. 1667, began an academy for divinity, Lond., 1712, d. 1734. Body of Divinity. Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism, 2, fob, Lond., 1731-33; 4, 8vo., 1844; 2 vols., 1844; New York, 1855. Doctrine of Original Sin, 8vo., Lond., 1725.] 41 [Matthew Henry , b. 1662, minister at Chester and Hackney, d. 1714. Exposition of Old apd New Test, (from Romans to the end by other hands). Miscel. Works, with an Appendix on what Christ is made to believers, by P. Henry, Lond., 1830. Edward Calamy, 1571-1732. Exercit. Philos., 1688. Defence of Nonconformity, 3 vols., 1703-5. Inspiration, 1700. On Tiin. (1 J. v. 7), 1722. Nonconform. Memorial, 3 vols., 1802. Autobiog., ed. Rutt, 1830.] 43 [Tobias Crisp, b. 1600, rector of Brinkworth, d. 1642. Christ Alone Exalted, 1643 ; with Notes by Gill, 4th ed., 2 vols., Lond., 1791. Crisp had “52 opponents”, among them, Williams, Edwards, Lorimer, Baxter (1690). See Nelson's Life of Bulb His son, Samuel Crisp , publ. Christ made Sin, 1691 ; new ed., 2 vols., 1832.] 192 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 43 [David Calderwood,\>. 1575, deprived for opposing episcopacy ; in Hol¬ land, 1617-23; d. 1650. Hist, of Kirk of S., 1678 ; by Wodrow Soc., 8 vols., 1842-9. Altar of Damascus, 1621 ; enlarged Altare Damascen., 1708, against Episcopacy. Robert Wodrow , 1679-1734, Hist, of Sufferings of Ch. of S., 4 vols., 1838 ; Correspondence, ed. McCrie, Edinb., 3 vols., 1842-3. See also Wodrow Soc. Miscellany, by D. Laing , vol. i. 1844. — Thomas Halyhurton , b. 1674, Prof. St. Andrews, d. 1712. Works, Lond., 1835. On Faith. Nat¬ ural Religion Insufficient. On Justification, etc. Thos. Boston, of Ettrick, 1676-1732. Works, fob, 1767 ; 12, 8vo., 1852, ed. by S. McMillan. Com¬ plete Body of Divin. (vot. 1, 2). Quest, in Div. (vol. 6). Human Nature in its Fourfold State (vol. 8). Robert Fleming, b. 1630, minister at Cambus- lang, d. 1694.; Fulfilling of Scripture, 1726; his son, Rob'. Fleming, d. 1716; Christology, 3 vols., Lond., 1703-8; Disc., 1701 ; Rise and Fall of Papacy.] 44 [The early New England colonists carried to the New World the Puri¬ tan form of Calvinism. Many of its first pastors and teachers were men trained in the universities of England. The Confession and Catechism of the Westminster Assembly were adopted by the Cambridge Synod of 1648 (excepting in respect to church government) ; the Savoy Conf. by the Bos¬ ton Synod of 1680. At Saybrook, Connecticut, 1708, the Westminster and Savoy Conf., and the XXXIX. Articles were sanctioned. — Antinomian Controversy (1636-7) in Boston [Mrs. Ann Hutchinson), her opinions con¬ demned by Newtown Synod, 1637. Half-Way Covenant Controver. 1657— 62. — John Robinson , b. 1575, about 1606 at Scrooby, 1609 in Leyden, Holland, d. 1625 (6) — never in New England, but his church ( Hrewster ) emigrated to Plymouth. Works, 3 vols., 1851, by Cong. Bd. : Controversy with Episcopius, 1613; Defence of Doctrine of Dort, 1624. — John Cotton, b. 1585, d. 1682, head lecturer in Trinity College, Camb., in Boston 1633, shaped the polity of the churches, opposed Antinomianism ; Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, 1644; Yindiciae Clavium ; Way of the Churches against Baylie and Rutherford, 1648, etc. — Thos. Hoolcer, b. 1586, in Cam¬ bridge 1633, in Hartford, Ct., 1636, d. 1647; Survey of Sum of Church Discipline, 1648. — John Norton , b. 1606, Ipswich, 1638, Boston, 1655, d. 1663; Letter to Dury : Responsio ad totum Qusest. Syllogen a....Guil. Apollonio propos., etc., Lond., 1648 (first Latin book written in New Eng., at the request of Apollonius and the divines of Zealand, on church contro¬ versies in England) ; Disc, of Sufferings of Christ, 1653 (by order of the General Court) ; The Orthodox Evangelist, 4to., 1654, £tc. Life by Mather . — Thos. Shepard, b. 1605, minister Camb., (N. E.) 1635, d. 1649; on Lit¬ urgies, Power of Keys, etc., 1653 ; Parable of Ten Virgins, 1660, 1663, Aberd. 1838. The Sound Believer, 1671. Meditat., 1791. Works, Cong. Bd. See Allen and Sprague. — Richard Mather, b. 1596, Dorchester 1636, d. 1669 ; on Justif., 1662 ; Reply to Rutherford, 1646, etc. ; see Wood’s Athen. Oxon. ii. 427. His son, Increase Mather, b. 1639, Prest. Harvard, 1681, d. 1723. Numerous works : see Allen’s Biog. Diet. Cotton Mather, son of latter, b. 1663, minister Bost. 1684, d. 1728. He published 382 works; see Allen, u. s. Magnalia Christi Americana, in 7 books, fob, 1702, repr. Hartford, 2, 8vo. Christ. Philosopher, 1721. John Davenport, of New Haven, b. 1597, d. 1672. § 225. Theology in England and Scotland. 193 — John Eliot , apostle to Indians, b. 1604, d. 1690; Christ. Commonwealth, 1650; Indian Bible, 1661-4, first Bible printed in America. Life by C. Francis. — Saiqiuel Willard , b. Jan. 31, 1639-40, minister Boston, 1678, d. 1707 ; Body of Divinity in 250 Lect. on Assembly’s Catechism, fob Bost.> 1726. Comp. J. F. Stearns , in Am. Theol. Rev., Aug., I860.] 46 [Ralph Cudworth, b. 1617., educated at Cambridge, Prof. Hebrew, 1645, d. 1688. The True Intellectual System of the Universe, fob, 1678 ; 2, 4to, 1742, and life by Birch\ repr. 2, 8vo., at Andover (New Eng.), 1837, with Treatise on Immutable Morality, 1731 ; 3, 8vo., 1845, with transl. of Mosheim’s notes; True Notion of Lord’s Supper, 1670, and often ; Sermon on 1 John ii. 3, 4, against Antinomians. Systema Intellectual e, ed. Mosheim, 2, fob, Jen., 1733 ; 2, 4to., L. Bat, 1773. “ The Latin transl. is greatly to be preferred:” Warhurton. On Free-will, with notes by John Allen, 1838. A number of Cudworth’s unpublished MS. are in the British Museum ; e. g., on Liberty and Necessity ; the Notion of Hobbes concerning God and Spirit. Raul Janet , Essai sur le mediateur plastique de Cudworth. Paris, I860.] 46 [Henry More , b. 1614, d. 1687. Theological Works, fob, Lond., 1708. (Mystery of Godliness. Mystery of Iniquity. Grounds of Certainty of Faith. Antidote against Idolatry). Collection of Philosoph. Writings, fob, Lond., 1712. (On Atheism; Enthusiasm; Immortality; Epistoh ad R. Des Cartes; Conjectura Cabbalistica). Discourses, Lond., 1692. Enchiridion Ethicum, Amst., 1695. Divine Dialogues, Glasg., 1743. Opera, 3 fob, Lond., 1675-9. Life by R. Ward, Lond., 1710. Comp. Vaughan's Hours with Mystics. — John Norris , of Bemerton, 1657, d. 1711 : a Cambridge Platonist. Miscellanies, 2d ed., Lond., 1690. Theory and Regulation of Love, 1680. Disc, on Beatitudes, 4 vols., 1699, sq. Reason and Faith, 1697. Theory of Ideal World, 2 vols., 1701-4 (his chief work, on basis of Male- branch e). Letters to Dodwell, etc.] 47 [John Smith , of Cambridge, b. 1618, d. 1652. Select Discourses, 4to., 1660, 1673, 8vo., 1821 (by Worthington ), 4th ed. by H. G. Williams, with bp. Patrick’s Sermon, Camb., 1859. — The Disc, on Prophecy was transl. by Le Clerc for his Commentary on the Prophets. The other Discourses are on True Way of Attaining Divine Knowledge; Superstition; Atheism; Immortality ; Existence and Nature of God ; Legal and Evang. Righteous¬ ness ; Excellence and Nobleness of True Religion, etc. — See Theophilus Gale , note 39. — Rd. Cumberland , b. 1632, bp. Peterborough, 1691, d. 1718. De Legibus Naturae, 1672, transl. by Maxwell , 1727, by Towers, Dubl. 1750, in French by JBarbeyrac , Amst., 1744. On Sanchoniathon, 1729. Origines Gentium, 1724. JBenjamin Whichcote,b. 1610, Prof. Div. King’s College, d. 1683. Discourses, 4 vols. Aphorisms, in 1703, by Jeffery , rep. by Salter , 1753. Select Sermons (originally publ. by Lord Shaftesbury), 1792, 1798. — Nathaniel Culverwel , (Culverel), d. 1650 or 1651. An elegant and learned Discourse of the Light of Nature (written in 1646) with several other Treatises (The Schism ; The Act of Oblivion ; The White Stone ; Spiritual Optics, first printed 1651), etc., 1652, 4to. ; 1654; 1661; 1669. The Light of Nature, ed. by J. Brown, with Essay by Cairns, Edinb., 1857. 194 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. This remarkable work anticipated Cumberland’s theory (1672) of indepen¬ dent morality ; it is not noticed by Stewart, or Mackintosh, or Hallam. — Francis Lee, M. D., 1660, d. 1719. Wrote works tinged with Mysticism: Apoleipomena : or Diss. Theol. Mathemat., etc., 2, Lond., 1752. History of Montanism. On Books of Ezra and Esdras, 1722. Prolegomena to the historical part of Grabe’s Septuagint. Samuel Shaw , b. 1635, d. 1691, rector of Long-Whatton, a divine of the same class : Immanuel, or Discovery of True Religion, 1667, 4th cd. 1804. Also Joseph Truman, b. 1631, d. 1672. A-Disc. of Natural and Moral Impotency ; ed. H. Rogers, Lond., 1834; The Great Propitiation, Lond., 1669. See Brown’s Preface to Cul- verwell, ubi supra, p. xxii. — Robert Fludd ( Re Fluctibus ), M. D., b. 1547, d. 1637, a mystical (Rosicrucian, Cabalistic) philosopher. Works, Oppen- heim, 1617-38, 6 vols., fol. Mosaical Philos., transl. Lond., 1659. See Wood's Athen. Oxon.] 48 [ John Milton, b. 1608, Latin Secretary to Cromwell, d. 1674. Prose Works, by Toland , 3, fol., Amst., 1697-8; 2, fob, 1738; 2, 4to., Life by Birch, 1735; Symmond, 7 vols., 1806; 1848-53, 5 vols.; whole works, 8 vols., 1851, Lond. and Boston. Ref. in England; Episcopacy; Rea¬ son of Church Gov. (vol. 2) ; on Smectymnus (vol. 3). De Doctrina Christ, curav. C. R. Sumner, 1825, also translated. Life by Keightly, 1855 ; Masson, vol. 1, 1859. On his Religious Life and Opinions, Bib. Sac., 1859-60, by Barber ; the question of the time at which the Christian Doc¬ trine was written — in his earlier life, about 1640? on the basis of Ames and Wollebs.] 49 [ William Chilling w or th, b. 1602, became a Rom. Cath. through the influence of John Fisher, alias John Perse, but was brought back by Laud, 1631, d. 1644. Religion of Protestants, 1638 ; 6th ed. with other works, 1704; 10th, fob, 1742; 3, 8vo., Oxf., 1838. Life by M. Des Maizeaux, Lond., 1725. His Religion of Protestants was written in reply to Edward Knott’s (real name Matthias Wilson, a Jesuit), Charity Mistaken. Tillotson calls C. “ the glory of the age and nation.” He also wrote Nine Sermons, 1634 ; The Apostol. Institution of Episcopacy, 1644. His great work also takes a position in contrast with Hooker’s theory of the rightful authority of the national church.] 60 [John Tillotson, b. 1630, Dean St. Paul’s, 1689, Abp. Canterb., 1691, d. 1694. Works (254 Discourses), 3, fob, 1752. 12 vols., 1757 (Life by Birch, pubb, 1753 ; vol. xiii. Rule of Faith, 3d ed., 1688.] 61 [Samuel Clarice, b. 1673, rector St. James’, Westminster, 1709, d. 1729. He aided in displacing the Cartesian by the Newtonian system (ed. Rohault's Physics). Boyle Lectures, Demonstr. of Being and Attrib. of God, and Obligations of Nat. Reh, 2 vols., 1705-6. Script. Doctrine of Trinity, 1712 (provoked a long controversy : Waterland, Whitby, Nelson, Jackson, etc.) Collect, of Papers bet. C. and Leibnitz, 1717 ; on Collins on Liberty, 1717 (in French by Des Maizeaux, 1720). Letter to Dodwell on Immortality, etc* Sermons. Works, life by Hoadly, 4, fob, 1738.] 62 [Symon Patrick, bp. Ely, b. 1626, d. 1707. On Communion, 1685, Tradition, 1683, the Eucharist, etc., Comm, on the O. and N. Test, and Apoc. (Lowth, Arnold, Whitby, and Lowman, added), new ed., 4 vols., 1853, § 226. The Council of Trent. 195 — Daniel Whitby, b. 1 638, Prebend. Salisbury, 1688, d. 1726; Arminian and at last Arian. Protestant Reconciler, 1683 (retracted). On Dodwell, 1707. On the Five Points, 1 V 1 0. De Imput. Peccati Ad ami, 1711 ; transl. by Hey- wood , 1739. Ethices Comp., 1713. Disquis. Modestse (on Bull, replied to by Waterland, and rejoinder by Whitby), 1720, etc. — Arthur Ashley Sykes , b. 1684, Prebend. Salisbury and Winchester, d. 1756. Controversies with Collins, S. Clarke, Warburton, Middleton. Script. Doctr. of Redemption, 1756. Resurrection. On Sacrifice. Memoirs by Disney, 1785. — William Whiston, b. 1667, Prof. Math. Cambr., expelled for Arianism, 1710, d. 1752. Boyle Lect. on Prophecy, 1708. Prim. Christianity revived, 5 vols., 1711-12. Text of Old Test., 1722. Hist. O. and N. Test., 6 vols., 1745. Prim. New Test., 1745. Liturgy of Church of England reduced, 1750. Memoirs, 3 vols., 1749-50, etc.] III. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. § 226. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, AND THE CATECHISMUS ROMANUS. f Sarpi [P. Soave Pol.], Istoria del Concilio di Trento, London, 1619. [Bp. Burnet says of Sarpi, “ that it was generally looked upon as the rarest piece of history the world ever saw.” It was translated into English by Sir N. Brent, together with his His¬ tory of the Inquisition (a previous transl., 1655), Lond., 1696; his treatise of Bene¬ ficiary Matters, Westm., 1127 ; his Life, 1651. The Lond. ed. of 1619 was edited by De Dominis. French transl. by Courayer, 2 Tom., Amst., 1736.] f Pallavicini, Istoria del Cone, di Trento. Rom., 1636, ii. fol., Milan, 1717 ; Latin by Guttini, Ant., 1673 ; in French, 3 vols., 1844 ; translated into German by f Klitsche, Augsburg, 1835. Chemnitii Examen Concilii Tridentini, Francof., 1707. Salig, vollstandige Historie des Tridentinischen Conciliums, Halle, 1741, fol. iii. 4. f G'oschl, Dr. J. M., ges- chichtliche Darstellung des grossen allgemeinen Concils zu Trient. ii., Regensb., 1840. JDanz, Gesch. des Trident. Concils nach der Darstellung eines Katholischen Schrifts- tellers, Jena, 1846. Marheineke , System des Katholicismus (see vol. i., § 16). J. P. Lange , Die gesetzh'ch-katholische Kirche, als Sinnbild der freien evang-kathol. Kirche, Heidelberg, 1850. [ Von Wessenberg , Die grossen Kirchen-versammlungen, 4 Bde., Constanz., 1840 (Bde., 3 and 4), comp. Hefele’s Beurtheilung, 1842. Kollner's Sym- bolik, i., Ilamb., 1844, on Sarpi, p. 48, on Pallavicino, p. 55. Comp. Ranke’s Hist, of Popes, Phil, ed., on Sarpi, p. 437 ; on Pallavicino, 437 ; on Trent, 71-74, 108-114, et passim. See the Literature in Gieseler's Church Hist. (N. Y. edition), vol. v. § 55. G. J. Planck, Anecdota ad Hist. Cone. Trid. pertinentia, 26 Gottingen Programmes, 1791-1818. J. Mendham , Memoirs of the Council of Trent, Lond., 1834; and Acta Cone. Trident, a Paleotto, ed. Mendham, Lond., 1842, and Suppl., 1840. J. N. Bris- char, Beurtheilung Sarpi’s u. Pallavic., Tub., 1843, 2 Bde. Ellies du Pin, Hist, du Concile de Trente, 2, 4to. Bruxelles, 1721. Bungener , Hist. Council Trent, from the French, Lond., 1842, N. Y., 1855. T. A. Buckley , Hist, of Council of Trent, Lond., 1832. Bucholz's Ferdinand I., 1850. Bosseeuw St. Hilaire's Histoire d’Espagne, Tom. viii., 1861, contains new and learned investigations on the Council, in him, as in Ranke, there are new materials. Among the older works, Heidegger's Vindica¬ tion of Fra Paolo, in his Tumulus Concil. Trident., 2, 4to., Zurich, 1690, still deserves t"> be consulted. — Bp. Jewel , Apology and Letters to Scipio on Council of Trent, in his works, and separately published, 1854. On Trent, comp. Christ. Rev., Jan. 196 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 1856; Brownson’s Quarterly, Oct., 1856. \Jas. Waterworth, Essays on Hist, of Council, prefixed to his transl. of its Decrees and Canons, Lond., 1848. f Ohs. Butler , Historical and Literary Account of Formularies, etc., Lond., 1816, reprinted in hia works, vol. iv., 1811.] Confronted by Protestantism, the Eoman Catholics found them¬ selves compelled to examine the state of their own Church. They had to perform a twofold task — viz., first , to secure the doctrines which they held from misrepresentation and false inferences, and, secondly , to hold fast, with renewed vigor, that which their princi¬ ples bound them to maintain. The Council of Trent (1545-1593) had therefore to enlighten the Eoman Catholic Church on its own position, and solemnly to sanction its system (developed to a great extent by the scholastics of the preceding period) in direct opposi¬ tion to the demands of the reformers. The declarations of this Council,1 as well as those set forth in the Eoman Catechism, which was based upon the former,2 are therefore to be regarded as the true symbols of the Eomish Church, and every deviating doctrine must in its view renounce all claims to catholicity. 1 Canones et Decreta Concilii Tridentini Rom., 1564, 4. In the same year several editions were published at Rome, Venice, Antwerp, Louvain, Cologne, and many others; Lyons, 1580 (with the Index Librorum Pro- hibitorum). In later times editions have been published by J. Gallemart , Col., 1618, 20, Antw., 1644, Lyons, 1712 ; by Phil. Chiffelet , Antw., 1640, and *Jodoc. le Plat., Antw., 1779, 4 (Comp. Walch, Bibl. Theol., Tom. i. p. 407, ss.), reprinted by Danz and Streitwolf (comp. Vol. i. p. 31). As re¬ gards the history of doctrines and symbolism, the Sessions 4-7, 13, 14, 21-25, are of special importance. [ W. Smets, Sacros. Cone. Trid. Canones et Decreta, ed. 4, 1854. Canones et Decreta, ex Bullario Roman., ed. Richter , et Schultze, Lips., 1853. Canons and Decrees, transl. by T. A. Buckley, Lond., 1851 : and by James Waterworth , Lond., 1848. The Doctrinal De¬ crees and Canons, transl. by W. C. Brownlee, N. Y., 1845.] — The Professio Fidei Tridentince , based upon the canons of the council, was drawn up a. d. 1564, by order of Pope Pius IV., and no one could obtain either an ecclesias tical office or an academical dignity, etc., without subscribing it. It is in the Bullar. Roman. Tom. ii. p. 127, ss. (and in the form of an appendix in the earlier edition of Winer.) Comp. G. Ch. F. MohnicTce , Urkundliche Geschichte der sogenannten Professio fidei Trident., etc., Greifswalde, 1822, 8. Winer, p. 9. [. Bungener's Hist, of Council of Trent, ubi supra. KolU ner , Symbolik, ii. 161-165.] 2 The Catechismus Romanus was composed (in accordance with a resolu¬ tion of the Council of Trent, sess. 25), by Archbishop Leon Marino , Bishop Egidius Foscarari, and Fr. Fureiro , a Portuguese scholar, under the super¬ intendence of three cardinals, and published a. d. 1566, by authority of Pope Pius IV. (the Latin version by Paul Manutius.) Several editions and translations into the modern languages have been published ; e. g., that of Mayence, 1835, 12mo. for general use. In the earlier editions nothing but the § 227. Theologians of the Eoman Catholic Church. 197 text was given, without any division; in the edition of Cologne, 1572, it was for the first time divided into hooks and chapters ; that of Antwerp, 1574 contained questions and answers. The Catechism consists of four parts: de Symbolo Apostolico, de Sacramentis, de Decal ogo, and de Ora- tione Dominica. Concerning the relation in which the catechism stands to the canons of the Council of Trent, and the inferior importance assigned to it by the Jesuits and other Roman Catholic theologians, see Winer, 1. c. [The Catechism for the Curates, composed by the decree of the Council of Trent. Faithfully translated, permissu superiorum, Lond., 1687. A translation by T. A. Buckley, Lond., 1852. Comp. Kollner , Symbolik, ii. 166-190.] The catechisms composed by the Jesuit P. Canisius (the larger of which appeared, 1554, the smaller, 1566), which acquired greater currency than the Catechismus Romanus, have not received the papal sanction, and on that account cannot be regarded as symbolical books ; but they excited more attention, and gave rise to new controversies. Comp. Joh. Wig and, Warming vor dem Catechismus des Dr. Canisii, des grossen Jesuwidders,(!) Jena, 1570, 4. The Confutatio (comp. § 215, note 2,) might also be regarded as a docu¬ ment which sets forth the principles of Romanism, in opposition to Protestantism ; but it was not formally sanctioned by the Church. [Among the secondary sources are the Roman Missal , and the Breviary. See Kollner , ii. 190, sq. The Council of Trent ordered the revision of the Missal, published in 1570; again in 1604, which is followed in all the reprints. On the Breviarium, see Kocher Bibl. Symbol, i. 755, sq. ; it is so called, because in it the previous offices were abbreviated (under Gregory VII). The Council of Trent ordered a revision ; printed 1568, and often. English translation of Missal, Lond. Robertson , Rom. Liturgy, Edb., 1792. Geo. Lewis, The Bible, Missal and Breviary, 2 vols., Edinb., 1853, contains the first complete English transl. of the Liturgy. Besides the Catechism of Canisius, that of Bellarmine, prepared by direction of Clement VIII., 1603, and of Bossuet , for the diocese of Meaux, 1687, have had much authority]. § 227. THE THEOLOGIANS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. [Kuhn, Kathol. Dogmatik, 2te., Aufl. 1 (1859) s. 463-519. Hugo Laemmer , Die vortriden- tinisch-katbolische, Theologie. Aus den Quellen, Berl., 1858. Gieseler , v., § 63.] Among the theologians who defended the doctrines of the Eoman Catholic Church, during the age of the Eeformation,1 along with Eck , Faber , Cochlceus , and others, Desiderius Erasmus occupied the most prominent place, though he did not transmit to posterity a system of dogmatic theology.* To this period also belongs Albert Pighius ,3 whom Calvin opposed. After the Council of Trent, the members of the Order of Jesus, in particular,4 made the defence of modern Eomanism (both theoretically and practically) the task of their lives. The most conspicuous doctrinal and polemical writer among them was Robert Bellarmine? while Dionysius Petavius, en¬ deavored to prove historically the antiquity of the catholic faith* The following writers on dogmatic theology (and ethics), belonged to that religious society ; Peter Canisius ,7 Alphonse S aimer on, 198 Fourth Pek.od. The Age of Symbolism. John Maldonat * Francis Suarez ,10 Gabriel Vasquez ?n Francis Cos¬ ter,12 Martin Becanus ,13 and others. Among the opponents of the Jesuits and their scholastic method, Melchor Canus, a Dominican monk was the most distinguished.14 Jacques Benigne Bossuet, the acute and clever Bishop of Meaux, by idealising Catholicism as much as was possible, endeavored to render it more agreeable to Protestants, while, on the other hand, he showed the changes which Protestant doctrines had undergone within a short space of time.15 1 On Thomas Cajetan (who wrote a commentary on Thomas Aquinas), Eck, Faber , Cochlceus, Wimpina , Ambrose Catharinus , and others ; see the works on the history of the Reformation, and Bougine , Literaturgeschichte, ii. p. 70, ss., and Laemmer , 1. c. [On Cajetan , see Gieseler , v., § 63. Opera Ommia, 5, fob, Lugd., 1639. His translation of the Bible was literal. For his liberal views he was assailed by the Dominican Catharinus. C. F. Jager , Cajetan’s Kampf gegen die lutherische Lehrreform, in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol., 1858.] Concerning George Wicel , who returned to the Romish Church (he was born a. d. 1501, and died 1573, he wrote: Via Regia, Helmst., 1650, De sacris nostri Temporis Controversiis, ibid., 1659), comp. *Neander, de Georgio Vicelio., Berol., 1839, 4, and by the same : das Eine und Mannigfache des christlichen Lebens, Berlin, 1840, p. 167, ss. [ Gieseler , iv., § 51, note 6.] 2 Erasmus died at Basle, a. d. 1536. The most important of his contro¬ versial writings, in which he opposed Luther’s notions concerning the will of man, are mentioned in the special history of doctrines. Comp. * Ad. Muller , Leben des Erasmus von Rotterdam, Hamb., 1828, 8. [Jortin's Life of E., 2, 4to., 1758-60; Knight1 s Life, Cambr., 1760; Hess, 2, Zurich, 1770; Chs. Butler, Lond., 1825. Der theol. Standpunkt des Erasm., by Kerker , in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1859, s. 531-567. Articles on Erasmus in Eclectic (Lond.), Sept., 1854 ; Christ. Examiner (by C. T. Brooks ), vol. 49 ; Southern Rev., vol. 3 ; Christ. Rev. (by W. C. Wilkinson), April, 1858. See alco Nisard , Etudes sur la Renaissance, 1855.] 8 The family name of Pighius was Von Campen ; he died as provost of the church of St. John at Utrecht, Dec., 1542. Works: De Hierarchia Ecclesiast., and De libero Hominis Arbitrio, et div. Gratia, libri x., Cola., 1542. See Bayle , Diction., and Schweizeds Centraldogmen, i. 180. [Cal¬ vin’s defence against this work of Pighius is entitled Defensio sanse et orthodoxse Doctrinse de Servitute et Liberatione humani Arbitrii advers. Calumnias Alb. Pighii Campensis, Genev., 1545 ; it is published in his Tractatus.] 4 On the foundation of this order by Ignatius Loyola, (1534-40), see the works on ecclesiastical history. Respecting the doctrinal views of the Jesuits (Mariolatry) see Baumgarten Crusius, Compendium der Dogmen- gesch. i. pp. 394, 395. [Ranke, Hist. Popes (Phil.) 56-71, 77-81, et passim. App. 520. The literature in Gieseler, v., § 54. Abbe Guettee, Hist, des Jesuites, Paris, 2 vols., 1859.] 6 “ As regards controversies, he was the best writer of his age.” — Bayle. § 227. Theologians of the Roman Catholic Church. 199 Bellarmine was born a. d. 1542, at Monte-Pulciano, in Tuscany, entered the order of the Jesuits, 1560, was appointed cardinal, 1599, archbishop Capua, 1602, and died 1621. He wrote: Disputationes de Controversiis Fidei adv. hujus Temporis Hgereticos, Ingolst., 1581, 82, ii. f. P. iii. 1592, fob, Venet., 1596, iii. fob This work was opposed not only by Protestants, but also by some Roman Catholics. See Schrockh, Kirchengesch. nach der Reforma¬ tion, iv. p. 260, ss. The best Protestant work written against Bellarmine was that of Scherzer , J. A. (he died 1683), Antibellarminus, Lips., 1681, 4. [In 1607 Bellarmine published a volume of corrections of the previous edi¬ tions of his work, under the title Recognitio Librorum, incorporated in the editions of 1615, 1620, Paris, 1635 ; Prague, 1721 ; reprinted, Rome, 4, 4to., 1832-40, with an Appendix, Monument. Eccles. The best edition is that of 1620; that of Venice, 1721-27, omits several of B.’s works. His Notes of the Church, refuted by Anglican writers, several editions ; comp. Kuhn, ubi supra, 490.] 6 Petavius , was born at Orleans, a. d. 1583, and died at Paris, 1652. He wrote Opus de Theologicis Dogmatibus. Par., 1644-50, iv., Antw., 1700, vi.; Heinrich , p. 377, ss. His method was adopted by Ludw. Thomassin , in his Dogmata Theologica, 1680-84. See Heinrich , p. 582. [Petavius was Prof, of theology at Paris from 1621. Muratori represents him as the reviver of dogmatic theology. The Antwerp (really Amsterdam) edition of 1700, in 6 Tom., was edited by Johannes Clericus , under the pseudonym of Theo- philus Alettinus, who in his preface defends him against Sandius and Bullus , in respect to the Trinity, etc. The edition of Zacliaria , Venice, 1757, is the best. A new edition is in progress at Rome, vol. i., 1858, ed. by Passaglia and Schrader. He also wrote De Doctrina Temporum, 3 fob, Antw., 1705. Gibbon says of Petav. (Decline and Fall, chap, xlvii. note 1 : “ His Dogm. Theolog. is a work of incredible labor and compass, the vol¬ umes which relate solely to the Incarnation (2, fob) are divided into xvi. books. . . .The Jesuit’s learning is copious and correct; his Latinity is pure, his method clear, his argument profound and well connected ; but he is the slave of the fathers, the scourge of heretics, and the enemy of truth and candor as often as they are inimical to the Catholic cause.” Comp, also Kuhn , Dogmatik, i. 505, sq ., who represents him as introducing a new method, neither scholastic nor speculative, but positive, in the treatment of theology. He was followed by Thomasson , the Oratorian, 3 Tom., Paris, 1680-4; Feuardentius , Tractatus Theol., Paris, 1692-4 ; Du Hamel , Theo- logia Speculatrix, Paris, 1691 ; Natalis Alexander (the church historian), Theolog. Dogmat., Paris, 1693. — Most of the R. C. divines, till the middle of the 18th century, adhered to the scholastic (Thomist) method; a few followed Scotus. The Scotists were Frassen , Scotus Academicus, Paris, 1672 ; and LHerminier , Summa Theol, Seholast., Paris, 1771. Gonet , Clypeus Theol. Thomist.; Burdigal, 1659, was a Thomist; as were also Con- tenson , Theologia Mentis et Cordis, Colon,, 1722 ; Witasse, Tract. Theol., Paris, 1722; Boucat , Theol. Patrum., Paris, 1718 ; JBilluart , Cursus theol, juxta Mentem S. Thom., 1745, Others, somewhat later, — Tournely , Prselect. Theol. Venet,, 1739; Gotti , Theol, Seholast, dogm,, Venet., 1750 ; 200 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Berti , De Theol. Discipl., Venet., 1776 ; Habert , Theol. Dogrn. et Moral., Vindel., 1751. Kuhn, .ubi supra.] 7 The original name of Canisius was de Hondt ; he was born a. d. 1511, and died 1597. He was the author of a Summa Doctrinse Christianae (In- stitutiones Christianae.) Par., 1628, f., and of the two catechisms men¬ tioned § 226. 8 Salmeron was born at Toledo, and died a. d. 1585. His works were published at Madrid, 1597-1602. Cologne, 1612, xvi. fol. 9 Maldonatus was born a. d. 1534, taught in the universities of Sala¬ manca and Paris, and died 1583. His works appeared at Paris, 1643, 77, iii. fol. Heinrich , p. 302, ss. SchrdcJch , iv. p. 83. [He opposed the Jesuit view of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as necessary to the faith. He was called to Rome by Gregory XIII. to superintend the publication of the Septuagint.] 10 Suarez died a. d. 1617, at Lisbon. He wrote : Commentatio in Thomse Summam., Mogunt., 1619-29, xix. fol. 11 Vasquez died a. d. 1604, at Alcala. He wrote: Commentarii in Thomam. Ingolstad., 1606. Yen., 1608. Antw., 1621. 12 Coster was professor of theology and philosophy in the university of Cologne, provincial of his order in the Rhine provinces, and died a. d. 1619. He wrote : Enchridion prsecipuarum Controvers. in Religione; Meditationes. — SchrdcJch , iv. p. 280. 13 Becan was successively professor in the universities of Wurzburg, May- ence, and Vienna, and died 1624, as confessor to the Emperor Ferdinand II.; he had before taught in Wtirzburg, Mayence and Vienna. — He wrote : Summa Theol. — Manuale Controversiarum hums Temporis. — Opp. Mogunt., 1639, 1640, ii. f. 14 Canus was a native of Taracon, [born 1523], and died a. d. 1560, as the provincial of his order in Castile. He wrote : Locorum Theol. libr. xii. Salam., 1563, f. Padua, 1714, 4, Venet., 1759, 4, and Vienna, 1764, (edited by Hyacinth Serry.) Comp. Heinrich , p. 298, ss. SchrdcJch , iv. p. 66, ss. [See Kuhn , ubi. supra, p. 486, and Laemmer. ] 15 Bossuet was born at Dijon, a. d. 1627, was appointed bishop of Meaux, 1681, and died 1704. Among his works were: Exposition de la Doctrine de l’eglise Catholique, 1671, edited by Fleur y, Antw., 1678, 12. — Histoire des Variations des eglises Protestantes, Par. (and Ainst.), 1688, ii. 8. He was opposed by : Basnage (Hist, de la Rel. des eglises Reformees, Rot., 1721), and Pfaff (Disputatt. Anti-Bossuet Tub., 1720,) to which Bossuet re¬ plied, Defense, etc., Paris, 1701. Several Roman Catholics also pronounced against Bossuet’s interpretation of their doctrines, e. g. Maimbourg , the Jesuit. See SchrdcJch , vii. p. 280, ss. Comp. C. ScJimidt , in Herzog’s Realencycl. ii. 317, sq. [(Euvres, 20, 4to., Paris, 1743-1753. Depres ’ edi¬ tion, 27 vols., not complete. Versailles ed. by Bausset , 46 vols. QEuvres completes de B., 59 vols., Paris, 1825 ; 12 vols., 1836. An English trans¬ lation of his Exposition, by W\altef\ M\ontague\ Paris, 1672; another London. Hist, of Variations, transl., 2 vols., Dubl., 1836, 1845. On the Exposition, see Nouv. de la Republ. de Lettres, x. 931, 1252. Histoire de Bossuet par M. le Cardinal de Bausset , nouv. ed. Paris, 8, 1855. Memoires et § 228. Jansenism. 201 Journ. sur a Vie et les Ouvrages de Bossuet (from manuscripts), par l’Abbe Guettee , 2, Paris, 1856, who also publ. in 1854, Essai sur l’Ouvrage de B. “ Avertissement sur les Reflex, morales” (of Quesnel), vindicating it as Bossuet’s work, and showing that B. opposed the Jesuits. A. Floquet , Etudes sur Bossuet, vol. i. 1855. See also JBouillier , Hist, de la Philos. Cartesienne, Tom. ii. A. Caillot , Yie de Bossuet, Paris, 1836.] § 228. JANSENISM. *Reuchlin, Geschichte von Port-Royal, der Kampf des reformirten und jesuitischen Eathol- icismus unter Ludwig XIII. XIV., 2 vols., Hamb., 1839-1844. See also the article in Herzog. [ Sainte-Beuve , Hist, de Port-Royal, 4 vols., Paris, 1840-1858. Oh. Beard , Port-Roval, 2 vols., Lond., 1860. Schimmelpenninck, Memoirs of Port-Royal, Loud., 1855. On Reuchlin's work, see Sir Jas. Stephen, Essays, vol. i. C. A. Wil- kens, Port-Royal, Oder der Jansenismus in Frankreich, in Zeitschrift f. d. Wissen- schaftliche Theologie, 1859. Meth. Quarterly, N. Y., 1855. Older Histories of Port Royal, by Fontaine , 2 vols., 1798; Racius , 2 vols., 1764; Quesnel , La Paix de Charles IX., 2 vols., 1701. — Works on the Jansenists ; Leydecker , Hist. Jans. Traj. ad Rhenum, 1695. ( Gerheron ), Hist. Generate de Jans., Rom., 3 vols., 1711. Bom. de Colonia, Diction, de Livres Jansen., 4 vols., Lyons, 1752. Histories by Tregelles , 1851; Bellegrade, , 1851 (see Christ. Rembr., Jan., 1852) ; and particularly J. if. Neale, Hist, of the so-called Jansenist Church in Holland, Lond., 1857 ; comp. Dublin Rev., 1858. — The True Idea of Jansenism, both Historick and Dogmatick, by T[heophilus\ G[aZe], Lond., 1699. — Articles in Irish Eccies. Journal, 1852; Bibl. Repos., 1847; Church Rev., Jan., 1858 ; Dublin Rev., 1854 (tracing the French revolution to Jan¬ senism ; and the same view in Brownson’s Quarterly) ; Princeton Rev., Jan., 1856 ; Christ. Rev., April, 1856 ; Am. Theol. Rev. ( L . Whiting ), 1860 ; Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lit., vol. vii. — Specimen Hist. Theol. exhibens Historiam Eccl. Ultraject. Rom. Cath., male Jansenisticse diet®, scripsit J. A. Gerth van Wijk , Traj. ad Rhen., 1859.] In opposition to the Jesuitic and Pelagian dogmatic theology and ethics, Jansenism took its rise, following some earlier prece¬ dents,1 and spread from the Netherlands into France, gaining a powerful centre and support in the Congregation of Port-Royal.2 On the one hand (in reference to the doctrine of election, etc.) the Jansenists manifested a leaning towards Protestantism, and thus maintained the Protestant principle about faith within the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church ; on the other (as regards the sacra¬ ments and the doctrine about the Church), they retained the views of the latter. In both respects their views were in accordance with the earlier Augustinianism, which they were desirous of restoring in all its purity.3 The theologians of Port-Royalj such as Antoine Arnauld ,4 Peter Nicole ,5 and others, exerted greater influence upon the belief of their contemporaries, by their practical and ascetic writings, or scientific works of a more general character, than by strictly dogmatic works. The profound Pascal , in particular, ad- 202 Fourth Period The Age of Symbolism. vanced the good cause, both by his opposition to the casuistry of the Jesuits, and by his ingenious defence of Christianit}r.8 Pascha - sius Quesnel, a priest of the Oratory, propagated Jansenistic princi¬ ples, together with the New Testament, among the people, and thus exposed the Jansenists to new persecutions, and called lorth new controversies.7 1 On the earlier manifestation of the Augnstinian tendency in the Catho¬ lic Church, see RcinJce, History of the Popes (Philad.) p. 73, and the special history of doctrines. — Concerning the doctrines of M, Bajus at Louvain, and the controversy to which they gave rise, respecting Lewis Molina and others, see ibidem. [See Niedner , Kirchengesch., 649, 706-'/ 10. Mich. Baji Opera, Colon., 1696. Du Chesne , Hist, du Bajanisme, Douay, 1791. Molina, Liberi Arbitrii cum Gratise Donis. . . .Concordia, Lisb., 1588, Antw., 1595. — Pius V. condemned in a mild form, 79 theses from Baius, in 1567, in the Bull Ex omnibus Afflictionibus. See Gieseler, s. § 59.] 2 Cornelius Jansen was born a. d. 1585, and died 1638, as bishop of Ypern. His principal work was edited after his death : Augustinus seu Doctrina S. Augustini de humanse Naturae Sanitate, HEgritudine, Medicina ad versus Pelagianos et Massilienses, Low, 1640, iii. f. Concerning the ex¬ ternal history of Jansenism (the bull In Eminenti issued by Pope Urban VIII., a. d. 1642), as well as of Jean du Vergier , abbot of St. Cyran, and Port- Royal des Champs, compare the works of Reuchlin, Neale, etc., and the works on ecclesiastical history in general ; as regards the scientific import¬ ance of the Society of Port-Royal, in its bearing upon France, see the works on the history of literature, especially : Sainte Beuve, Port-Royal, 4 vols., Paris, 1840-58. [Histoire des cinq Propositione de Jansen, Liege, 1699, 2 vols., (by Dumas .)] 3 Comp. Vol. i., § 84, 114. Jansenism may be called Protestantism within the Roman Catholic Church, so far as Jesuitism, which is its anti¬ thesis, represents modern Catholicism. But we ought to bear in mind, that this can be said only in reference to the doctrines of grace and of good works. As regards the sacraments (and especially the Lord’s Supper), the Jansenists have strictly retained the views of the Roman Catholic Church, and are quite as decidedly opposed to the Protestant doctrines as the Council of Trent, or the Jesuits. 4 Arnauld was born a. d. 1612, and died 1694. His complete works appeared after his death, Lausanne, 1680, 4. Comp. Reuchlin, p. 132, ss. Kirchenhistorisches Archiv., 1824, p. 101, ss. [The chief works of Arnauld, De la frequente Communion, 1643 ; La Theologie Morale des Jesuites, 1643 ; Apologie de Jansen, 1644 ; (Euvres, 48, 4to. He wrote against the Protes¬ tants (Jurien and Aubertin), the Jesuits (Maimbourg, Annat), and the phil¬ osophers (Descartes and Malebranche). Causa Arnaldina, 2 vols., Leod. Eb., 1699. Vavin, La Verite sur Arnauld, 2 vols., Paris, 1847.] 5 Nicole, was born a. d. 1625, and died 1695. He opposed the Jesuits as as well as the Protestants. Kirchen. Archiv. 1. c. p. 121, ss. [Nicole and Jansenists, 1 rinceton Rev., Jan., 1856. His essays have a high reputation j 25 vols., Paris, 1733, s^.] § 229. Mysticism of the Roman Catholic Church. 203 6 Pascal was born a. d. 1623, at Clermont in Auvergne, and died 1662. He wrote : Les Provinciales (Lettres ecrites par Louis Montalte & un Pro¬ vincial de ses amis.) Col., 1657. — Pensees sur la Religion, 1669. They were translated into German by K. A. Blech , with a preface by Neander, Berlin, 1840. CEuvres, Paris, 1816. Comp, the biography composed by his sister (Mad. Perier), and prefixed to his Pensees; Theremin (Adalberts Bekenntnisse, Berlin, 1831), p. 222, ss. J. Rust , de Blasio Pascale, Erlang., 1833, 4, and *Reuchlin , Pascals Leben und der Geist seiner Schriften, Stuttg., 1840. [Pas¬ cals Pensees, first published by Perier, imperfect, and mutilated ; also by Con- dorcet, 1776 ; Voltaire, 1778 ; revised by Faugeres , after the original, 2 vols., 1844, and Havet , 1852, and Astie, 2 vols., Lausanne, 1857. Des Pensees de Pascal, par V. Cousin, 1843 (comp. Rev. de deux Mondes, Nov. 15, 1853, article by Planch e, reviewing the whole controversy, and Villemain’s Discours., 1855). A. Vinet, Etudes sur Blaise Pascal, Paris, 1848. Neander , geschichtliche Bedentung d. Pensees in his wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen. Abbe May - nard , Les Provinciales et leur Refutation, 2 vols., Paris, 1851 ; comp. Christ. Remembr., July, 1852, a vindication of Pascal. — An English transl. of the Provincial Letters, 2d ed., 1658, Lond. ; also, 1816. Thoughts, newly transl. ed. by Bickersteth, 1833. McCrie’s transl. of Letters, Edinb. Thoughts and Letters, etc., 3 vols., Lond., 1847-50 by Geo . Pearce , New York, 2 vols., 1858. Thoughts, transl. by 0. W. Wight , and Priv. Letters; 2 vols., New York, 1861. Articles on Pascal; Kitto’s Journal , vol. 3; Eclectic (Lond.), Nov., 1852; Princeton Rev., Jan., 1854 ; Rogers, in his Miscellanies; North American (Bowen) vol. 60 ; Neander on Pascal, transl. in Kitto, vol. 3 ; on Recent Editions and Transl., Meth. Quarterly, xii.] 7 Quesnel died a. d. 1719. He published Le Nouveau Testament en fran^ais avec de reflexions morales, etc., Par., 1687. On the controversies respecting the constitution of the Church, see the works on ecclesiastical history. [The 101 Propositions of Quesnel , condemned, see in Church Review, Jan., 1858. The New Test, of Quesnel, with Moral Reflections, Lond., 4 vols., 1719-25 : his Four Gospels, 2 vols. Balt., 1790 : republ., edited by bp. Wilson in 3 vols.; Philadelphia ed., 2 vols., 1855. Acta Publica Constitution is Unigenitus, ed. Pfaff \ Tub., 1721 ; Collectio Nova Actorum, ed. Dubois, 1725 ; Anecdotes, on Mem. secretes de la Const. Unig., 3 vols., Utrecht, 1732.] § 229. THE MYSTICISM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Bamberger , Stimmen aus dem Heiligthum d. Christl. Mystik u. Thesopliie. Stuttg. 1857. [ Vaughan, loc. Noth withstanding all the efforts made by Roman Catholics to obtain the ascendency in science, art, and politics (an attempt in which the Jesuits displayed the greatest activity), they never en¬ tirely lost that spiritual tendency which characterized the orthodox 204 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. mystics of the middle ages. The most distinguished representatives of this tendency, were the new saints Charles Borromeoj1 Francis of Sales ,2 and others, together with Cardinal John Bona.3 Never¬ theless, mysticism here again showed a tendency to pantheism, as is evident in the case of the German mystic, Angelus Silesius .4 — The mystic quietism of Michael Molinos ,5 a Spanish secular priest, formed a striking contrast to the intriguing worldliness of the J esuits, and gave rise to the Quietist controversy in France.6 None hut men of as pure a character as F melon J whose life was one of constant communion with God, could hold such a doctrine in its ideal aspect, without exposing themselves to the danger of fanaticism, the bare possibility of which affrighted men of sober intellect, such as Bos - suet3 1 Borromeo was born a. d. 1538, at Arona, and died 1584, as archbishop of Milan. He was canonised, 1610. Compare: * Sailer, der heil. Karl Borromeus, Augsb., 1823. For his writings, which are chiefly ascetical, see ibid. p. 146, and 225, ss. (where extracts from his homilies are given.) \Godeau, La Vie de Chs. Borrom., Paris, 1747. Giussano, Leben des B. (from Italian), by Klitsche, 3 vols., Augsb., 1836. Dieringer, der heil. Bor¬ rom. d. Kirchen- Verbess. seiner Zeit. Koln., 1846.] 2 Francis of Sales was born a. d. 1567, in Savoy, and died 1622, as bishop (in partibus) of Geneva. He was canonised 1665. — A new edition of his works appeared, Paris, 1834, in sixteen vols. — Introduction a la vie devote. A memoir of his life was published by Marsollier , Paris, 1747, ii. 8. Comp. Sailer, Briefe aus alien Jahrhunderten, Yol. iii. p. 127, ss. [. Baudry , Supplement aux QEuvres de Frang. de Sales, Lyon, 1836. Reusing Leben d. heil. Fr. v. Sales, Paderb., 1818. L. Clarus, Leben von Fr. v. Sales, ii. Schaffh., 1860. An Introduction to a Devout Life, translated by W. Nicholls , Lond., 1701. Philotheca, or an Introduction to a Devout Life, Dubl., 1844.] 3 Cardinal Bona was born a. d. 1609, at Mondori, in Piedmont, entered the order of the Benedictines, was made cardinal, 1669, and died 1674. — He wrote : Via Compendii ad Deum. Col., 1671, 12.— Manuductio ad Coelum. Par., 1664, 12. His works appeared Par. (Antw.), 1677, and Antw., 1739, fol. [Bona’s Guide to Eternity, transl. by Sir R. F Estrange, 6th ed., Lond., 1712; Moral Essay on Friendship, Lond., 1702.] 4 His proper name was Scheffler, * he was born a. d. 1624, at Breslau, renounced Protestantism for the Roman Catholic Church, 1653, and died 1677, in the monastery of the Jesuits at Breslau. He wrote: Heilige Seelenlust — Cherubinischer Wandersmann, etc. Extracts from his works are given by Wackernagel, Deutsches Lesebuch, ii. col. 427, ss .— Varnhagen von Ense, Denkwtirdigkeiten und vermischte Schriften, 1837, i. p. 307, ss. * Goschel, in the Jahrbticher fUr wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834, N°. 41, ss. * Schrader objects to the identity of Silesius and Scheffler , in his work, Angelus Sile* Bius in seiner Mystik, Halle, 1853, 4to., but on insufficient grounds. ' § 229. Mysticism of the Roman Catholic Church. 205 Wittmann , Angelus Silesius, als Convertit, Myst. Dichter, und Polemiker, Augsb., 1842. Kahlert , Angelus Silesius, Bresl., 1853. [Comp. Schuster , in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theologie, 1857. Westminst. Rev., Oct., 1853.] 6 Molinos died a. d. 1696, after several years’ imprisonment in Rome. On the question whether he stood in connection with the Alombrados, see Baumgarten-Crusius , Compend. d. Dogm. Gesch. i. p. 407. He composed a Guida spirituale, Rom., 1675. (It was translated into Latin by A. H. Francke , Lips., 1687, 12. C. E. Scharling , Michael de Molinos (from the Danish) [in Niedner’s Zeitschrift, 1854], Gotha, 1855. [Recueil de diverses Pieces concernant le Quietisme ; on Molinos, ses sentiments, etc., Amst., 1688. Molinos’ Spiritual Guide, transl., Lond., 1688. Lettres ecrits de Rome touchant l’affaire de Molin. Amst., 1696. See Notes and Queries, June, 1855, p. 424, in Three Letters on Italy, 1687, by Burnet ? Account of English Mystical works, Notes and Queries, Dec. 20, 1856 ( Willis, Try on , Bromley , etc.)] — Other Spanish mystics prior to his time were : Therese a Jesu (who died a. d. 1582) and Johannes a Cruce (who died a. d. 1591, and was canonised 1726). Lope de Vega , died 1635. Comp. Baumgarten- Crusius, 1. c. p. 410. Hamberger , 189. 6 The controversy was called forth by Antoinette Marie Bouvieres de la Mothe-Guyon (who died a. d. 1717) ; see her autobiography, Col., 1720, iii. and the account of her life given by her confessor, Francois la Combe. Concerning the controversy itself, see the works on ecclesiastical history, and the biography of Fenelon mentioned in the following note. [Der Quietismus in Frankreich, Ruckgaber, in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1856, 2, 4. Vaughan , Helfferich, Noack , in their works on Mysticism. Life of Madam Guyon, by Prof. T. C. TJpham, 2 vols., 1 824 ; comp. Brit. Qu. Rev., May, 1853. — The complete works of Madame Guion form 49 volumes. The Life of Lady Guion, written by herself in French, abridged, Bristol, 1772.-— Life by T. Bigby Brookes , Lond., 1806. Poems transl. by TV. Cowper, 1801.] 7 Fenelon was born A. d. 1651, and died 1715, as bishop of Cambray. He wrote : Explication des maximes des Saints sur la vie interieure, Par., 1697, Amst., 1698, 12. (Euvres Spirituelles, Amst., 1725, v. 12. They were translated into German by Claudius, Hamb., 1823, iii. Avery full memoir of his life (in which an account of the whole controversy is given) is contained in the work of *Bausset, Histoire de J. B. Bossuet, 4 Vols., Vers., 1814, and Herder , Adrastea (Werke zur Philosophic, Vol. ix. p. 43). See Lechler, in Herzog’s Realencyclop., and comp. § 228, note 7. [ Bonnel , De la Contro- verse de Bossuet et Fenelon, Paris, 1850. Fenelon, (Euvres, 10 vols., Par., 1851. Transl. of Directions for Holy Life, 1747 ; Demonstration of Being of of God, 1715 ; Pastoral Letter concerning Love of God, 1715 ; Part of his Spiritual Works, by R. Houghton, 2 vols., Dubl., 1771 ; De Bausset’s Life of F. transl. by W. Mudford, 2 vols., Lond., 1810. Fenelon’s Life by Ch. Butler, 1810. Selections from F.’s Writings, with a Memoir, by Mrs. Fol- len, Bost., 1851. Spiritual Progress, or Instructions in the Divine Life, from the French of Fenelon and Madame Guyon, ed. T. TV. Metcalf, Bost., 1854. ] • See his Relation sur le Quietisme, 1693. 206 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. On the different features which the mysticism of the Roman Catholic Church presents (“ areopagitic, ascetic, speculative, and truly religious mysticism”), see Baumgarten- Qrusius, L p. 409. § 230. LIBERAL TENDENCIES IN CRITICISM AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. TRANSITION TO THE FOLLOWING PERIOD. Though a system of liberal criticism in general was restrained by the very principle of Romanism, yet in. respect to biblical literature the critical spirit was able to develop itself more freely among Roman Catholics than among Protestants. Thus Richard Simon laid the foundation of biblical criticism,1 and also contributed, by his doc¬ trinal writings, to prepare the way for that new state of things which was to grow out of the conflicts of the most heterogeneous elements. About the same time John Baptist du Hamel* and Natalis Alex¬ ander ,3 were distinguished as theologians of a more liberal tendency, who endeavoured to throw off the yoke of scholasticism. [Comp. § 228, Note 6.] 1 Simon was horn a. d. 1638, and died 1712. His work is entitled : Histoire Critique du Vieux Test. Rot., 1685, 4, du N. T., 1689. 2 Du Hamel was born a. d. 1624, officiated as priest of the Oratory, and died 1706. He wrote : Theol. Speculativa et Practica, Par., 1691. Hein¬ rich^ p. 382. Schrockh , vii. p. 208. Noel Alexander was born a. d. 1639, and died 1*724 ; he belonged to the order of the Dominicans, and was a learned monk. [He was condemned for his Gallicanism by Pope Innocent XI., 1684.] Besides his famous Hist. Eccles., best ed. 20, 4to., by Romaglia and Mansi, 1785-90; he wrote: Theologia Dogmatica et Moralis, Par., 1693, X. 8, 1699, 1703. Disserta- tiones Historico-ecclesiasticse, ii. fol. Heinrich , p. 384. Schrockh , 1. c. IV.— THE GREEK CHURCH. § 231. While the very foundations of the Roman Catholic Church were shaken by the Reformation, which, nevertheless, exerted, in some respects, a reviving and regenerating influence upon it, the Greek Church presented the mournful aspect of a ruin in the midst of sur¬ rounding Mohammedan nations. It came into contact with Pro¬ testantism, but only externally, and for a very short time.1 Cyril- lus Lucaris , patriarch of Constantinople, lost his life (a.d. 1638) in consequence of betraying a leaning toward Calvinism.2 Soon after § 231. The Greek Church. 207 (a.d. 1642), Petrus Mogilas , metropolitan of Kiew, together with some other Greek theologians, drew up a confession of faith for the Russians, which met with the approbation of the patriarchs of the East, and received (1672) the sanction of the Synod of Jerusalem. Though Leo Allatius (1669), endeavoured to prove the agreement between the doctrines of the Greek and the Roman Churches, the former continued t § 234. Unitarians (Socinians.) 213 antes in S^mma Universse Theol. Christ., 1787, from the papers of Michael Lombard Sz. Abrahami, died 1658, ed. by George Markos .] 10 [Bp. Bull's (see § 225, b., Note 18) Defensio Fidei Nicaen., was pub¬ lished in 1685, (written several years previous, but could not find a publisher), and was directed against Sandius (a Socinian, died at Amst., 1680), author of Nucleus Hist. Eccles. exhibitus in Hist. Arian., and collector of the Bib¬ liotheca Anti-Trinitar.) ; Zuicker , b. 1612, a physician of Dantzic, author of Irenicum Irenicorum, 1658, also a Socinian; and in fact against the posi¬ tion of Petavius as to the views and authority of the Fathers. Bull’s Judi- cum Ecclesise Catholicse, 1694, is in part against the views of Episcopius and Curcellaeus (successor of Episcopius at Amsterdam, died 1658), who had also been attacked by Maresius, 1650, in his Defensio Fidei Cathol. His Primitive and Apostolic Tradition, 1703, in continuation of the contro¬ versy, is against the Socinian interpretation of the views of the early fathers. — Among the English Socinian writers of this period, were Dr. Arthur Bury , The Naked Gospel, 1690 (a Historical Vindication of the same is ascribed to Le Clerc) : John Biddle , d. 1662, Tracts, 3 vols., reprint, 1691-5 ; Thos. Firmin , d. 1697, Life, Lond.,* 1698, with an account of the Unit, controversy; and Gilbert Gierke, who in his Ante-Nicenismus, 1695, and other works, replied to Bull’s Defensio.] 11 \Samuel Clarke's (see § 225, b. Note 51) Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity was published in 1712 (see vol. fourth of his Works, containing his further controversial writings on the subject), advocating the high Arian view. It was answered by Dr. Wells , 1713, Nelson , Jas. Knight , Bp. Gas- trell, Dr. John Edwards (who also opposed Bull’s subordination scheme), Welchman , Ewd. Potter , Richard Mayo , and others. — In 1719 Dr. Daniel Waterland published his Vindication of Christ’s Divinity, a Defence of some Queries (1726), in relation to Clarke’s scheme, in Answer to Jackson, (b. 1686, d. 1763), and a second Vindication in 1732 ; and a further Vindi¬ cation, 1734 (Works, vol. i. ii. iii.) Daniel Whitby (b. 1638, d. 1726), when he published his Commentaries was orthodox, but in 1715 wrote Dis- quisitiones Modestae in Clariss. Bulli Defens. Fid. Nic., to show that the controversy between Clarke and Waterland was not decided by Christian antiquity. Waterland replied (Works, ii. 232-279) ; Whitby’s rejoinder, 1720, and Waterland’s Answer, 1720 ; Whitby’s Last Thoughts. Jackson also wrote (aided by Clarke), a Reply to Waterland, 1722, and remarks on W.’s Second Defence by Philalethes Cantabrig. — Edm. Calamy's Sermons on Trinity, 1722. Webster , in 1735, at Waterland’s request, translated Mainbourg’s Hist, of Arianism. — William Whiston, b. 1667, d. 1732, in his Prim. Christ. Revived, 5 vols., 1711-12, and on Primitive Liturgies, 2d ed., Lond., 1730. — A. A. Sykes , Modest Plea and Modest Plea continued (thi» latter, 1720, by Clarke). — Thomas Emlyn was also a leading advocate of Arianism (b. 1663, d. 1743), Works, 3 vols., Lond., 1746 — the first two volumes chiefly on this controversy in reply to Stillingfleet, Bennet, Willis, Leslie, etc. The Rom. Cath. divine Ha, warden, also wrote an acute Answer to Dr. Clarke, and Mr. Whiston, etc., by IT. E., Lond., 1729. — For the His- torjT of this controversy, see Van Mildert's Life of Waterland (prefixed to W.’s works) ; life of Clarke; Whistou’s Memoirs, 3 vols., 1749-50; Wbis- 214 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. ton’s Mem. of Clarke, 1730: Disney’s Life of Sykes; Nelson's Life of Bull; Toulmin’s Life of Biddle; Lindsey's Hist. Unitarianism. On the question of the Unitarianism of Milton, Locke, and Newton, see Hales’ on Trinity; King’s Life of Locke; Unit. Tracts, Bost., No. 77; Smythe, in Southern Presb. Rev., 1854. On Milton’s Christ. Doctrines, see Bib. Sacra, 1860. For a full list of the works in the above Trinitarian Controversy, see Watt’s Bibliotheca Britannica, 4 vols., Edinb., 1824, and the Biographia Britan., 7 vols., fob, 1747.] § 235. e C. ARMINIANS (REMONSTRANTS.) Regenboog , Geschichte der Remonstranten. Transl. from the Dutch. Lemgo, 1781. *Abr. des Amorie van der Uneven , bet tweede Eeuwfest van het Seminarium der Remon¬ stranten, Leeuwarden. 1830. 8. [For the literature of the controversy, see Gieseler (N. Y. edition) iv., § 43, p. 505. — The works of Uytenbogcert, Triglandius, Brandt, Re - genboog, Mosche, G. S. Franckius, De Hist. Dogm. Armin., Killiae, 1813. Brandt's History transl., 4 vols., Lond. 1720-23, 1770. Schweizer, Protest. Centraldogmen, ii., 31-201. Gass, Gesch. d. Protest. Dogmatik, ii. Graf, Beitrage zur Gesch. d. Synode von Dordrecht, Basel, 1825. John Hales' , Hist. Cone. Dord, ed. Mosheimius, Hamb. 1724: and in Hales' Golden Remains, 1673, 1690. Thos. Scott, Articles of Synod of Dort, Works, vol. 8; Utica, 1821, and often. Article Arminius, by Pelt in Herzog’s Realen cyclop.] Excluded from the Reformed Church, on account of their more moderate views concerning predestination, the Armenians found them¬ selves compelled to form a distinct religious community,1 the princi¬ ples of which are contained both in the Five Articles of the Remon¬ strants (a. d. 1610), 2 and in the confession of faith drawn up by Simon Episcopius.3 Arminianism is characterized not only by holding to the universality of the provision for redemption, but also by a kind of moderate orthodoxy, almost imperceptibly commingled with heter¬ odox elements, and has chief respect to the moral rather than the rigid dogmatic element. As regards its tendency, it is, in some re¬ spects, allied to the sober common sense of Socinianism, but it has, at the same time, preserved a sufficient amount of positive religion, to oppose 'the special negative doctrines of that creed. Next to Ar¬ minius himself, and Simon Episcopius , Hugo Grotius ,4 and Philip a Limborch ,5 were the most distinguished of the Arminian theolo¬ gians, the former in his philosophico-apologetic and exegetical writ¬ ings, the latter in his doctrinal works. The Arminian Church numbered also among its members many eminent men,6 who exerted a beneficial reaction upon Protestantism by their thorough scientific attainments no less than by the mildness of their sentiments.7 [On English Arminians, see § 225, b., Note 15, etc.] § 235. Arminians (Remonstrants.) 215 1 Arminius (Harmsen, or Hermann,) was born a. d. 1560 at Oudewater, taught from the year 1603 theology in the university at Leyden, and died 1609. His theological works were published, Lugd. Bat. 1629, 4. On the controversy between him and his colleague, Franciscus Gomarus , and its consequences, see the works on ecclesiastical history. [Life and death of Arminius and Episcopius, Lond., 1672; Life of A. by Brandt , transl. by John Guthrie , Lond., 1855; by N. Bangs, New York, 1844. Works of Arminius, transl., 3 vols., Auburn, New York, 1852 (a more complete ed. than that of Jas. Nichols , Lond., 3 vols., 1825-8). Moses Stuart , The Creed of Arminius (to show that he was not an Arminian), Bibl. Repos., 1831. Articles on Arminius by Warren , in Meth. Qu. (N. Y.), 1857, also in vol. iv. ; Christ. Examiner, 1860; Lit. and Theol. Rev., vol. vi. — Francis Gomarus , the chief opponent of Arminius, b. 1563, Prof. Leyden, 1594, at Saumur, 1614, at Groningen, 1618, d. 1641 ; Opera Theol., 2d ed., Amst., 1664.] a They were presented to the States of Holland and West-Friesland under the title : Remonstrantia, Libellus Supplex exhibitus Hollandise et Westfrisiae Ordinibus ; they are reprinted in Walch, Religionsstreitigkeiten ausser der lutherischen Kirche, iii. p. 540, ss. [In Gieseler , iv. (N. Y. ed.), p. 508, Note.] 3 Simon Episcopius (Bishop) was born a. d. 1583, and died 1643. Con- fessio seu Declaratio Sententiae Pastorum, qui in foederato Belgio Remon- strantes vocantur, super praecipuis Articulis Relig. Christ., Harderov., 1622, 4 (in Sim. Episc. Opp. ii. 2, p. 69, ss.) It consists of 25 chapters. Con¬ cerning the different editions and translations of that confession see Clarisse , Encycl. Theol. p. 443, and Winer , p. 23. — Episcopius wrote his Apologia pro Confessione, etc., 1629 (1630?) 4, Opp. p. 95, ss., in reply to the Censura in Confess. Remonstr. (Lugd. Bat., 1626), composed by J. Polyander , Andrew Rivetus , Anton Waleeus , and Ant. Thysius , all of them profes¬ sors in the university of Leyden. As regards several other controversial matters, comp. Episcopii Verus Theologus Remonstrans. ibid. p. 208, ss. In addition Episcopius wrote Institutiones Theologicae, libri iv. (incom¬ plete ; Opp. [Amst., 1650, 65, Tom. ii. fob] Tom. i.) On the catechisms composed by John Uytenbogard , and Bartholomew Prcevostius , see Winer , 1. c. Heppe in Herzog’s Realencyclop., iv. 100. [Another ed. of Episcopius, Opera, 2 fob, Lond., 1678 ; his Conf. Fidei, and Apologia, ii. 69-284, Lim- borch , Vita Episcopii, Amst., 1701.] 4 Grotius was born a. d. 1583, and died 1645. To clear himself from the charge of Socinianism, he wrote his Defensio Fidei Catholicae de Satis- factione Christi, 1617, 8. — De Yeritate Rel. Christ. Lugd, Bat., 1627, 12. — Opp. Theol. Amst., 1679, iii. f., 1697, iv. fob Bas., 1731, iv. f. (the three first volumes contain writings of an exegetical character). See *Luden , Hugo Grotius nach seinen Schicksalen und Schriften, Berlin, 1806. [Opera, Lond., 3 vols., in 4 fob, 1679. Truth of Christ. Relig., transl. by John Clarke, Lond., 1793, 1860. Life by Chs. Eutler, Lond., 1826. Life by de Eurigny , transl. Lond., 1754. Grotian Theory of Atonement, from Baur, by Swain , Bib. Sacra, ix. Articles on G., by Osgood, Christ. Exam., 42 ; in Southern Rev., vol. i, Grotius and the Sources of International Law 216 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. in Edinb. Rev., Oct., 1860 — to show that he introduced the Protestant prin¬ ciple into the exposition of the law of nations.] 6 Limborch was born a. d. 1633, professor in the Gymnasium of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam, and died 1712. His Theologia Christiana appeared Amst., 1686, Basil., 1735, fol. “ The most complete exposi¬ tion of the Arminian doctrine is the celebrated work by Philip a Limborch , ... .a man distinguished for genius , learning , and modesty , whose literary labors are of great value. The very arrangement of his system displays originality . . . . Admirable perspicuity and judicious selection of the material characterise the entire work Staudlin , Geschichte der theologischen Wis- senschaften, i. p. 319. [Limborch’s Complete System or Body of Divinity, transl. with Improvements from Wilkins, Tillotson, Scott* and others, by Wm. Jones, 2, 8von Lond., 1702. His Hist, of Inquisition, transl. by Sami. Chandler , fob, Bond., 1731.] 6 The following were distinguished writers on dogmatic theology: Stephen Curcellceus , the successor of Episcopius ; he was born a. d. 1586, and died 1659. He wrote Institutio Relig. Christ. Libb. 7, in Opp. Theol. Amst., 1675, f. (incomplete.) — Andr. a Cattenburgh was born 1664, and died 1743. He wrote: Spicilegium Theol. Christ. Philippi a Limborch, Amst., 1726, f. — Bibl. Scriptor. Remonstrantium. [ John le Clerc, b. at Geneva, 1657, d. 1736, a universal scholar. Account of his Life and Writings, Loud., 1712. Vetus Test., 4 fob, Amst., 1710; New Test., 1799; Of Incredulity, transl. Lond., 1697 ; Bibliotheque Universelle et Test., 26 vols., Amst., 1686-93. Bibb choisie, 28 vols., 1703-13; Bibb Ancienne et Moderne, 29 vols., 1714-27.] 7 The Arminian principle which renounced the authority of the symbolical books, gave such an impulse to exegetical investigations, to independent her¬ meneutical labors, and to the speculative treatment of theology, that in conse¬ quence of the influence exerted by the works of Episcopius and Hugo Gro- tius, it was introduced into the whole Evangelical Church. Thus a general desire manifested itself in the Protestant Church of Germany, to do away with the authority of the symbolical books.” Schleiermacher , Kirchengeschichte, p. 620. Comp. Gass, loc. cit., 435 : “ The Arminian divines constantly make a discount upon the dogmas, and introduce flowing lines among their sharp outlines, and so keep up a moderate or abbreviated orthodoxy , no longer con¬ fined to the symbolical books, and which is, by way of contrast , to be sup¬ ported by practical piety and moral zeal.” § 236. D. QUAKERS. H. Crcesii Historia Quakeriana. Amstel. 1695. ed. 2. 1103. 8. Quaker historie, Berlin. W. Sewel , Geschichte von dem Ursprunge des christlichen Volkes, so Quaker gen- annt werden, [from the English, publ. fol., Lond. 1722]. H. Tuke , die Religions- grundsatze, zu welchen die Geselschaft der Quaker sich bekennt. Transl. from the English [1805], Leipz. 1828. J. J. Gurney , Observations on the Peculiarities of the Society of Friends, Lond. 1824. [Penn, Summary of the History, Doctrines, and § 236. Quakers. 217 Discipline of the Society of Friends, Lond. 1694, ed. 6, 1107. Gough, History of the People called Quakers, 4 vols., Dubl. 1789. Thos. Clarkson , Portraiture of Quakerism, 3 vols., Lond. 1806. W. B. Wagstaff, Hist. Soc. of Friends, Lond. 1855, Thos. Elwood , Sacred Hist. 3, 8vo., 1778. NeaVs Hist. Puritans, Supplement to vol. 3. S. M. Janney, Hist. Soc. Friends, 4 vols., 1828 (1859). Fothergill , Fox, Sheppard , Bowntree, (prize essay), Hancock , on Causes of Decline of Quakerism, 1859-60. Comp. Westminst. Rev. 1852, and North Brit. Rev. 1860. Summary of Hist. Doctrine and Discipline of Friends, written at the desire of the Meeting for Sufferings in London, 3d ed. Lond. 1844. Epistles of the Yearly Meetings, 1675-1759, fol., Lond. 1760: from 1681 to 1817, Lond. 1818.] The principles of the Quakers are in some points allied with those of the Anabaptists (as regards e. g. the relation of the internal to the external word, etc.). After the fire of enthusiasm kindled by George Fox / the founder of this sect, had gradually subsided, the Society of Friends, under their leader William Penn* obtained (a. d. 1689) the confidence of the English government. But it was es¬ pecially in the United States (Pennsylvania) that this sect gained numerous adherents, though it also spread in other countries. Robert Barclay , a Scotchman, set forth their doctrines, if wTe may so term them, in a systematic form, and drew up a confession of faith.4 1 Fox was a shoemaker, born in the county of Leicester, held fanatical notions, and died 1691. He founded the Society of Friends (to whom the nickname Quaker was given) a. d. 1649, amid the commotions of the English revolution. [Life of Fox, by J. S. Watson , Lond. 1860. Retro¬ spective Rev., Aug. 1854. A list of his publications in Bibl. Britann. Works, 3 fob, 16 94-8. New ed. 8 vols., Philadelphia. S. M. Janney , Life of Fox, Phil. 1853.] 2 Penn was the son of the celebrated admiral of the same name, enter¬ tained more moderate opinions than Fox, died a. d. 1718. See the memoirs of his life by Marsillac , Par. 1791, 8, transl. into German, Strasb. 1793, 8. Th. Clarkson , Memoirs of the private and public Life of W. Penn, Lond. 1813, ii. 8. Morgenblatt, 1816, Feb. Nos., 43-47. Penn himself wrote : A Summary of the history , doctrine and discipline of Friends. Ed. 6, Lond. 1707, 8, (transl. into German by Seebohm, Pyrmont, 1792. [Works, 2 fob, 1726. No Cross, no Crown, 13th ed. Lond. 1789. W. H. Dixon , William Penn, an historical Biog., with a chapter on the Macaulay Charges, Lond. 1851, new ed., 1856. A. J. Paget , Inquiry into Macaulay’s Charges, Lond., 1859. M. L. Vulliemin, Guillaume Penn, Paris, 1856. Geo. Bancroft , Hist. United States, vol. ii., chap, xvi.] 3 Their first settlement in the United States took place a. d. 1681. From the year 1686 they enjoyed toleration in England. But it was not till the eighteenth century that they gained any adherents on the Continent (the community existing in Pyrmont was founded 1791). See Ludw. Seebohm , Kurze Nachr. von dem Entstehn und dem Forgang der christliclien Gesell- "chaft der Freunde. Pyrmont, 1792. 4 1. Theologian vere Christianae Apologia. Amsterdam 1676, 4°. Ger- 218 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. man translations of it appeared 1648, 1740, 8. 2. Catecliismus et Fidei Confessio approbata et confirmata communi Consensu et Consilio Pa- triarcharum, Prophetarum et Apostolorum, Christo ipso inter eos prsesi- dente et prosequente. Rot. 1676, 8. It was originally written in English, (all made up of Bible texts). Collective edition of Barclay’s works, by W. Penn, 1692. [. Robert Barclay , b. 1648, d. 1690. See the article in Alii- bone's Diet, of Authors. His first work, 1670, Truth cleared of Calumnies (against William Mitchell ) ; two other treatises, to 1671. In 1675, Cat¬ echism and Confess, of Faith ; Anarchy of Ranters, 1676 ; Universal Love, 1677 ; on Immediate Revelation, 1679. His chief work, An Apology for the true Christ. Divinity, 1678, on the basis of Theses Theologicae, previously propounded and sent to all parts. This has been frequently reprinted and translated into most of the languages of Europe. ' Against it, Thos. Ben- net's Confutation, 1705, and other English as well foreign divines; Arnold, of Franeker, Baier of Jena, Anton Reiser, Barthold Holzfuss, Ben. Figken, etc.] § 237. ATTEMPTS AT UNION (SYNCRETISM.) C. W. Bering, Geschichte der kirchlichen Unionsvorsucbe, seit der Reformation bis auf unsere Zeit., Leipz. 1836-38, ii. [Comp, also § 218, note 2.] H. Schmid, Gesch. d Synkretist Streitigkeiten, Erlang, 1846. W. Gass , Geo. Calixt. u. der Synkretismus, Breslau, 1846 [and in his Gesch. d. Dogmatik, ii., 67-216.] Beppe, die alt Protest. Union (Confessionelle Entwicklung), p. 252 sq. [Gieseler, iv., § 51, 52. G. G. Neu- decker, Die Hauptversuche zur Pacification der Evang. Protest. Kirche Deutschlands Leipz. 1846. Benke, Geo. Calixtus und seine Zeit, ii., Halle, 1853-60 ; comp. Bun- deshag en in Stud. u. Kritik., 1856. Schweizer, Centraldogmen, ii., 532 sq. Niedner , Gesch. d. Kirche, 743-7. Christ. Remembrancer, Lond. 1855, on Calixt and the Peace-makers.] Though the different religious parties were at that time strongly opposed to each other, there were, nevertheless, attempts to effect a union between the Lutherans and Calvinists1 on the one side, and between Protestants and Roman Catholics on the other.2 These ef¬ forts tended to relax the stiffness of dogmas, hut also to emasculate what was characteristic in them. The sects, too, exerted a reacting influence on the greater ecclesiastical bodies, since the mystics, who still adhered to the church, agreed in essential points with the Ana¬ baptists and Quakers.3 Arminianism and even Socinianism, so influ¬ enced sober common sense theologians, that they became favorable to greater concessions.4 1 As early'as the time of the conflicts to which the Reformation gave rise, Martin Bucer and Philip Landgrave of Hesse , endeavoured to allay the demon of dissension. [On Cassander, see Gieseler, iv. 577 ; on Be Dominis, p. 579 ; Junius , p. 580. In the year 1614, the Calvinist, David Pareus , d. 1622, took steps towards the effectual establishment of such a union. His § 237. Attempts at Union (Syncretism.) 219 work, “ Irenicum,” in which he made use of the word Syncretism, may be regarded as the forerunner of the writings of Calixt on the same subject. Comp. Gass, in the work quoted § 218, Note 2, p. 8.] Among the Luther¬ ans, Calixt endeavoured, in the course of the seventeenth century, to recon¬ cile the separate parties, and thus gave rise to what is called the Syncretistic controversy ; among Calvinists, John Durasus , a Scotchman, labored from the year 1630 for the same obyect. [Bury died in 1680, in Cassel ; from 1626 he was preacher to the Puritan Colony at Elbing, in Prussia; he jour¬ neyed widely for his project, and wrote Consultatio Theologica super Negotio Pacis Eccles., Lond., 1641 ; commented on by Hunnius, 1641. For the other works of Dury, see Gieseler, iv., § 51, Note 28. See Berzelius , Comm. Hist. Theol. de J. Duraeo, cum Prsef. J. L. Moshemii , Helmst. 1744. Bishop Hall was influenced by Dury to write his Pax Terris, in Duraei Irenicorum Tractat. Prodromus : and Bishop Bavenant , De Pace inter Evange- licos, Lond. 1638.] The Conference of Leipsic, a. d. 1631. The Confer¬ ence of Thorn, 1648. (Colloquium charitativum.) [The Consensus Sando- miriensis ; see the “Historical Account of the Consensus Sandomiriensis, or Agreement of Sandomir, formed among the three orthodox bodies of Protest¬ ants in Poland, in the year 1570,” in the Continental Echo, for 1846, p. 84 ss. 110 ss. 139 ss. Hugo Grotius, Yotum pro Pace Ecclesiastica, 1642. Ni¬ colas Hunnius , project of a Collegium Ireuicum of ten or twelve thelogians, 1632 ; see Niedner , 779.] 2 Bossuet (see § 227, Note 14). Rouas (Roxas) de Spinola (bishop of Tina in Croatia from the year 1668, and bishop of Wienerisch-Neustadt from the year 1685 ; he died 1695) entered into negotiations with Molanus , abbot of Loccum in Hanover. Leibnitz took part in the negotiations. [ Molanus was overseer of church affairs in Brunswick and Hanover; his project, Regu¬ lar circa Christianorum omnium ecclesiasticum Reunionem, was published in 1691 ; his Cogitationes Privatae, on the basis of Cassander, Grotius and Spi¬ nola, 1691. Bossuet wrote De Scripto cui titulus “Cogit. Privat.” Episcopi Meldensis, 1692; Molanus, Explicatio Ulterior, 1692. Leibnitz, Correspon¬ dence with Paul Pelisson, Mdme. de Brinon and Bossuet, 1691-4, 1699- 1701, (Opera ed. Duten, i., 507-537 ; see also CEuvres de Leibnitz, publiees pour la premiere fois d’apres les manuscrits originaux, par A. Foucher de Ca- reil, Paris, Tomes i. ii., 1859-60; and comp. Ch. de Remusat, Leibnitz et Bos¬ suet, in Rev. des deux Mondes, Jan. 1861.) Systema theologicum Leibnitii (making large concessions to the Catholics), after the Paris manuscript first ed. in French by Eymery (Exposition de la Doctrine de Leibnitz), Paris, 1815 ; German version By Rass and Weiss, Mainz, 1820 ; Latin and German by C. Haas, Tubing. 1860. Comp. Schulze, Ueber die Entdeckung dass L. Katho- lik gewesen, Getting. 1827. Guhrauer, Leibnitz Deutsche Schriften, 1837, ii. Appendix, 65-80.] 3 Especially in the doctrines concerning internal revelation, justification, etc., (thus they contributed, at least to modify, the direct opposition to the Romish Church). 4 Comp. § 235, note 7. 220 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. § 238. INFLUENCE OF PHILOSOPHY. DEISM. APOLOGETICS. John Leland , a View of the principal deistical writers that have appeared in England in the last and present century, 1754, ii. voll., [5th ed. 1766; new ed., Appendix by W. L. Brown , and Introduction by C. R. Edmonds , Lond. 1837.] Thorschmid, Frei- denkerbiblothek. Halle, 1765-67. Herder , Adrastea (Werke Zur Philosophie und G-eschicte, ix.) *Gotth. Viet. Lechler , Geschichte des englischen Deismus, Stuttg. 1841. Carriere , Die philos. Weltanshauung der Reform ationszeit. Stuttg. 1847. 0. Hagen , Der Geist der Reformation und seine Gegensatze, ii. Erlang, 1843-4. [Mark Pattison , Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, in Essays and Reviews, 1860, pp. 279-362.] And lastly, the religious parties, though divided on so many points, could make common cause in the contest for Christianity in general, against a tendency which either renounced the positive au¬ thority of revelation, or threatened it in essential relations. As early as the century of the Deformation, a theory of the universe was es¬ poused, now in a deistic, and again in a pantheistic form, especially in Italy, which threatened to become dangerous to the Christian faith in a revelation, as held by Koman Catholics as well as Protest¬ ants.1 Theological science, however, was for the most part unaf¬ fected by these tendencies, and even the systems of the schools of the seventeenth century which attained a more definite shape, had, with the exception of the Cartesian philosophy, no particular influ¬ ence upon the shaping of the Christian dogma, toward which they as¬ sumed as far as possible the attitude of neutrality.* Towards the end of the period (making the transition to the next) a popular form of philosophy, the so-called philosophy of common sense, made open war against the Christian system. Its advocates are generally known under the name of F reethinkers, Deists or Naturalists. Aim¬ ing at practical results, with bold and hasty judgments, they de¬ clared war against the belief in revelation adopted by all the confessions,3 and thus called the slumbering apologists of the Chris¬ tian Church to re-enter the lists.4 1 u In the history of the world there are four successive periods , in which open unbelief and unconcealed enmity to Christianity , went the rounds (so to speak ) among the chief nations of Europe . These tendencies originated in the higher spheres of society , and pressed down into the middle class , and were cherished and extolled in both as the height of culture. Italy made the begird¬ ing in the fifteenth and sixteenth century • England and France followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth ; the series closes in Germany in the nineteenth I Der deutsche Protestantismus, s. 53. — Among the philosophers of Italy, the most noted were, Girolamo Cerdano , born 1501, died 1576 ; Bernardino § 238. Influence of Philosophy. Deism. Apologetics. 221 Telesio, b. 1508, died 1588, “ the forerunner of the French sensualism Giordano Bruno , burnt at Rome, Feb. 1 7, 1600. Julius Caesar Vanini , born 1585, executed “ as an atheist and blasphemer,” at Toulouse, Feb. 9, 1619; Tomaso Campanella , b. 1508, d. 1639. The position assumed by these men towards Christianity was, however, different in different instances ; some of them retained its positive, particularly its mystical, elements ; others, Yanini in particular, were skeptical even to blasphemy. See Carriere , ubi supra. [Comp. H. Ritter , Die Christl. Philos. Bd. ii. s. 119- 146. Bruno , in Eel. Mag., vol. 17.] 2 Cartesianism , almost alone, exerted a more direct influence upon the theology of the present period, and, in the first instance, only upon that of the Reformed Church (see § 225, note 1) ; Malebranche , however, introduced this philosophy also into the theology of the Romish Church. [Comp. Bouillier , La Philos. Cartesienne, 2 Tom., Paris, 1854. Kuno Fischer, Gesch. d. neueren Philos, i. 1855.] Spinoza (born a. d. 1632, died 1617), a man of elevated character, stood aloof from all ecclesiastical con¬ nections, on which account the theologians of his age took no notice of him. It was not till after his death that the speculative writers on Christian theology turned their attention to his system. [On Spinoza, see the histories of philosophy by Ritter , Hegel, K. Fischer , Erdmann, Feuerbach, and others. Saintes, Historie de la Yie et des Ouvrages de Spinoza, 2 vols., Paris, 1842. Orelli, Leben und Lehre des Spinoza, 1843, 2d ed., 1850. CEuvres, traduits par E. Saisset , nouvelle ed., Paris, 1861. — The discussion between Schelling and Jacobi (1785), revived the interest in his system. — Trendelenburg, Spinoza’s Grundgedanken, 1850. Bouillier, in his Hist, de la Philos., Cartesienne, 1854, vol. i., 300-409. — Keller, Spinoza und Leibnitz, Erlang., 1847. Helfferich , Spinoza und Leibnitz, 1846. A tract attributed to Leibnitz, Refutation of Spinoza, was published by Foucher de Careil, 1854, from a MS. in the Hanover library, transl. into English, Lond., 1855. Articles in Westminster Review, vol. 39 (by Lewes) ; and July, 1855 ; in Southern Qu. Rev., vol. xii. See also letters between Ripley and Norton, on Latest Form of Infidelity, Bost., 1840 ; Letter Second, on Spinoza.] — Locke born a. d. 1632, died 1704) promoted the interests of the empirical system, which was first established by Francis Bacon of Yerulam (who died a. d. 1626), and in its turn contributed to the development of Deism (though counter to the intentions of its author). — \E. Tagart, Locke’s Life and Writ¬ ings, historically considered, and vindicated from the charge of contributing to the skepticism of Hume Lond., 1855. Thos. E. Webb, Intellectualism of Locke, Lond., 1857. B. H. Smart, Thoughts and Language, a Revival of Locke’s Philosophy, Lond., 1855. E. Scharer, John Locke, seine Yers- tandestheorie, etc., Leipz., 1860. V. Cousin, Psychology, transl. by C. S. Henry (Cousin’s Criticism of Locke, in his Lecture on Hist. Philos.), 1848. 1859 ; Comp. President Day in Christ. Quart. Spect., vol. vii. Other arti¬ cles in British Quart., v. ; Christ. Exam. ( Eowen ), xxiii. ; Edinb. Rev., 1854. Dugald St uart's Philos. Essays, 1 and 3, in Works, vol. iv.] — Leibnitz (born 1646, died 1716) interested himself much in theology, as may be seen from his work on Theodicy (comp. § 261, note 7), and the part he took in the attempts at union (see § 237, note 2.) \Guhrauer, Leben Leibnitz, 2te., 222 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Ausg., 1846 ; abridged transl., Boston, 1840. Zimmermann , L.’s Mo- nadologie, 1847. La Philosophie de Leibnitz, par Nourrisson , Paris, 1860. Kuno Fischer , Leibnitz n. seine Schule, 2d vol. of Gesch. d. neneren Philos., Mannheim, 1855. Articles on Leibnitz in North British, vol. 5 ; Edinburgh Rev., vol. 84; Gent. Mag. ( Harwell ), 1852.] But it was not till Wolf remodeled his philosophy (in the following period), that it attracted the attention of theologians, and was introduced into their writings. 3 Concerning the vagueness of these appellations, see Herder , 1. c. pp. 174, 175. Lechler , p. 452, ss.* The so-called Deists differed widely among themselves in character, spirit, and sentiments, f and an equal dif¬ ference may be observed in the relation in which their systems stand, both to each other and to Christianity. The Deism of England can only be explained in connection with the history of the English Reformation, and the conflicts to which it gave rise. Among its promoters, in addition to the sect of the Seekers and Rationalists ( Lechler , p. 61, note), were the follow¬ ing writers : Herbert of Cherbury (died 1648), Thomas Hobbes (born 1588, d. 1679, at the age of 91), Charles Blount (died 1693), John Toland (died 1722), Anthony Collins (died 1729), Anthony Ashley Cooper (Earl of Shaftesbury , died 1713), Thomas Woolston (died 1733), Matthew Tindal (died 1733), Thomas Chubb (an illiterate person , a glover and chandler, died 1747), and several others who lived in the following period. [See § 238, a.] — In France, Jean Bodin (died 1596, author of the Heptaplomeres, published anew by Guhrauer, 1841). Michael de Montaigne [died 1592 ; his Essais, published by H Angelier, Paris, 1595 ; best edition by Pierre Coste , 3, 4to., Lond., 1724; complete works, transl. byHazlitt, Lond., 1840]; and Pierre Charron [his work of Wisdom, transl. by Geo. Stanhope , 2d ed., 2 vols., Lond., 1707] (died 1603), manifested a sceptical tendency; in later times, Pierre Bayle (died 1706) prepared the way for French Naturalism; concerning him see L. Feuerbach , Pierre Bayle, Anspach, 1838. [Bayle’s Diet, transl. into English, 1710, 4 vols., fob, 1710; 5 fob, 1734-7; im¬ proved in the General Dictionary, 10 fob, 1741.] In Germany, Matthias Knutsen (who lived about the year 1674) founded the sect of the “Gewis- sener,” Conscientiarii. [F'. W. S torch, died 1704, De Concordia Rat. et Fidei. J. K. JBippel , died 1734, Christ. Democritus. J. L . Schmidt , died 1740, transl. Toland into German.] 4 Grotius composed his apologetical work (§ 235, note 4) without refer¬ ence to Deism. Robert Boyle (1638) endowed a series of lectures for the special purpose of opposing the English Deists* Among the English apol¬ ogists, the most distinguished were Richard Baxter (died 1691), William * The term “Deism,” in particular, is not to be- confounded with the same term as used by philosophers in distinction from Theism ; for even Pantheism could ally itself with this tendency in its denial of Revelation. j- The author of the work Der Deutsche Protestantismus, justly calls attention to the preponderance of an idealistic and spiritualising philosophy, as a characteristic of the English Deism, and to its honorable moral earnestness, in contrast with the frivolity of the later French materialism. § 238, a. The English Deism. 223 SherlocJc (died 1707), and others. On their polemical writings, in refutation of the Deists, see Lechler, 1. c. ; [see the next section]. Among the French apologists we may mention Pascal (see § 228, note 6), and Abbadie , a member of the Reformed Church (died 1727), who wrote: Traite de la Ve- rite de la Religion Chretienne. Rotterd. 1684. § 238, a. [THE ENGLISH DEISM.] [Bp. W. Van Mildert, Rise and Progress of Infidelity; Boyle Lectures, 1802-4, 2 vols., Oxf., 1838.] [Rationalism, in the form of Deism, was first systematically set forth in England. Its fundamental principle was, that reason is the source and measure of truth. Of Christianity, it adopted only those truths which could be considered as a product or republication of the light of nature ; rejecting all that was miraculous, supernatural, or mys¬ terious. Acknowledging a God, it denied a specific revelation. This tendency was evoked and stimulated in England not only by the conflicts of religious parties, and the prevalent freedom of thought and inquiry, hut also by the force of reaction against the high church claims of the supremacy of a merely external authority, and by the progress of the empirical philosophy, as represented by some of the interpreters of Bacon 1 and Locke 2 and in the writings of Hobbes.3 The first of the avowed Deists was Edward Herbert , Lordj Cherbury ,4 who reduced religion to the most general truths of a system of natural ethics. Charles Blount ,6 was a follower of Hobbes. Locke's thesis of the Reasonableness of Christianity was perverted by John Poland 6 into the position that Christianity is not mysteri¬ ous, admitting in the New Testament only what is comprehensible by reason. Anthony Collins ,7 continued the warfare in his Discourse on Free Thinking (1713), and his Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion (1725), to which thirty-five replies were published. Thomas Woolston 8 attacked the Miracles of the Scripture (1727-30.) At the close of this period Matthew TindaV gave a summary of the principles of Deism, in his Christianity as old as the Creation ; or, the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature. Somewhat later Thomas Chubb , and Thomas Morgan continued the succession of deistic writers,10 which ended with Lord Bolingbroke (see § 275). Deism passed over into skepticism, the moral principles of the school were represented in a more refined form by Anthony Ashley Cooper ,n Earl of Shaftsbury, and in a grosser manner by Mandeville ,12 in his Fable of the Bees, pre¬ sented as a nuisance by the grand jury in 1723.] 224 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. [Among the ablest defenders of the Christian system against these assaults were, Richard Bentley in his Boyle Lectures, and in his re¬ ply to Collins ; Richard Baxter , 8. Clarke , Sherlock , in reply to Woolston; the dissenter, James Foster ,13 and Bishop Stillingjleet; Bishop Butler in his admirable Analogy, and many others.14] 1 [j Francis Bacon , Baron of Verulam, b. 1561, d. 1626. Works by Basil Montagu , 16 vols., Lond., 1825-34 ; new edition by Spedding and Ellis, Lond., 1857, sq., reprinted, Boston, 1860, sq. (The Advancement of Learning, 1605 ; Essays, 1597-1624 ; Novum Organum, 1620 ; I)e Aug¬ ments Scient., 1623). Comp. Chs. de Remusat , Bacon, sa Vie, sa Philoso¬ phic, etc., Paris, 1857. Kuno Fischer, Franz B. von Verulam; die Real- philosophie, Leipz., 1856, transl. by Oxenford , Lond., 1857. G. L. Craik, Bacon and his writings, new ed., 1860. W. H. Dixon, Personal Ilist. of Lord B., Lond. and Bost., 1860. De Maistre, Bacon, 2 vols., Paris. — The philosophy of Bacon was expounded by the French school, in a spirit for¬ eign to that of its author, applying its principles of induction to the super¬ natural as well as the natural sphere. Bacon made a broad distinction between the two, and he himself believed in the fundamental principles of the Christian faith ; see his Literary and Professional Works, vol. 2. His real spirit is expressed in the petition contained in the Preface to the Instauratio Magna : “ We suppliantly beseech, that things human may not injure things divine ; and that nothing of darkness and unbelief, with reference to the divine mysteries, may arise in our minds from the unlocking of the road for the senses, and the greater enkindling of natural light.”] 3 [ John Locke, b. 1632, d. 1704. Works, 3 fob, 1714, and often; 10th ed., Lond., 10 vols., 1801. Life, by Lord King, 2d ed., 2 vols., Lond., 1830. The principles of his Essay on the Human Understanding, were opposed by bp. Stillingfleet, 1697-99. His Reasonableness of Christianity gave the tone to the apologetic literature of the period. Comp. § 237, note 2.] 3 \Thomas Hobbes, of Malmsbury, b. 1588, d. 1679. Works by Sir Wm. Molesworth, 16 vols., Lond., 1839-55. (Leviathan, 1651 ; Tripos; on Lib¬ erty and Necessity, 1654). He was opposed by Cud worth, in his Intel. System ; by Cumberland, Be Legibus Naturae ; by Barker, Be Beo ; by bp. Bramhall, on Necessity, and Catching the Leviathan, 1658; by abp. Tenison, 1670 ; by Lord Clarendon, in his Survey of the Leviathan. Though reckoned among the deists, his principles subverted the basis of morality as well as religion, substituting external authority for moral obligation. For the literature of his controversies, etc. see Allibone, Bict. of Authors. Hobbes , Lehre liber Staat u. Kirche, by Bister, in Beutsche Zeitschrift, Aug., 1855.] 4 [ Edward Herbert, Lord Cherbury, b. 1851, d. 1648. Be Veritate, Paris, 1624, Lond., 1633. Be Religione Gentilium, Amst., 1663, in English, Lond., 1704. Life, written by himself, 1764. He reduced the truths of natural religion to five points: 1. Being of God; 2. Buty of Worship; 3. Virtue and piety ; 4. Repentance ; 5. Retribution in this world and the next. He was answered by Locke, Baxter, Gassendi, Halyburton, Leland / and by § 238, a. The English Deism. 225 Kortholt , De tribus impostoribus (Herbert, Hobbes, and Spinoza), Hamb., 1701.] 3 [ Charles Blount, b. 1654, committed suicide 1693. Anima Mundi, 1679; Religio Laici ; Oracles of Reason, 1695. Life of Apollonius of Tyana, fob, Lond., 1680 ; a French version, 1775, 4 vols., Berlin. Replies by Nicholls , Conference with a Theist, 2 vols., 3d ed., 1723 ; Van Milder t's Boyle Lectures.] 6 [ John Toland, of Ireland, b. 1669, d. 1722. Christ, not Mysterious, Lond., 1696 ; an Apology for Mr. T. by himself, written the day before his book was resolved to be burnt by the Committee of Religion, 1697 ; Naza- renus, or Jewish, Gentile, and Mohamed. Christianity, 2d ed, 1718; Collec¬ tion of Pieces, 2 vols., Lond., 1726. His Amyntor, or Defence of Milton’s Life, 1699, was also designed to show that the canon of the New Test, is uncertain; replied to by Samuel Clarice, 1699, in Richardson's canon of New Test., and in Jones' New and Full Method of settling the Canonical Authority, 1726, 2, 8vo., a 3d vol., 1727. His Christ, not Mysterious was answered by John Morris, abp. Synge, of Tuam, and bp. Browne, of Cork. His Adeisidsemon sive Titus Livius, and Origines Judaicae, were published at the Hague, 1709, and answered by La Fare, of Utrecht, in his Defensio Religionis, 1709, and Benoit, of Delft, in his Melanges de Remarques criti¬ ques, etc., 1712.] 7 [Anthony Collins, b. 1676, d. 1729: Essay on the Use of Reason, 1707; on Immortality, in the Dodwell Controversy, 1707-8 ; Priestcraft in Perfection, 1710 ; History of XXXIX. Articles, 1724 ( Bennett's Essay in reply to the former book, 1815); Vindication of the Divine Attri¬ butes, 1710; Discourse on Freethinking, 1713 — a French version, much altered, at the Hague, 1 714. His work was replied to most conclusively by Dr. Bentley, in his Remarks upon a late Discourse on Freethinking, by Philaleutherus Lipsiensis, 1713, 1719, 1743, transl. into several tongues. Collins’ Inquiry Concerning Liberty and Necessity, 1715-17 (in French, by Des Maizeaux, 2 vols., 1720). His discourse of the Ground and Reason of the Christ. Religion, 1724. This work was occasioned by Whiston’s work on Prophecy, and Collins takes the ground, that prophecy is the principal evidence, but that no prophecy can be proved except by allegorical interpre¬ tations. His Scheme of Literal Prophecy, in defence, was published in 1727. This attack on prophecy made a great noise. In reply, bishop Chandler , 1725, A Defence of Christ, from the Prophecies; Samuel Chandler , Vin¬ dication, 1725 ; Sykes, on the Truth of Christ. Religion, 1725 ; Whiston , Supplement to the Literal Accomplishment, 1725 ; Thos. Sherlock, Use and Intent of Prophecy ; Moses Bowman, Argument from Prophecy, 1733; Review of the Controversy, by Thos. Jeffrey, 1726, who also wrote Christ, the Perfection of all Religion, 1728.] 8 [Thomas Woolston, b. 1669, d. 1733, next attacked the miracles, in his Discourses on the Miracles, 1727, for which he was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of one hundred pounds ; the work reached a 6th ed., 1729 ; Defence, 2 Parts, 1729-30. He zealously advocated the alle¬ gorical interpretation, in opposition “ to the ministry of the letter.” Some twenty replies were published : bishop Pearce, of Rochester, Miracles Vind., 226 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 1729 ; bp. Smalbrook , Vindication, 2 vols. ; Lardner's Vind. of Three Mira- cles, 1729 ; particularly bp. Sherlock , Trial of the Witnesses of the Resur¬ rection, 1729, 14 editions published (the French author, Peter Annet, attacked this 15 years afterwards) ; Stackhouse , State of the Controversy, 1730.] 9 [. Matthew Tindal, b. 1657, d. 1733 ; Rights of Christ. Church, and De¬ fence, 1706-9; his Christ as Old as the Creation was published when he was 73 years old, in 1730, the ablest work in vindication of the perfection of natural religion. In reply, bp. J. Conybeare, Defence of Revealed Relig¬ ion, 1732; Thos. Burnet , Conferences; Waterland , Script. Vindicated; Law’s Case of Natural Religion ; also Stebbing , Balguy , Foster (see be¬ low), and others. One of the ablest of these was John LelancVs Answer, 2 vols., Dublin, 1733, Lond., 1740.] 10 [ Thos . Morgan , d. 1743 ; his chief work was, The Moral Philosopher, 3 vols., Lond., 1737, 2d ed., 1738, and Defence, in professed opposition to “ Judaistic Christianity ;” in reply, J. Chapman , Eusebius, the True Chris¬ tian’s Defence, 1739 ; Leland , Divine Authority of Old and New Test., 1739 ; Bowman , on Civil Government of Hebrews, 1740. The controversy was con¬ tinued by the deistic tract Christianity not founded in Argument — replies by Benson and Randolph; and by another tract on the Resurrection of Jesus, answered by West and Littleton (see Leland1 s Deistical Writers, i. Letters, xi. xii.) — Thomas Chubb , b. 1679, d. 1747 ; the Previous Question with re¬ gard to Religion, 1725; Three Facts, 1727 ; Reason and Religion, 1731; Posthumous Works, 6 vols., 1754, etc.] 11 [The Earl of Shaftesbury, b. 1671, d. 1713. The Moralist, 1709; Sensus Communis, 1710. His Characteristics, 3 vols., 1711-23, are intended to exalt virtue at the expense of revealed religion, making virtue its own reward, needing no religious sanctions. John Brown, Essays on the Char¬ acteristics, 1750 ; see also Mackintosh, Progress of Ethical Science, Memoirs of Shaftesbury, 2 vols., Lond., I860.] 12 [. Bernard Mandeville,b. in Holland, 1670, removed to England, d. 1733. The Fable of the Bees ; or, Private Vices Public Benefits, 2 vols., Lond., 1714. William Law's Remarks on the Fable of the Bees, with an Introd. by F. J). Maurice, Cambr., 1844. Bishop Berkeley's Minute Philosopher, written in Newport, R. I., and published 1732, was intended as a reply to Mandeville, whose opinions are there represented by Ly sides 13 [Hon. Robert Boyle, son of Earl of Cork, b. 1626, d. 1691. Works, C vols., 4to. Lond., 1772, with Life by T. Bird. The Boyle Lecture Sermons were founded “ to prove the truth of the Christian Religion against infidels, without descending to any controversies among Christians.” A collection, from 1691 to 1732 was published in 1739, in 3 vols., folio. Richard Bent¬ ley (b. 1661, Regius Prof. Divin., Cambridge, 1 716, d. 1742), gave the first course, a Confutation of Atheism ; for his work against Collins, see Note 7, above; Bentley’s works, by A. Dyce , 3 vols., 1856; life by Bishop Monk , Lond., 1830 ; Correspondence, 2 vols., 1842. Samuel Clarke's Demonstra¬ tion of Being and Attributes of God, and his Sermons on Natural Religion were the Boyle Lectures for 1704-5 ; he also wrote in reply to Dodwell on Immortality, and to Toland’s Amyntor. — W. Whiston, wrote in the same § 238, a. The English Deism. 227 series, 1707, on Scripture Prophecy. — Richard Baxter wrote on the Unrea¬ sonableness of Infidelity, and on Reasons for Christian Religion, against Her¬ bert, etc. (Works, vols. 20, 21). — James Foster , b. 1697, d. 1753, published an able Defence of the Christian Religion, against Tindal; 3d ed., 1734. — On Clarke, see § 225, b., Note 51 ; on Sherlock , ib., Note 24 ; on Whiston, ib., Note 52.] 13 [On Stilling fleet, comp. § 225, b., Note 24; his Origines Sacrse, or Rational Account of the Grounds of the Christian Religion, was publ. fob, Cambr., 1701 ; 2, 8vo., Oxf., 1837. — Joseph Butler, bp. of Durham, b. at Wantage, Berkshire, 1692, Preacher at the Rolls, 1 71 8, Bp. of Bristol, 1738, and of Durham, 1746, d. 1752. Works, new ed., Oxford, 2 vols., 1837, 1849, New York, 1844 ; with Life by Samuel Halifax, Bp. of Gloucester. His Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, was published in 1733 — rebutting the deistical arguments against revealed religion by their own concessions about natural religion. His correspon¬ dence, at the age of nineteen, with Dr. Clarke, on some of Clarke’s argu¬ ments for the Being of God, exhibited great acuteness. His Sermons on Human Nature were said by Dr. Chalmers, to be “ the most precious reposi¬ tory of sound ethical principles extant in any language.” The Analogy has been frequently edited ; in England by bp. Wilson , 7th ed. 1846, Wilkin¬ son, 1847, Angus, 1855, Steere, 1857 ; in America by bp. Hobart, Tefft, Albert Barnes, Emory and Crooks, Malcolm . Among the other writers in this controversy were Whitby, Necessity of the Christian Religion (against Herbert), Lond., 1 7 05 ; Thos. Halyburton , (b. 1674, Prof. Div. St. Andrews, 1710, d. 1712), Natural Religion Insufficient, 1714, against Herbert and Blount; William Law (b. 1686, a Non-juror, d. 1711), The Case of Rea¬ son, or Natural Religion fairly and fully stated, in reply to Tindal ; A. A. Sykes (b. 1684, Prebend. Salisbury, 1723, d. 1736), Essay on the Truth of the Christ. Religion, against Collins, 1725 ; Richard Smalbroke (b. 1672, bp. of Lichfield, 1730, d. 1749), A Vindication of the Miracles of our blessed Saviour, in answer to Mr. Whiston, 2 vols., Lond., 1729-31 — an able work; Thos. Broughton ,(b. 1704, d. 1774), Christianity distinct from the Religion of Nature, in reply to Tindal, 3 parts, 1732; John Norris, Reason and Faith in Relation to the Mysteries, Lond., 1697 ; Chs. Leslie (comp. § 225, b.), Short and Easy Method with Deists (works, 7 vols., 8vo., Oxf., 1832) ; Peter Browne (bp. of Cork and Rosse, d. 1735), Answer to Toland’s Christ, not Mysterious, 1697 ; Procedure and Limits of Human Understanding (a Supplement to the above), 2d ed., 1729 ; Simon Browne (Dissenter, b. 1680, d. 1732), Defence of Religion of Nature, etc., against Tindal, Lond., 1732 ; Remarks on Woolston, 1732 ; John Leland (b. 1691, d. 1766), Remarks on H. DodwelVs Christianity not founded on Argument, 1744 ; Divine Authority of the Old and New Testament ; Defence of Christianity, in Answer to Tindal ; Advantage and Necessity of Christian Religion ; View of the Principal Deistical Writers.] 228 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. § 239. division of the material. To facilitate the survey of the history of doctrines during the present period, it will be necessary to begin, in the special part of it, with those doctrines which most distinctly represent the doctrinal differences between the two greater ecclesiastical bodies — i. e. the opposition between • Roman Catholics and Protestants 8 — and then pass over to those in which these sections of the church were more or less agreed (in contrast with the minor sects), and where the anti¬ thesis between Romanism and Protestantism either becomes of minor importance or entirely disappears. To the first class belong the doctrine concerning the sources of religious knowledge (which may be said to constitute the formal principle of Romanism and Pro¬ testantism) ; the doctrine respecting man, sin, justification, and re¬ demption (in which the so-called material principle of Protestantism and Romanism respectively, is brought out) ; and lastly, those doc¬ trines which most clearly display the logical consequences of both these principles — viz. the doctrines of the church,2 of the sacraments (with the exception of baptism), and of purgatory (which forms a part of eschatology).3 To the second class belong theology proper, and christology, the doctrine of baptism, and eschatology (with the exception of purgatory). 1 Here, too, we must have constant regard to the subordinate antagonism between the Lutherans and the Reformed (Calvinists), which first came out in the doctrine respecting the Lord’s Supper, afterwards in the doctrine of predestination, and was also exhibited on other points, without however in¬ volving on either side an abandonment of the common ground of Evangeli¬ cal Protestantism in its fundamental principles. Here, too, may be considered the deviating views of the lesser religious parties, somewhat receding from the general Protestant principles, so far as they bear upon those doctrinal points. 2 The doctrine concerning the church also belongs, in a certain aspect, among the fundamental controverted points, especially in the Roman Catho¬ lic point of view ; see the treatise of Baur in answer to Mohler's Symbolik, p. 60, ss. But the views of Protestants concerning the church resulted rather from their principles on other points. 8 It has, indeed, its inconveniences, thus to separate the different points embraced in the locus about the sacraments, and in eschatology ; but the advantage is found in presenting Symbolism in its true and natural relation to the whole History of Doctrines , thus facilitating a general view of the antagonistic positions. In the doctrines that have respect to Theology, and Christology, and in the doctrine respecting Baptism, come up the chief points of opposition between the larger churches and the sects (Unitarians, Anabaptists). B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FOURTH PERIOD. FIRST CLASS. THE CHARACTERISTIC DOCTRINES OF ROMANISM AND PROTESTANTISM. (INCLUDING THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN LUTHERANS AND CALVIN¬ ISTS, AND THE OPINIONS OF THE MINOR RELIGIOUS PARTIES AND SECTS.) FIRST DIVISION. THE DOCTRINES CONCERNING THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. (THE FORMAL PRINCIPLE). FORMAL PRINCIPLE. § 240. ROMANISM AND PROTESTANTISM. Eeppe, Die Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus. [Comp, the works referred to, voL i., p. 42. W. 0. JDietlein, Vortrage iiber Protest, und Katholicismus, Halle, 1854. Schenkel, Das Princip. des Protestantismus, 1852. Twesten , Protest, und Kathol. in his Dogmatik, i. Bp. Edmond Gibson , Preservative against Popery, 18 vols., Lond. 1848-9, and Supplement, 8 vols., 1849, contains many of the leading English treatises on the points of difference. D. Schenkel, Urspriingliches Verbaltniss der Kirche zum Kanon, Basel, 1838. William Goode , Divine Rule, repr. Phil., 2 vols., 1848. Richard Baxter , Key for Catholicy, 1659; Roman Tradition Examined, 1616. E. B. JPusey, Rule of Faith as maintained by the Fathers of the Church of England.] From the commencement of the Reformation it became evident, in the course of the struggle, that its adherents proceeded upon a different formal principle (as to the source of knowledge, and rule of faith), from that held by the Roman Church of that period. For 230 § 240. Romanism and Protestantism. while the advocates of the Romish Church continually appealed to the authority of tradition, the Protestants refused to yield to any arguments hut those clearly drawn from Scripture.1 This primi¬ tive difference was prominently brought forward in the symbolical books in general, and in those of the Reformed Church in particu¬ lar.2 It may be specified in the four following particulars ; 1. While the Protestant Church asserts that the sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments are the only sure source of religious knowledge, and constitute the sole rule of faith,3 the Roman Catho¬ lic Church assumes the existence of another source together with the Bible — viz. tradition.4 2. Acording to Protestants, the Holy Bible is composed only of the canonical writings of the Old and New Tes¬ tament,5 while the Roman Catholics also ascribe canonical authority to the so-called Apocrypha of the Old Testament.6 3. The Roman Catholic Church claims the sole right of interpreting the Scripture,7 while the Protestant church concedes this right in a stricter sense, to every one who possesses the requisite gifts and attainments, but in a more comprehensive sense to every Christian who seeks after salvation ; it proceeds upon the principle, that Scripture is its own interpreter, according to the analogia fidei.8 With this is connected, in the fourth place, the assumption of the Roman Catholic Church, that the Yulgate version, which it sanctions, is to be preferred to all other versions, as the authentic one, and is thus to a certain extent of equal importance with the original,9 while Protestants regard the original only as authentic.10 1 Luther was led to his view about the Scriptures, as the only rule of faith, from his views about justification ; he came to the formal by means of the material principle. Contending against the false doctrine of justification, as seen in relation to the sale of indulgences, he first of all appealed to the Pope ; then from the Pope ill instructed, to the Pope better instructed ; then to a council ; until at last he recognized the authority of Scripture as alone de; cisive ; and elevated this to the rank of a formal principle. Even in his Protestation at the end of his Theses, he says, that he is not so presumptuous as to prefer his opinion to the opinion of all ; but also, that he is not so thoughtless as to put the Divine Word below fables of human invention (Werke, Walch’s edition, xviii., 254 sq.). He is more definite at the Leipsic Disputation (ibid., p. 1160), saying, that no Christian can be forced to bind himself to aught but the Holy Scriptures, which alone have divine right. In his Resolutions , he rises distinctly above the authority of councils. Com¬ pare his other controversial works, and his position at the Diet of Worms ; see, further, SchenJcel , Das Wesen des Protest., i., 20 sq. [Gieseler, Church Hist., New York ed., vol. v., § 34.] What Luther thus attained unto was further developed by Melanctbon : Loci Theol., ed. Augusti, p. 4 sq. Imo nihil perinde optarim, atque si fieri possit, Christianos, omnes in solis divinis litteris liberrime versari et in illarum indolem plane transformari. Nam cum Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 231 in illis absolutissimum sui imaginem expresserit divinitas, non poterit aliur.de neqne certius neque purius cognosci. Fallitur quisquis aliunde Christianismi formam petit, quam e Scriptura canonica. Comp, also the passages in the later editions, in JBretschseider , Corpus Reform., xxi , p. 453, 685 sq., 732. On the distinction which he makes between Scripture and the wTord of God, see Heppe, u. s., p. 216. — Zwingle came more speedily than Luther to a clear view of the Scriptures as a rule of faith, although he did not at first empha¬ size Scripture as such , but the Word of God in contrast with the doctrines of man. Thus, in his treatise “Yon der Klarheit und Gwiisse des gottlichen Wortes” (Werke, i., 81), he says : “ In fine, that we may stop having to give an answer to every body about all sorts of objections, this is our view, that the Word of God must be held by us in the highest honor (by Word of God meaning only what comes from the Spirit of God), and that to no word should be given such faith as to that. For this word is certain, cannot fail; it is clear, and will not let us wander in darkness ; it teaches itself, expounds itself, and makes the human soul to shine with all salvation and grace,” etc. See, too, his declarations at both of the Zurich Disputations. He speaks of the Scripture itself first in his Architeles (Opera iii. ; see Ebrard , Abend- malilslehre, ii. 46, sq.). Thus on p. 32 : Scripturam sacram ducem et mag- istram esse oportet, qua si quis recte usus sit, impunem esse oportet, etiamsi doctorculis rqaxime displiceat. And here the highest rule is what Christ teaches, ibid., p. 30 ; Cunctis post habitis hue tandem veni, ut nulla re, nullo sermone tarn fiderem, atque eo, qui ex ore Domini prodiit. Pag. 31 : Dum lapidem inquiro, non invenio alium, quam lapidem offensionis et petram scandali, ad quam offendunt, quotquot Pharisseorum more irritum faciunt praeceptum Dei propter traditionem suam. His itaque in hunc modum com- paratis, ccepi omnem doctrinam ad hunc lapidem explorare, et si vidissem lapidem eundem reddere colorem vel potius doctrinam ferre posse lapidis claritatem, recipi earn; sin minus, rejeci .... Ad hunc thesaurum, puta ad certitudinem verbi Dei, dirigendum est cor nostrum. — And in his Expositio Simplex (Opera, iv. p. 67) : Non vel jota unum docemus, quod non ex divinis oraculis didicerimus, neque sententiam ullam, cujus non primarios ecclesiae doctores, prophetas, apostolos, evangelistas, episcopos, interpretes, sed priscos illos, qui purius ex fonte hauserunt, auctores habeamus, (That is, he urges in respect to Scripture, the idea of its original and primitive authority.) Moreover, according to Zwingle, “ Scripture can be understood only through and by faith, and faith be confirmed, as to its being right, only by the Scripture, which is rightly understood by faith.” (The Analogia fidei. He gives as an illustration, the case of one, who should try to put a horse to a cart without harness or lines, or to draw the cart with ropes without the horse ; both belong together — German Works, ii. 2, p. 3). — The principle about Scripture is more abstractly presented by Calvin , Instit. I. c. 6, § 2 : Sic autem habendum est, ut nobis affulgeat vera religio, exordium a ccelesti doctrina fieri debere, nec quemquam posse vel minimum gustum rectae sanaeque doctrinae percipere, nisi qui Scriptures fuerit discipulus. Unde etiam emergit verae intelligentiae principium, ubi reverenter amplectimur* quod de se illic testari Deus voluit. (Compare what he says in the context of this chapter, and in the subsequent chapters.) 232 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 2 The Lutheran symbols do not contain any separate article de Sacra Scrip- tura, but occasionally oppose tradition. Comp. Confess. August., p. 13, 28 ss. Apolog., p. 205 ss. Articles of Smalcald, p. 337. The Form. Concord, is more definite, p. 570. On the other hand, the symbols of the Reformed Church, for the most part, commence with the article de Sacra Scriptura, or have a special article elsewhere (see the next note). The only exception is the first Confession of Basle, which, nevertheless, concludes with a submission of all its articles to the authority of Scripture. Compare note 3. 3 Articles of Smalcald, 1. c. : Regulam autem aliam habemus, ut videlicet verbum Dei condat articulos fidei et prfeterea nemo, ne angelus quidem. Form. Cone., 1. c. : Credimus ... unicam regulam et normam, secundum quam omnia dogmata omnesque doctores sestimari et judicari oporteat, nul- lam omnino aliam esse, quam prophetica et apostolica scripta cum V. turn N. T. Reliqua vero sive patrum sive neotericorum scripta, quocunque veni- ant nomine, sacris litteris nequaquam sunt aequiparanda. Comp. Sol. Deck, p. 632. — Conf. Helv., I. (Bas. II.) : Scriptura canonica verbum Dei, Spiritu S. tradita, omnium perfectissima et antiquissima philosophia , pietatem omnem, omnem vitae rationem, sola perfecte continet. — Helv., II., 1 : In Scriptura sancta habet universalis Christiana ecclesia plenissime exposita, quaecunque pertinent cum ad salvificam fidem turn ad vitam Deo placentem recte informandam . . . Sentimus ergo ex hisce scripturis petendam esse veram sapientiam et pietatem, ecclesiarum quoque reformationem et gubernationem omniumque officiorum pietatis institutionem, probationem denique dogma- turn reprobationemque aut errorum confutationem omnium, sed admonitiones omnesA Cap. 2 : Non alium snstinemus in causa fidei judicem, quam ip- sum Deum per Script. S. pronunciantem, quid verum sit, quid falsum, quid sequendum sit, quidve fugiendum. — Repudiamus traditiones humanas, quse tametsi insigniantur speciosis titulis, quasi divinse apostolicaeque sint, viva voce apostolorein et ceu per manus virorum apostolicorum succedentibus episcopis ecclesiee traditae, compositae tamen cum scripturis ab his discrepant, discrepantiaque ilia sua ostendunt, se minime esse apostolicas. Sicut enim Apostoli inter se diversa non docuerunt, ita et apostolici non contraria apos- tolis ediderunt. Quinimo impium esset asseverare, apostolos vive voce con- traria scriptis suis tradidisse. — Comp., Conf. Gall., Art. 5 ; Belg. 7 ; Angl. 6; Scot, 18, etc., quoted by Winer , pp. 30, 31. The Remonstrants and So- cinians agreed with the Protestants in this general formal principle. See Conf. Remonstr., i. 10 ss., i. 13 ; Cat. Racov., Qu. 31 and 33, quoted by Winer, pp. 31, 32. Concerning the sense in which Protestants take tradi¬ tion, see below (§ 241).f That the same importance should afterwards be * The Confession, however, grants, that God can enlighten man on extraordinary cases, even without the preaching of the word : Agnoscimus interim, Deum illuminare posse homines, etiam sine externo ministerio, quos et quando velit ; id quod ejus potential est. Nos autem loquimur de usitata ratione instituendi homines, et praecepto et exemplo tra¬ dita nobis a Deo. f In reference to external rites (which are transmitted to us by tradition) the Conf. Angl., says, Art. 34 : Traditiones atque ceremonias easdem, non omnino necessariurn est esse ubique, aut prorsus consimiles. Nam ut varise semper fuerunt, et mutari possunt, pro jegionum, temporum et morum diversitate, mo do nihil contra verbum Dei instituatur. § 240. Romanism and Protestantism. 233 assigned to the symbolical writings of the Protestant Churches, which was formerly ascribed to tradition (Form. Cons., Helv. 26), was not the intention of their original authors ; see the conclusion of the first Confession of Basle ; “And lastly, we submit this our confession to the authority of Holy Writ, and are willing to render grateful obedience to God and his Holy Word, whenever we shall be better instructed therefrom.” Comp. Confess. Helv. II., and Confess. Scot, at the close of the preface. 4 Cone. Trid., sess. IV., (de Canon. Scripturis) : Synodus . hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, ut sublatis erroribus puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia conservetur. . . . perspiciensque veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus , quae ex ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsius apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictante , quasi per manus traditce , ad nos usque pervenerunt : orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tarn V. quam N. T. cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, necnon traditiones ipsas , turn ad fidem, turn ad mores pertinentes, tamquam vel oretenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu Sancto dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur . Si quis autem . traditiones prsedictas sciens et prudens contemserit, anathema sit. Comp. Cat. Rom. prsef. 12; and on the nature of tradition, see the passages from Bellarmine De Verbo Dei iv. 3, quoted by Winer, pp. 30 and 31. [See also Kollner, Symbolik, ii. 342-354.] Cam Loci Theolog. 3. The doctrine of the Greek Church is similar, Confess, orthod. p. 18 : Qavepov nebg ra apOpa rijg nicrreGjg exovot to icvpog nail tt]v dotapacriav, fiepog ano rrjv ayiav ypacprjv, pepog dno rrjv enicXrjOLao- tikt)v napddooiv. 5 Compare the passage in note 3, and what is said of the quam prophetica et apostolica scripta cum V. turn N. T. — The Apocrypha was more distinctly rejected in the symbols of the Reformed Churches, as well as in those of the Arminians, Mennonites, and Socinians. Confess. Helv. II. 1. Gall. 3, 4. Confess. Belg. 6. Confess. Remonstr. i. 6. (Winer, p. 41). Some confes¬ sions of faith even contain lists of the canonical writings, e. g., Conf. Angl. 6 ; Belg. Art. 4. (But the free examination of the canon was thus pre¬ vented or limited.) 9 Cone. Trid. sess. IV. Decret. 1. — Respecting the reasons by which the Roman Catholic Church may have been induced to ascribe so much import¬ ance to the Apocrypha (which indeed contained proofs of some of its doc¬ trines, but with which it could dispense in consequence of the authority ascribed to tradition), see MarheineJce, Symb. vol. ii. p. 234, ss. Winer, p. 41. [Kollner, Symbolik, ii. 346-8.] 7 Cone. Trid. sess. IV., decret. de Edit, et Usu S. S. : Ad coercenda petu- lantia ingenia decernit (Synodus), ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus, in rebus Traditiones et ceremonias ecclesiasticas, quee cum verbo Dei non pugnant, et sunt auctoritate publica institutae atque probatae, quisquis privato consilio volens, et data opera, publice violaverit, is, ut qui peccat in publicum ordinem ecclesiae, quique laedit auctoritatem magis¬ trate, et qui infirmorum fratrum conscientias vulnerat, publice, ut caeteri timeant, arguen- dus est. Quaelibet ecclesia partieularis, sive nationalis, auctoritatem habet instituendi, mutandi, aut abrogaudi ceremonias, aut ritus ecclesiasticos, humana tantum auctoritate institutos , modo omnia ad aedificationem fiant. 234 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae christianae pertinentium, sacram scripturam ad snos sensus contorquens contra eum sensum, quern tenuit et tenet sancta mater ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretations Scripturarum Sanctorum, aut etiam contra unanimem consensum patrum ipsam scripturam sacram interpretari audeat, etiamsi hujusmodi interpreta- tiones nullo unquam tempore in lucem edendae forent. Qui contravenerint, per ordinarios declarentur et pcenis a jure statutis puniantur. The particular comment is given by Bellarmine , De Yerbo Dei, iii. 3. The principal ques¬ tion is, where the Spirit is to be found, to which he of course replies, in the church. When differences arise (which were foreseen by God), there must be some authority to decide. But this can be neither the Sacred Scriptures, nor a revelation made to an individual, nor the secular power. Accordingly, no other authority remains than the princeps ecclesiasticus, i. e. the pope, either alone or in connection with the bishops. Scripture, like a law, admits of several interpretations. In every well-ordered state the power of legisla¬ tion and the power of jurisdiction are two different things. The law com¬ mands, the judge interprets the law, therefore Scripture cannot be its own interpreter. Yet neither pope nor council interpret arbitrarily, but accord¬ ing to Divine inspiration. Comp. J. Gretseri Tractat. Unde Scis, hunc vel ilium esse sincerum et legitimum Scripturae Sensum. — Cani Loci Theolog. lib. iv. JBecani Manuale i. 5. — The Greeks agree with the Roman Catholics as regards the general principle of the authority of the church, but limit it to the oecumenical councils. See the passages in Winer, pp. 35, 36. Klau - sen, Hermeneutik, p. 286, ss. 8 As early as the time in which the various disputations with the Roman Catholics took place, the Reformers claimed the right of free interpretation of Scripture, i. e., an interpretation independent of the councils. Comp. Zwingle, Yon der Klarheit des Wortes Gottes (deutsche Schriften, i. p. 76, ss.) ; also his Antwort an Yal. Compar. (ibid. i. 2, p. 9, sq .) Calvin, Instit. i. 7, 8. Here again the symbols of the Reformed Churches express them¬ selves in more definite language than those of the Lutheran Church ( Winer, 1. c.) Confess. Helv. I. (II. Confess, of Basle) Art. 2 : Scripturae Sacrae in- terpretatio ex ipsa sola petenda est, ut ipsa interpres sit sui, caritatis fideique regula moderante. — Conf. Helv. II. c. 2 : Scripturas sanctus dixit Ap. Petrus- (2 Petr. i. 20), non esse interpretationis privatae. Proinde non probamus interpretation es quaslibet : unde nec pro vera aut genuina scripturarum in- terpretatione agnoscimus eum, quem vocant sensum romanae ecclesiae, quern scilicet simpliciter romanae ecclesiae defensores omnibus obtrudere conten- dunt recipiendum. Sed illam duntaxat scripturarum interpretationem pro orthodoxa et genuina agnoscimus, quae ex ipsis est petita scripturis (ex in- genio utique ejus lingua, in qua sunt scriptce, secundum circumstantias item expensae et pro ratione locorum vel similium vel dissimilium plurium quoque et clariorum expositae) cum regula fidei et caritatis congruit et ad gloriam Dei hominumque salutem eximie facit. Comp. Conf. Scot. 18. Conf. Re- monstr. i. 14. — The Socinians distinctly avowed the same principle in agreement with the orthodox Protestants. Cat. Racov. Qu. 36 : Etsi diffi- cultates quaedem in S. S. occurrunt, tamen multa alia, turn ea, quae sunt ad salutem necessaria, ita perspicue aliis in locis S. S. sunt tradita, ut ab uno- § 240. Romanism and Protestantism. 235 quoque, maxime vero pietatis ac veritatis studioso et divinam opem implorante , possint intelligi. — It is also to be observed, that the Protestants fully re¬ cognized the distinction, on the one hand, between the learned interpretation and the general common-sense understanding of the Scripture, and on the other, between such a general understanding and the more profound insight into the meaning of Scripture, which is granted to none but the regenerate. Comp, the extracts from Luther’s works given by Walch, ix. p. 8 57.* “ Analogia fdei and the aid of the Holy Spirit were acknowledged as the guides in interpreting Scripture .” Winer, p. 37. On the principles of inter¬ pretation adopted by the Reformers, see Schenkel , ubi supra, i. 67, sq. — In respect to the obscure passages of Scripture, Luther says (Walch, xviii.) : “ Let it go where it is dark; hold to it where it is clear.” — “ To interpret and illustrate Scripture by Scripture,” was his hermeneutical canon, and that of the Reformers, which they carried out in a practical way. Comp. Zwingle , in Note 1, above. 9 Cone. Trid. sess. 4 : Synodus, considerans non parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesise Dei, si ex omnibus latinis editionibus, quae circumferunter, sacrorum librorum, qusenam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quse longo tot sseculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prsedica- tionibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur et ut nemo earn rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel prsesumat. Respecting the meaning of the pas¬ sage, see Winer , p. 39, and the passages quoted by him from Bella, rmine, and the doctrinal writers of the Roman Catholic Church ; Schrockh , Kir- chengeschichte seit der Reformation, IV. p. 132, ss. ; Marheineke , Symb. ii. p. 241, ss. — This canon shows, that its authors not only ascribed minor im¬ portance to the original, but were also virtually opposed to translations into modern languages (inasmuch as even the texts of sermons are to be selected from the Vulgate), and also to their circulation among the laity. Comp. Winer, p. 40. [ Kollner , ubi supra.] 10 The Confess. Helv. II. 2, has a reference to the original (comp, note 8). In accordance with their principles of interpretation, the Protestants asserted that a more precise scientific study of the Sacred Scriptures is impossible, without the knowledge of .the original languages ; accordingly exegesis , founded upon solid philological studies, forms among Protestants the basis of the study of theology. On the other hand, they determined as defi¬ nitely, that a version, as faithful as possible to the original, was sufficient for practical purposes. But it never would have occurred to them to select among these translations one (e. g. that of Luther), and designate it as as the only authentic one ; though many have, to the present day, hesitated to enlighten the people on the differences sometimes existing between the translation and the original. But is this Protestant? 236 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. § 241. DIVERGENT VIEWS OF SOME SECTS. A. The Mystical Principle. j The Protestants maintained the authority of Scripture, not only in opposition to the Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition, but also to the mystical principle, which insists upon the internal word, at the expense of the external. Among the advocates of the latter were included, not only the Anabaptists, who, besides holding stiffly to the letter of Scripture,1 also appealed after the manner of the Mon- tanists, to new revelations ;2 but also others, who insisted upon the insufficiency of the external word, agreeing more or less with the the Anabaptists. Among them were Sebastian Frank, 3 Caspar Schwenckfeld ,4 Theobald Thamer ,5 and Michael Servetus.6 In essen¬ tial agreement with them were the Quakers ,7 as well as the followers of Labadie ,8 who attached great importance to internal revelation, as that by which the external revelation is rendered intelligible, and from which it receives its authority. From the negative point of view, these sects supposed, like the Roman Catholics, the existence of another authority in addition to that of Scripture, or rather above it ; positively, they differed more widely from Roman¬ ism than did Protestants, by rejecting every objective authority, and appealing to nothing but subjective experience, mere internal feeling. Thus the Protestant doctrine of the authority of Scrip¬ ture occupies an intermediate position between the ecclesiastical objectivity of Romanism, and the mystical subjectivity of Separ¬ atism. 1 Even Carlstadt was stiff upon the letter of Scripture ; see SchenJcel , i. 40, sq. On his earlier, and more prudent view, see the work, De Canonicis Scripturis Libellus D. Andrese Bodenstein Carolstadii, etc., Witenb., 1529 ; and Erbkam , Prot. Secten, 189. The opposition of the Zwickau people to infant baptism is also to be explained in part as an exaggeration of the formal principle of Protestantism. On the literalness of the Swiss Anabaptists, particularly Hubmeier , and the polemics of Zwingle against them, see Bui - linger , in SchenJcel , i. 47, sq. Zwingle wrote his Elenchus against them (Opera, iii. p. 367). 2 Planck , ubi supra, p. 44. They were, on the one hand, extremely lit¬ eral, and yet they insisted strongly, on the other hand, upon the differ¬ ence of the letter and the spirit (according to 2 Cor. iii. 6). Comp. Calvin in his Institutes, I. 9. How Luther, and the Reformers, regarded their visions and new revelations is well known ; see e. y., Luther’s letter to Melancthon in De Wette’s Briefe Luthers, ii. No. 358 ; compare the views § 241. Divergent Views of Some Sects. 237 of John Denck, and Hetzer , cited in Schenkel , i. 143. Hagen , Geist der Reform, ii. 282. The later and more prudent Mennonites returned to Scripture. 3 Sebastian Frank, in his work, “ Das verbiitschirte, mit sieben Siegeln verschlossene Buch,” tries to show that the literal interpretation of Scripture involves us in inextricable contradictions ; “ God means to use the Scripture to drive us to the Scripture, and make us anxious and fearful thereby, so that we may be forced out of the Scripture back again to and into him, and hasten to ask counsel of his mouth and Spirit,” etc. “ The Scripture,” he says, “ is both good and evil, clear and . obscure, according to the mode in which we take it in hand ; to the perverse, it is evil and dark. Therefore the Holy Spirit will not permit us to be satisfied with the Scripture, or to make an idol of it, as if we always stood 'in need of it ; but sends us to in¬ quire of Him for the right understanding and interpretation of it.” See his tract, Wie alle Ding vor in der Natur sind (in Schenkel , i. 140). — Even the devil can be very Scriptural, yea, even put himself into the midst of the letters of Scripture, as he has already done by so many sects, who have nothing but vain Scripture on their side.” (Preface to his Zeitbuch). “ The Scripture-learnt devil makes anything and everything out of Scrip¬ ture.” See Paradoxa, p. 134 (in Schenkel, ubi supra. Hagen, p. 436, sq. Erbkam , 295, sq*). 4 He wrote: De Cursu Verbi Dei, edit. J. (Ecolampadius, Bas., 1527. Schwenkfeld maintained in this work, that faith does not proceed from ex¬ ternal things, such as the external revelation of hearing, but from the inter¬ nal revelation, which must be antecedent to the ministration of the external. Abraham believed without sermon and without hearing. The letter is only the vessel of the Spirit : they should not be confounded with each other. Schwenkfeld also made a parallel between the Bible and nature (comp. Raimund of Sabunde). The whole world is to him “a great book, all glori¬ ous with paintings and descriptions, in many sorts of letters, of the works of God.” These works are V living letters,” which men ever have before their eyes ; they are the genuine “ peasants’ calendar,” the real “ lay Bible,” in which those can read who do not understand any other kinds of writings. Hence Christ points to the birds of heaven and the lilies of the valley. See Schenkel, ubi supra, p. 150. Yet Schwenkfeld did not take a position hostile to the Bible ; it was to him the test by which to try all divine reve¬ lation. Comp. Erbkam, 425, sq. 6 On him see Neander's tract, Theobald Thamer, the Representative and Forerunner of Modern Spiritualistic Tendencies in the Times of the Reformation, Berlin, 1842. — Thamer was accustomed not to • read the gospel text in the pulpit, but to recite it without book, “ because a real evangelical preacher ought not only to learn the dead letter, but to be a Bible in his works, prayers, and life.” Neander, p. 21. He accused Luther and his disciples of deifying the letter of the Bible : “ When any one asks thee, how thou knowest that these texts are the gospel ? thou repliest by bringing forward a perverted witness, the Scripture and the letter, written on paper with ink, which in itself is as good as dumb, and answers thee in a dead language, which thou dost not understand. The human, yea J ewish and 238 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. perverted sense, thou not only holdest to be higher than conscience , which the revealed deity itself* and than all God’s creatures and works, hut thou also makest it to be the queen of all saints and angels in heaven.” “ Any¬ thing is not true because it stands in the Bible, but it is in the Bible because it is true of itself see Neander , 24 ; SchenJcel , i. 144, sq. Like Scliwenk- feld, he also appeals to the revelations in nature, and accuses his opponents of Manicheeism ; comp. Neander , p. 31. — [On Thamer, compare also Theo¬ bald Thamer und Landgraf Philip, by K. W. H. Hochhuth , in Zeitschrift f. d. hist. TheoL, 1861, s. 165-280 : his various works, pp. 166-8. Comp. Neander, Hist. Dogmas, p. 631; Niedner, § 78; Pestalozzi's Bullinger, s. 461, sq. Thamer studied in Wittenberg, 1535, was Prof, in Marburg, 1543, died 1569.] • Servetus , too, distinguishes in Scripture the external and the internal word ; and in this sense, it is to him a two-edged sword. He also shows how Christianity is older than the Scripture (the New Test.). See his Chris- tianismi Restitutio, p. 627 ; Illud verum est quod sine Scripturis stare potest ecclesia Christi vera, et erat ecclesia Christi, antequam apostoli scriberent. Ecclesise prophetia, interpretatio et vox viva prsefertur Scripturse mortuse. SchenJcel , ubi supra. 7 Barclaii Apol. thes. 2 . Divinae revelationes internse, quas ad fundendam veram fidem absolute necessarias esse adstruimus, externo scrip- turarum testimonio aut sanae ratione ut nec contradicunt, ita nec unquam contradicere possunt. Non tamen inde sequitur, quod hae revelationes divinae ad externum scripturarum testimonium aut etiam ad rationem natu- ralem seu humanam,f tamquam ad nobiliorem aut certiorem normam et amussim, examinari debeant. Nam divina revelatio et illuminatio interna est quiddam per se evidens et clarum, intellectum bene dispositum propria evidentia et claritate cogens ad assentiendum, atque insuperabiliter movens et flectens non minus, quam principia communia veritatum naturalium (cujusmodi sunt : totum est majus sua parte; duo contradictoria non pos¬ sunt esse simul vera aut falsa) movent flectuntque animum ad assensum naturalem. Comp, the commentary to this thesis in Winer, p. 53. On the principle of interpretation, see Apol. x. 19, p. 198 : Quidquid homo sua in- dustria in linguis et eruditione in scripturis inveniere potest, totum nihil est sine spiritu, absque quo nihil certum, semper fallibile judicatum est. Sed~ vir rusticus, huj usque eruditionis ignarus, qui ne vel elementum norit, quando scripturam lectam audit, eodem spiritu hoc esse verum dicere potest et * In another place, Thamer calls conscience the true living throne of grace, “ where we ask God how and what we ought to do or leave undone. One may hear the external Scripture for a thousand years, and if he has not within him the living word, the divinity of Christ or the conscience, it is to him no word at all.” Neander , p. 28. Thamer tried to ridicule the orthodox idea of inspiration : “ They imagine it to have been like this, that God sat there with a great beard, as the painters represent him on the wall, and took up a word with his hand, i. e., a sound, and put it on the tongue of Jeremiah,” etc. Mean- der , 26. \ His principle is therefore not to be confounded with that of the Rationalists. Bar¬ clay places the internal revelation alike above reason and Scripture (mystical supranatu- ralism.) § 242. The Rationalistic Principle. (Socinians.) 239 eodem spiritu intelligere, et si necesse sit, interpretari potest. — iii. 4, p. 44. . Nullus adeo illitteratus, surdus aut tam remote loco positus est, quem non attingat et recte instruat ; cujus etiam spiritus evidentia et revelatio ea sola est, qua difficultatibus illis, quae de scripturis occurrunt, liberamur. * 8 Though the sacred Scriptures contain truth, they are not themselves the truth, but God and Jesus Christ are that truth. Properly speaking, the Bible itself does not gj&ve eternal life, but God, who is life, works it in us. . . . . — We are to believe the mouth, i. e ., the Holy Spirit, who still speaks to us, rather than the pen of the writers whom he employed. Divine truth is infinite, nor can it be restricted to any letter ; therefore there may be many truths which are divine truths, without being strictly contained in Scripture, and which to reject merely because they are not found in Scrip¬ ture, would be sinfal. We are not to believe a doctrine because it is writ¬ ten , but because it comes from God. (In contrast with a degenerate adherence to the letter in later times, such views are worthy of notice.) See Arnold , Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie, vol. ii. p. 687. (Frankf. edit., 1700.) 9 In common with the Roman Catholic Church, and in opposition to the principle adopted by the Quakers, Protestants assert the necessity of having something positive, which is objectively given , but find it in Scripture alone and not in the authority of the church. In common with the Quakers, and in opposition to Roman Catholics, they are anti-catholic, rejecting the au¬ thority of the church. Thus the Quakers will regard the historico-positive tendency of Protestantism as a catholic element, while Roman Catholics will charge that principle with fomenting divisions, because of its internal and subjective character. § 242. B. THE RATIONALISTIC PRINCIPLE. (SOCINIANS.) Protestants not only rejected these mystical notions, but also the rationalistic principle, according to which the authority of Scripture is subordinate to that of reason, and its interpretation made to de¬ pend on the so-called truths of reason.1 Such a doctrine was pro¬ pounded by the Socinians, who acknowledged the necessity of an external revelation,2 and the authority of the Bible, though in the first instance, only of the Hew Testament,3 but, proceeding upon the fundamental principle, that Scripture can not contain anything that is either incomprehensible or contrary to reason (i. e. to the reason of Socinians),4 were, in .many cases, induced to adopt the most arbi¬ trary interpretations.6 1 Lutber in several passages expressed himself against reason, considering it to be blind in spiritual things. * Faustus Socinus went so far as to assert the the impossibility of a mere 240 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. religion of reason without a higher revelation. Opp. ii. p. 454, a. : Homo ipse per se nec se ipsum nee Deum ejusque voluntatem cognoscere potest, sed necesse est, ut hsec illi Deus aliqua ratione patefaciat. Comp. Prselectt. Theol. c. 2. Ostorodt , TJnterr. p. 10 : “ Men, however, do not derive their knowledge of God, or of divine things, either from nature, or from the contem¬ plation of the works of creation, but from tradition, since God has from the beginning revealed himself to them. Those who have not at all heard of him, are not likely to have any opinion about any One Deity.” The later Socinians departed more or less from these strict supernatural views.* 3 Respecting the views of Socinus and his followers about the sacred Scriptures, see the subsequent §§, and Fock's Socianismus. The Socinians, however, received only the New Test, as canonical ; see Catech. Racov. p. 1, and Socinus, De Auctor. S. S. c. 1, p. 2*71, quoted by Winer , pp. 32, 33. In his opinion the Old Test, has only a historical value, but its dogmatic and religious importance is not greater than that which other Protestants ascribe to the Apocrypha. It is useful , but not necessary to be read. 4 Schlichting, Diss. del Trin. p. 70 : Mysteria divina non idcirco mysteria dicuntur, quod etiam revelata omnem nostrum intellectum captumve tran- scendunt, sed quod nonnisi ex revela tione div. cognosci possunt. Comp. C. Zerrenner , neuer Versuch zur Bestimmung der dogmatischen Grundlehren von OfFenbarung und heil. Schrift nach den socin. Unitariern, Jena, 1820, 8. Winer, p. 39. 5 Compare below the §§ on Christology. As the Protestant doctrine of the Scriptures occupies an intermediate position between the Roman Catho¬ lic principle and that of the Quakers (§ 241, note 5), so it holds the medium between Quakerism and Socinianism, i, e,, between a purely in¬ ternal supernatural ism of feeling, and a purely external supernaturalism of the understanding, which tends to rationalism. The principle of the Protestants is such as to induce them to combine depth with clearness, fervor with sobriety. It must, however, be admitted that this principle has not been always carried out in its purity. § 243. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Inspiration and Interpretation. / Though the Reformers submitted in faith to the authority of Scripture as a divine revelation, they also had an unprejudiced re¬ gard to its human side, taking a comprehensive view of inspiration, especially in its practical bearing.1 But the Protestant theologians * “ The idea of revelation is not at all defined in the symbolical books, and the earlier theologians were either wholly silent on the subject, or gave very indistinct definitions .” D Wette , Dogmatik, p. 32. It was discussed anew in the controversy with the Deists. § 243. Inspiration and Interpretation. 241 of later times frequently manifested such a narrow adherence to the letter of Scripture, that in opposition to the less rigid views of Ar- minians2 and Socinians,3 they were induced to hazard the most hold assertions.4 The orthodox divines also developed the formal aspect of the locus de Scriptural while the mystics reminded men that “ the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life/'6 Spencr , in particu¬ lar, endeavoured to revive the Protestant principle of Scripture in its practical bearings, and thus to reconcile the spirit with the letter, in the sense of true Protestantism.7 The Catholic church in general, held firmly to inspiration, though the views of the Jansenists on this point were stricter than those of the Jesuits.8 — As regards the interpretation of Scripture, theologians of all denominations em¬ ployed (consciously or unconsciously) the allegorical system, together with the granrmatico-historical ; hut the latter was frequently dom¬ ineered over by the dogmatism of the church doctrines.9 — While Cocce- jus taught that every passage of Scripture was pregnant with sense, the example of the Arminians and Socinians, who were most earnest for a moderate intepretation,10 was followed by others.11 Even the Socinian principle that revelation can not contradict reason, was approved of by some, especially toward the close of the present period.12 1 Luther had experienced in his own case the practical blessings of the Scripture, and everywhere shows the profoundest reverence for the Bible and the most lively sense of its divine blessedness, and of its peculiar worth as cRstinguished from other writings. So that he does not scruple to say, that we must look upon the Scripture, “ as if God himself had spoken therein” (against Latonius, in Walch, xviii., p. 1456) ; and he calls the Holy Spirit “ the most clear and simple writer there is in heaven and on earth” ( Walch , xviii., 1602). Once he terms the holy word of Scripture “God himself” (Walch, ix., 688) . “To sum up all, the Holy Bible is the most excel¬ lent and best book of God, full of comfort in all temptations ; concerning faith, hope, and love, it teaches very different things from those which rea¬ son can see and feel, comprehend and experience; and in adversities it teaches how Christian virtues are to shine forth, and that there is another and eternal life beyond this poor and miserable one.” Tischreden (Francf., 1576), fol. 1. Along with this profound reverence for Scripture, he also expressed himself very freely about individual writers ; thus, in the Preface to his New Test, about the Epistles of James (epistola straminea) and Jude, about the Apoca¬ lypse, etc.* Comp, the Preface to W. Linkens , Annotat. liber die ftinf * Of special importance for the history of criticism at that time is the work of Oarlstadt , De Canonicis Scripturis, written in 1520, edited by Credner in his Zur G-eschichte des Kanons, Halle, 1841. Oarlstadt found Luther’s opinion about James reprehensible. On the other hand he earnestly defended the exclusion of the Old Testament Apoclirypa from the canon ; see Jdger's Oarlstadt, p. 92 sq. Brenz agreed with Luther about the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse ; but like Oarlstadt, decidedly rejected the Apocrypha of the 16 242 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Bucher Moses : “ And doubtless the prophets studied Moses, and the later prophets studied the earlier ones, and wrote down in a book their good thoughts , inspired by the Holy Ghost. And though these good and true teachers and searchers sometimes fell upon hay, straw, and wood, and did not build of pure silver, gold, and precious stones alone, yet the foundation remains ; the rest will be burnt up by the fire of the great day, as St. Paul says (1 Cor. iii. 13).” In another place he says (Walch, vii. 2044) : “Moses and the prophets preached, but in them ive do not hear God himself ; for Moses received the law from the angels, and so had a less high order. When now I hear Moses, enjoining good works, I hear him as I do one, who executes the orders of an emperor or prince. But this is not to hear God himself. For when God himself talks with men, they cannot hear anything but pure grace, pity, and all that is good.” That Luther concedes the existence of historical contradictions ( e . g. between the Pentateuch and Stephen’s address), is shown by SchenJcel , ubi supra, i. 56.f Compare the passages in which ho distinctly declares that Christ is above the Scripture ; and that when the opponents insist upon Scripture against Christ, he “ in¬ sists upon Christ against the Scriptures” {Walch, viii. 2140, and xix. 1749, in SchenJcel , 226, sq.). — Melancthon , too, only claims freedom from error in the apostles as to doctrine, but not in the application of doctrine (as in the difference between Paul and Barnabas, and the relation of Peter to Paul in Antioch) ; see his Postil. Part II., p. 985. Heppe (p. 222), says “ that there is no trace in Melancthon of a proper theory of inspiration !” Zuingle also judged of Scripture without preconceived notions, and con¬ sidered the principal proof of its Divine origin to consist in the practical effects which it produces . “ Take some good and strong wine ; he who is in good health enjoys it, for it renders him merry, strengthens him, and warms his blood ; but he who is suffering from pestilence or from fever may not even taste it, and still less drink it, and he wonders how people in health can drink it. But that is not on account of the wine, but on account of his disease. In the same manner the Word of God is perfect in itself, and re¬ vealed for the welfare of man ; but he who neither loves it, nor understands it, nor will receive it, is sick. Thus much in reply to those who daringly assert, that God does not mean his Word to be understood, as if he de¬ sired to exclude us from its light.” (Deutsche Schriften, i. p. 68.) — In Cal¬ vin , on the other hand, we find very strict ideas on inspiration ; Instit. I. c. 7, 4 : Tenendum, non ante stabiliri doctrinse fidem, quam nobis indubie per- suasum sit, auqtorem ejus esse Deum. He appeals to the — testimonium Spiritus Sancti. Idem ergo Spiritus, qui per os prophetarum loquutus est, in corda nostra penetret necesse est, ut persuadeat fideliter protulisse, quod divinitus erat mandatum . Illius (Spiritus Sancti) virtute illuminati, jam Old Testament; see Heppe , p. 224. Among the Lutheran theologians, Haffenreffer, is the last who walks in this track, he calls the avTiXe-yo/ueva of the New Testament, outright, ■the Libri Nov. Test. Apocryphi ; see Heppe , p. 244. On the views of the Reformed divi- mes, see Heppe , p. 254. [Musculus, Zanchius and Hyperius mention these books as having less external corroboration than the others ; though enough to make them canonical.] ■f Bretschneider collected the freer statements of Luther about inspiration, in his work, Luther und seine Zeit, 1817, pp. 97-99. ■■ § 243. Inspiration and Interpretation. 243 non ant nostro, ant aliorum judicio credimus, a Deo esse Scripturam ; sed supra humanum judicium, c<3rto certius constituimus (non secus ac si ipsius Dei numen illic intueremur), hominum ministerio ab ipsissimo Dei ore ad nos fuxisse. Other passages in SchenJcel , i. 62, sq. But with all this, Cal¬ vin grants a difference in Scripture, in respect to form. Instit. I. 8, 1 : Lege Demosthenem ant Ciceronem, lege Platonem, Aristotelem, aut alios quosvis ex ilia cohorte ; mirum in modum, fateor, te allicient, oblectabunt, movebunt, rapient : verum inde si ad sacram istam lectionem te conferas, velis nolis ita vivide te afliciet, ita cor tuum penetrabit, ita medullis insidebit, ut prae istius sensus efficacia vis ilia rhetorum ac philosophorum prOpe evanescat, ut promtum sit perspicere, divinum quiddam spirare sacras scrip- turas , quae omnes humanae industriae dotes ac gratias tanto intervallo supe- rent. 2 : Fateor quidem Proplietis nonnullis elegans et nitidum, imo etiam splendidum esse dicendi genus, ut profanis scriptoribus non cedat facundia, ac talibus exempiis voluit ostendere Spir. S. non srbi defuisse eloquentiam, dum rudi et crasso stilo alibi usus est. As instances he adduces David and Isaiah on the one hand, Amos, Jeremiah, and Zechariah (quorum asperior sermo rusticitatem sapit) on the other. 2 Limborch. Theol. Christ, i. 4, 10 : De inspiratione Script. S. concludi- mus hinc, libros hosce a viris divinis scriptos, qui non tantum non errarunt, sed et, quia spiritu Dei regebantur, in tradenda voluntate divina errare non potuerunt; qui, sicut non propria voluntate, sed instinctu Spiritus S. ad scribendum se accinxerunt (2 Petr. i. 21), ita etiam in scribendo a Spir. S. directi fuerunt (2 Tim. iii. 6), adeo ut errorem nullum committere potuerint, nec in sensu ipso exprimendo, nec in verbis sensum continentibus divinum conscribendis aut dictandis. Si qucedam non exacte definiverint, fuere ea non res fidei aut praecepta morum, sed rerum majorum parvae circumstantiae, ad fidem fulciendam nullum habentes momentum, circa quas tamen non erra¬ runt aut memoria lapsi sunt, solummodo eas , quia necesse non erat , accurate et prcecise non deter minarunt. — Grotius , indeed, made much bolder asser¬ tions in his Votum pro Pace ecclesiastica (De canonicis scripturis. — Opp. Theol. Amst., 1679, T. iii. p. 672) : — Non omnes libros, qui sunt in hebraso Canone, dictatos a Spir. S. . . . scriptos esse cum pio animi motu non nego. . . . sed a Spiritu Sancto dictari historias nihil fuitopus. . . . Vox quoque Spiritus Sancti ambigua est; nam gpt significat. . . . afflatum divinum, qualem habuere turn Prophetae ordinarii, turn interdum David et Daniel, aut significat pium motum , sive facultatem impellentem ad loquendum salutaria vivendi praecepta, vel res politicas et civiles, etc. (compare the subsequent chapters on different readings, etc.) Episcopius also passed judgment with much freedom on the canon (Institute iv. 1, 4) : In hoc volumine continentur varii libelli, non qui singuli singulas religionis christianae particulas in se habent, et conjuneti totam religionem christianam complectuntur ac constituent ; seu veluti partes essentiales totum, adeo ut si unus tantum deficeret aut deesset, religio Christi tota destruenda et plane desitura aut defutura esset ; seu veluti partes inte¬ grals, ita ut librorum istorum uno aut pluribus deficientibus religio Christi mutila et trunca esset futura. Nihil minus : plures enim sunt libelli, qui nihil continent, quod non in aliis et saepius et luculentius reperitur ; et sunt, qui nihil ad religionem christianam magnopere faciens continent. Denique 244 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. certum est, libellos hos in codicem sen volui#en unum digestos fuisse non divino jussu aut impulsu, sed consilio studioque humano, licet sancto pioque, etc. — He laid great stress upon the fides humana — viz., that the sacred pen¬ men both would and could speak truth, etc. Comp. c. 2. 3 “ Socinianism , in accordance with its dualistic and mechanical standpoint , could not regard the special mode of the influence of the Holy Spirit in any other aspect than that of an unmediated interposition of the divine causality in the very midst of human individuality ; in this respect , Socinianism stands on the same position with the older Protestantism and Catholicism Fock , Socinianismus, p. 329. Thus Socinus says, in a very orthodox way, that the sacred writers wrote — ab ipso divino Spiritu impulsi, eoque dictante (Lectiones Sacrae, p. 287 ; in Fock , ubi supra). Yet he restricts inspiration to what is essential, and concedes slight errors in what is unessential (leviter errare) ; see the passages in Fock , p. 332 ; and Socinus De Auctoritate Scripturae, Racov., 1611 (Opera, i. p. 263, sq.) 4 The Consensus Repetitus Fidei verse Lutheranae (ed. Henke , p. 5), as¬ serts against Calixt, Punct. 6 : Profitemur et docemus, omnia scripta pro- phetica et apostolica dici divina, quia a Deo ceu fonte sunt et divinities tradita veritas, nihilque in illis inveniri, quod Deum non habeat auctorem, vel Deo inspirante, suggerente et dictante non sit scriptum, testibus Paulo, 1 Cor. iii. 13 ; 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; et Petro, 2 Pet. 1, 20. Rejicimus eos, qui docent, scripturam dici divinam, non quod singula, quae in ea continentur, divinse peculiari revelationi imputari oporteat, sed quod praecipua, sive quae primario et per se respicit ac intendit scriptura, nempe quae redemptionem et salutem generis humani concernunt, nonnisi divinae illi peculiari revela¬ tioni debeantur. (Even passages like 2 Tim. iv. 13, form no exceptions.) This rigid adherence to the very letter of Scripture (grammatolatry) mani¬ fested itself especially in the Formula Consensus, 1 : Deus O. M. verbum suum, quod est potentia ad salutem omni credenti (Rom. i. 16), non tantum per Mosen, Prophetas et Apostolos scripto mandari curavit, sed etiam pro eo scripto paterae vigilavit hactenus et excubavit,* ne Satanae astu vel fraude ulla humana vitiari posset. Proinde merito singulari ejus gratiae et bonitati Ecclesia acceptum refert, quod habet habebitque ad finem mundi sermonem propheticum firmissimum ; nec non lepd ypaygara, sacras litteras, ex quibus, pereunte coelo et terra, ne apex quidem vel iota unicum peribit (2 Pet. v. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 15, Matth. v. 18). 2: In specie autem hebra’icusV. T. codex, quem traditione Ecclesiae judaicae, cui olim oracula Dei commissa sunt (Rom. iii. 2), accepimus hodieque retinemus, turn quoad consonas , turn quoad vocalia sive puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltern potestatem, et turn quoad res , turn quoad verba deonvevorog , ut fidei et vitae’ nostrae, una cum Codice N. T. sit Canon unicus et illibatus, ad cujus normam ceu Lydium lapidem universae quae extant versiones, sive orientales 'sive occidentales, exigendae, et sicubi deflectunt, revocandae sunt. (But compare Schweizery Die theol. ethischen Zustande, p. 37). — The Lutheran theologians also maintained that the Hebrew vowel points were original ; Job. Gerh. Loci Theol. i. c. 14, 15 ; * How much this mere watching and guarding of a dead treasure is in accordance with their lifeless notions of God, and the relation in which he stands to the world, is evident. Nothing creative, either in the one case or the other! § 243. Inspiration and Interpretation. 245 Quenst. i. 272, ss., and Hollaz. Prol. iii. Quaest. xliii. and others. — The con¬ troversies respecting the purity of the Greek of the New Test, belong to the same class (Purists and Hebraists) ; see Winer , Grammatik des neutesta- mentlichen Sprachidioms, Einleitung, and Gass, ubi supra, 159. In the year 1714, G. Nitscli (who died 1729, superintendent in Gotha), even raised the question whether the Holy Scripture was God himself or a creature ? See Walcli , Relig. Streitigkeiten innerhalb d. evang. Kirch e, iii. p. 145, and i. p. 966. Tholuck, ubi supra, p. 253, sq. 5 Thus the idea of inspiration was more precisely defined ; it was at first identified with revelation but afterwards treated of by itself (see Heppe, p. 250). Comp. Gerhard, Loci i. c. 12. § 12 : causa efficiens Scripturae Sacrse principalis est Dens. § 18 : Causae instrumentalis fuerunt sancti homines. Scripserunt non ut homines, sed ut Dei homines h. e. ut Dei servi et peculi- aria Dei organa. Hollaz , Prol. iii., Qu. vi., p. 75. . . . : Sicut scriptura , quam homo alteri in calamum dictat, recte dicitur verbum humanum in litteras relatum, ita Scriptura a Deo inspirata verissime dicitur verbum Dei litteris consignatum. Quaest. xvi. : Conceptus omnium rerum, quae in sacris litteris habentur, prophetis et apostolis a Spir. S. immediate inspirati sunt. Qu. xviii.: Omnia et singula verba, quae in sacro codice leguntur, a Spir. S. prophetis et apostolis inspirata et in calamum dictata sunt. Compare other passages quoted by De Wette , Dogmatik, and Hase, Hutterus Redivivus.— The divin¬ ity of Scripture was founded partly npon the fides divina (the testimony of the Holy Spirit), and partly .upon the fides humana ( avdevria and a^Lo- moria) ; it then served in its turn as the source from which the so-called affectiones Sacrce Scripturce were derived. These were : I. Affect, prima- riae: 1. divina auctoritas, 2. veritas, 3. perfectio, 4. perspicuitas (semetip- sam interpretandi facultas), 5. efficacia divina; II. secundariae: 1. necessitas, 2. integritas et perennitas, 3. puritas et sinceritas fontium, 4. authentica dignitas. Attention was also directed to the simplicitas et majestas stili, etc. Comp. Gerhard , Loci 1. c., Calov. Systema T. i., p. 528 ss., and the other compendiums of systematic theology. (See Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, p. 99 ss., De Wette, p. 39.) Compare Gass, Geschicte d. Theologie, p. 235 sq. Heppe , Dogmatik des deutschen Protest, i. 240 sq. 6 Luther was no stranger to the thought, that the external word alone is not sufficient, but that the Holy Spirit, working internally in the hearts of the readers (hearers) is needed to produce a right understanding of the Scriptures: see his Letters in De Wette' s edition, v., p. 85, No. 1784 ; and the passages cited by Heppe, p. 235. The later orthodox theology, too, was familiar with the idea of the testimony of the Holy Spirit ; see Klaiber , Die Lehre der altprotestant. Dogmatiker von dem Testimonium Spiritus Sancti, und ihre dogmatische Bedentung, in the Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1857. But the mystics of the Protestant church were the chief opponents of the literal orthodoxy. Thus Jacob Hohme said: “Though reason may cry : Give me only the letter of Scripture, yet the external letter does not impart sufficient knowledge, although it may guide us in our re¬ searches ; the living letter also, which is the independent and revealed word, and nature of God, must through the medium of the revealed word, be laid open and read in the man, who is taught and instructed by the Holy Ghost 246 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. himself;” in the preface to his work: Yon der Geburt und Bezeichnung aller Wesen, quoted by Umbreit, in his Jakob Bohm, p. 66. — Previous to the time of Bohme, Sebastian Frank of Word (who lived in the sixteenth cen¬ tury) had maintained that “ the devil himself may be well versed in Scrip¬ ture, and even adhere to its very letter, as he is now doing in the case of so many sects which have nothing in their favor but mere Scripture, etc., quoted by Umbreit , 1. c., p. 60; see § 241. Weigel , Postille, vol. ii., pp. 62, 63 ; iii., p. 84, says : “ Scripture, as such, is a dead letter, and an empty word, which sounds through the air ;” and in another work, entitled Gulden Griff, c. 19 : “ It is not enough to say, here is such a writer, and he has the Holy Spirit, he can not make a mistake. My dear friend ! first of all prove the truth of thy statement ; thou wilt find it a difficult work to prove and demonstrate it. Who is Cephas ? who is Paul ? says the apostle ; who is this man or that? They are all men. It is God , God , God alone, who works by faith, and imparts judgment to try the spirits and discern the writings ;” comp. Walcli , Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten, vol iv., p. 1044, 45. In the same manner Christian Hoburg (quoted by Hollaz, ed. Teller, p. Vo) expressed himself as follows : Scripture, is an old, cold and dead thing, which makes men mere Pharisees.” — Arad, Wahr'es Christenthum, p. 28, used more moderate language, but more to the point: “God did not reveal his Holy Word that it might remain a dead letter, but that it might become a living power within us, and create in us an entirely new and spiritual nature, otherwise it is of no use. All that Scripture teaches externally must be worked into man through Christ, in the spirit and in faith.” Ibid., p. 89 ; “ The living Christ is the book ivhich we must ready and from which ive must learn f On the Bothmann controversy about the efficacy of the word of the Bible, see Cotta , Prsef. in Gerhard, p. 24 ; Walch, Einleitung in die Religionstreitigkeiten der Lutherischen Kirche, i., p. 524 sq ; Gass , ubi supra, p. 265. 7 Spener agreed with the mystics in this, that the dead letter avails nothing. But he opposed quite as decidedly the preeminence assigned to the Spirit without Scripture. Thus he said, in opposition to the notions of the Quakers: “Our feelings are not the norm of truth, but divine truth is the norm of our feelings. This rule of truth exists in the Divine Word apart from ourselves ;” see the passages quoted by Hennicke , pp. 6 and V. — Con¬ cerning the right of the laity to read and search the Sacred Scriptures, he expressed himself as follows (Geistliches Priesterthum, Francfort, 1677, p. 29) : “ Since the epistle of our heavenly Father is addressed to all his child¬ ren, no child of God is to be excluded from its perusal ; all have not only this right, but are also commanded to read it.” “ They must also search the Scriptures that they may be enabled to examine the doctrine of their minister, in order that their faith may not be founded upon the authority and testimony of men, but upon divine truth.” But Spener made special efforts to render the Bible practical,* both among the people (by a more * Spener thought it even desirable (p. 38) that the laity should study Greek and He* brew, “ to be enabled to understand the revelations of the Holy Spirit in his own lan¬ guage;” nevertheless, “ the want of acquaintance with foreign languages does not exclude pious Christians from a true knowledge of that which God has deemed necessary for the edification of their souls.” § 243. Inspiration and Interpretation. 2-47 popular interpretation of Scripture), and among theologians by liis Collegia Biblica. See his Pia Desideria (Francf. 1712,) p. 94 ss. 8 The Universities of Louvain and Douay condemned (a. d. 1588) the position of the Jesuits, that it was not necessary to suppose that all the words of Scripture are inspired by the Holy Ghost. A controversy respect¬ ing inspiration was carried on (a. d. 1622) between the Jansenists and the Jesuit Jean Adam. In his opinion the sacred penmen have sometimes made exaggerated statements; on the whole, it is by no means necessary to take everything in Scripture in its most literal sense. The Jansenists showed the dangerous tendency of such assertions. Reuchlin, Geschichte von Port- Royal, i., p. 613 ss. — In opposition to the Protestant doctrine concerning Scripture, JBellarmine maintained (De Verbo Dei, iv., 4) :. . . . Apostolos non de scribendo , sed de prcedicando Evangelio primaria intentione cogitasse. Praeterea, si doctrinam suam litteris consignare ex proffesso voluissent, certe catechismum aut similem librum confecissent. At ipsi vel historiam scrip- serunt, ut Evangelistse, vel epistolas ex occasione aliqua, ut Petrus, Paulus, Jaco¬ bus etc., et in iis nonnisi obiter [?] disputationes de dogmatibus tractavcrunt. — He rejected the testimony of Scripture in favor of inspiration, as a testi¬ mony in its own cause ; not only the Bible, but also the Koran, claims inspi¬ ration ! He further maintained that there is no sure criterion for the canonicity of the separate books in Scripture itself, etc.* — Nor were the crit¬ ical investigations of Richard Simon reconcilable with the idea of verbal inspiration. Compare his Traite de 1’Inspiration des Livres sacres. Rotterd. 1687. 9 On the difference betweeen the hermeneutical principles of the Protest- tants, and those of the Roman Catholics, see above, § 240, notes 6 and 7. For further particulars compare Clausen, Hermeneutik, p. 277 ss. 10 Liber de potentise S. S. — Comp. Aphorismi contra Pontificios. Ani- madversiones in Bellarmini controversias. His main principle was, M that the words of Scripture must everywhere be supposed to signify just as much as they may signify .” In essential opposition to the principle of Arminians and Socinians, acording to which every passage is to be considered separately and in its historical limits (so that passages are not to be adduced in paral¬ lelism, by the analogy of faith), Coccejus endeavoured to treat the various books of the Bible as connected parts of a greater whole, so that the one is reflected by the other. Comp. Clausen , Hermeneutik, p. 282, ss. It is a well-known saying: Grotium nusquam in sacris litteris (V. T.) invenire Christum, Coccejum ubique. — Some orthodox divines, like Calov , inveighed with all earnestness against the emancipation of exegesis from dogmatics ; see Gass , p. 164, sq. Hyperius, among the Reformed divines, made some concessions to the allegorical mode of interpretation ; see Heppe , p. 253. 11 e. g. Turretine , Werenfels, and others. The skeptical sentence of Werenfels is well known : Hie liber est, in quo sna quaerit dogmata quisque, Invenit, et iterum dogmata quisque sua. * To refute Calvin (Institt. vii, 12), in whose view the Sacred Scriptures are distm guished from profane writings, as light from darkness, and sweet from sour, he adduced the opinion of Luther, who called the Epistle of James a straw Epistle. 248 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 12 Thus Becker (Die bezauberte Welt, preface, p. 11, ss.), represented rea¬ son as preceding Scripture, but maintained that they did not contradict each other. “ To say the truth, reason must precede Scripture, because Scripture presupposes reason ; I mean sound reason, to which Scripture must prove its divine origin. Reason exists along with Scripture, speaking of things con¬ cerning which the latter is silent. Scripture exists along with reason, be¬ cause it teaches us something very different, which does not belong to the province of reason. And, lastly, Scripture is, nevertheless, above reason, not as lord and master (for each has its respective office), but because it possesses greater dignity and larger means . But at times it happens that they meet by the way, or have a meeting in some house, and thus assist each other ; both remain, however, free, with this difference only, that reason, acknowledging its inferiority, always pays deference to Scrip¬ ture.” Though Protestants were accustomed to consider both the Old and the New Testament as constituting the one norm of faith, it was natural that the material principle of faith, as seen in the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, should exert a re¬ action upon the formal, and render necessary some kind of subordination of the Old Testament to the New (of the law to the gospel.) The symbolical books make a differ¬ ence between the ceremonial and the moral law. The former had typical significance, and is already fulfilled ; the latter partly shows us the nature of sin (as in a mirror), and partly is still of importance as a rule of life. Comp. Articles of Smalcald, Art. 2, p. 319 ; Apol. p. 83; Confess. Gallic. Art. 23; Belg. 25; Helv. II., c. 12, 13. — In reference to the Antinomian controversy (§ 217, note 7), started by John Agricola, of Eisleben, see the Formula Concordise, Art. 5 and 6 (de tertio usu legis). — But it can not well be said that the law and the gospel are identical, the one with the Old, the other with the New Tes¬ tament; for the prophecies in the Old Testament partake of the nature of the gospel, while the New Testament contains moral precepts. See the preface of Luther to his translation of the New Testament, 1522. On this whole section, see Schenkel, i., 165 sq. § 244. RELATION OF SCRIPTURE TO TRADITION. Compare the works of Schmid and Gass, on Calixt, referred to in § 237. [Heinrich Julius Holtzmann , Kanon und Tradition, Ein Beitrag zur neueren Dogmengeschichte und ~ Symbolik, Ludwigsburg, 1859. J. L. Jacobi , Lehre von der Tradition, i., Berk 1847.] ♦ With all its adherence to the authority of Scripture, Protestant¬ ism could not absolutely withdraw itself from the power of tradition.1 For even the authority of Scripture rested upon the belief of the church. The whole historical development could not be ignored ; and the reformers had no hesitation in respect to ecclesiastical usages in particular, to concede to tradition a certain normal, though only human, authority.2 But even in relation to the fundamental doc¬ trines of Christianity, Protestantism declared its agreement with the oldest creeds of the church, because it believed that the pure doctrine of Scripture was contained in them ; yet without thinking it to he § 244. Relation of Scripture to Tradition. 249 necessary, or even advisable, to give these symbols special authority as coordinate with the Scriptures.3 Accordingly, when George Ccilixt, in the seventeenth century, advocated the position that the consensus of the ancient church should be taken as an authority alongside of the Scriptures,4 he aroused a lively opposition.6 But with all its theoretical opposition to any other authority than that of Scripture, Protestantism soon came to be dependent upon its own tradition ; for the words of Luther, and the declarations of the confessions of faith, became (as it was not intended they should be) a standard and restraint in the subsequent exegetical and doctrinal develop¬ ment.6 1 Comp. Winer ; Comparat. Darstellung, p. 33. MarheineTce , Symbolik, ii. 191, sq. Sehenkel , Wesen des Protest., i. 40, sq. 2 As in the case of the baptism of children, and several other observances, like the celebration of Sunday and the church festivals. Accordingly the XXXIX. Articles of the Church of England declare (in Art. xxxiv.) : “It is not necessary that Traditions and. Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like ; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing is ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, ivhich be not repugnant to the Word of God , and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against the com¬ mon order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren. — Every particular or na¬ tional Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the church, ordained only by man's authority , so that all things be done to edifying.” To the same effect, Luther in his Letters ( De Wette's edition, iii. 294) ; Nullas ceremonias damno, nisi quae pugnent cum evan- gelio ; ceteras omnes in ecclesia nostra servo integras . Nullos magis odi quam eos, qui ceremonias liberas et innoxias exturbant, et necessitatem ex libertate faciunt. 3 Thus the three oecumenical symbols, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, were adopted by the Protestant chureh, and introduced by the Lutherans into their Book of Concord. Melancthon terms these creeds (in his Enarr. Svmb.) — breves repetitiones doctrinae, in scriptis propheticis et apostolicis traditae. The Second Helvetic Confession refers to the Con¬ fession of Faith of the Roman bishop Damasus (in Jerome) ; which is printed in the older editions of the Helvetic Confession, and in Fritzsche’s ed., pp. 9, 10. 4 Calixt defends himself against the accusation, of not regarding the Scripture as sufficient, of holding that it is not — unum, primum et summum principium. He finds in tradition only the testimony of the church to the doctrine of the Scriptures. Yet still he speaks of two principles ; e. g ., in his De Arte Nova, p. 49 : Duo vero sunt principia, quae tamquam certissima 250 Fourth Period. The Age of Symboljsm. et extra omnem dubitationis aleam posita utrimqu$ admittimns, quas etiam sufficere credimus — divince legis auctoritas , turn deinde ecchsice catholicce traditio . By tradition he means the consensus primsevse vel priscse an- tiquitatis; see his letter to the Landgrave Ernest, p. 22 : Nos principium primum ponimus : quid quid Sacra Scriptura docet, est verum ; proximum ad hoc : quidquid primorum quinque seculorum ecclesia unanimiter pro- fessus est, est verum. Pag. 23 : Quae autem nisce symbolis, confessionibus et declarationibus comprehenduntur, e sacra Scriptura hausta sunt. See other passages in Schmid , Dogmatik d. luth. Kirch e, p. 124. Gass , p. 46 sq . [See also, Gieseler , Church Hist., New York ed. iv., § 52.] 5 Calov was his chief opponent, in his work Syncretismus Calixtinus, and in other writings; see Schmid , p. 240, sq. Gass , p. 87. [Schweizer, Cen¬ tral Dogmen. ii. 532, ss., § 25 : Maneat ergo firmum fixum, Deum non decrevisse nec voluisso istum protoplastorum lapsum, nec impulisse eos ad peccatum, nec eo delec- tatem fuisse, etc. 4 Gerhard , Loci, x. c. 3, ss. § 51 : Per hominem victum tota natura cor- rupta est et quasi fermentata peccato. — § 52 : Peccatum illud (Adami) non est modis omnibus a nobis alienum, quia Adam non ut privatus homo, sed ut caput totius humani generis peccavit; atque ut natura human a per ipsum communicata fit propria cuique personae ex ipso genitae, sic et naturae cor- ruptio per propagationem communicatur. Ac proinde quemadmodum tribus Levitica inclusa lumbis Abrahae docimas obtulisse Melchisedecho dicitur (Hebr. vii. 9), ita et nos, qui in lumbis Adae peccantis delituimus, in et cum ipso non modo corrupti, sed et rei irae Dei facti surnus. His views are more fully developed, c. 5. — According to Heidegger , x. 44, ss., not only the po- tentice naturales (superiores : mens et voluntas ; inferiores : sensitiva et vegetativa) are subject to corruption, but also the qualitates : conscience it¬ self has become erring, and the bodily organs are affected by the general corruption (Matt. v. 29, 30). Concerning the nature of original sin it is said, c. 50 : Neque peccatum originate merus reatus peccati alieni, jieque concupiscentia sola proprie, neque uuda j ustitise carentia est. Sed late ac* 266 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. ceptum peccati alieni imputatione, et labe omnibus facultatibus inhaerente, easque turn a bono avertente, turn ad malum convertente, quam utramque distinctus reatus sequitur; stride vero pro solo eo, quod nascentibus seu orientibus inest, labe ea facultatibus insita, quam etiam proprius reatus sequitur, constat. Cum enim peccatum pertineat ad facilitates bominis, ab iis non est disced endum. Itaque cum peccatum originis non pertineat ad opera, quae a facultatibus illis procedunt, neque est in ipsis illis, ceil spiri- tualis qusedam lepra haereat. For tbe views of other Reformed divines, see Schweizer , p. 54, sq. t 6 Sin was defined as — illegalitas seu difformitas a lege divina, or as — defectus vel inclinatio vel actio pugnans cum lege Dei, offeudens Deum, damnata a Deo, et faciens reos seternae irae et aeternarum poenarum, nisi si facta remissio. By the contingence of sin was understood the (abstract) pos¬ sibility of its being or not being, in distinction from (physical) necessity. A distinction was made between peccatum originale (habituate) and actuale ; and actual sins were further divided into peccata voluntaria et involuntaria, peccata commissionis et omissionis,* peccata interiora et exteriora, or, peccata cordis, oris et operis, etc. Comp. Gerhard , Loci, Tom. v. ab. initio. Hei¬ degger, c. 52, ss., and other passages quoted by De Wette , 1. c. 6 The views of Calixt , which he held at an early period of his life, were laid down in a collected form in his Dissertat. de Peccato (written a. d. 1611) ; see G. Calixti de praecipuis christianse Religionis Capitibus Disputa- tiones XV., ed. a F. U. Calixto , Helmst., 1658, 4, Disput. V. He combated Traducianism (comp, note 2), and deduced from it the following posi¬ tions : Thes. 33 : Quare peccatum originis in nobis non est ipsa culpa a parentibus commissa, et quia culpa non est, nec est reatus, quum aperte quoque scriptum sit (Ezech. xviii. 20) : Filius non portabit iniquitatem patris, si videlicet ipsa earn non adprobet aut imitetur.— -Thes. 56 : Yera et sincera est sententia, quam proposuimus, quod scilicet peccatum originis non sit ipsa culpa Adae, nec sit reatus consequens culpam, verum pravitas naturae, non tamen sine relatione ad primam culpam, cujus est tamquam effectus immediate consequens. . . . Haeret itaque in nobis aliquid, et peccatum origi¬ nale dicitur, quod non est ipsa ilia prima Adae praevaricatio, sed aliquid aliud ab ipsa manans. Thes. 57 : Optime autem cognoscitur ex opposita integri-_ tate, quae sicuti in intellectua erat cognitio, in voluntate amor et pronitas ad benefaciendum, in adpetitu obsequium et concordia cum superioribus facul¬ tatibus, ita pravitas haec in intellectu est ignorantia, in voluntate pronitas ad malefaciendum, in adpetitu rebellio. Thes. 58 : Et sicuti in integritate sive ad imaginem Dei conditus erat homo, ita nunc in pravitate sive ad imaginem Adae gignitur. Thes. 59 : Et sicuti homo si non peccasset, integritas natu- ram humanam semper et inseparabiliter consequuta fuisset, et una cum ilia ad posteros propagata, ita, postquam homo peccavit, pravitas earn concomi- tatur et propagatur. Thes. 60 : Et sicuti integritas fuisset tamquam actus primus, actus autem secundus ex illo primo natus, studium et exercitium in- tegritatis, ita nunc pravitas ista connata est actus primus, actus autem * There were special investigations about the Sin against the Holy Ghost, as being “tris- tissiraa species peccati mortalis. Gerhard, Loci Theol., v. p. 84. Quenstedt, ii. p. 80. Gass, p. 360 § 248. Anthropology. 267 8e cun dus est pravitas pravum actum producens. Tlies. 93, (in which he opposes Flacius) he says : Pejor autem haeresis quam Manichaeorum, adserere substantiam humanam esse peccatum, et hanc nihilominus a Deo propagari et conservari. Ita enim peccatum a Deo propagabitur et con- servabitur, et Deus O. M. auctor peccati constituetur. In Thes. 88, and in some other places, Calixt maintained (like S trigel) that original sin is an accidens. — Lakermann (who lived in Konigsberg from 1644-46), a disciple of Calixt, asserted in one of his theses — quod gratia Dei ita offertur, ut, ea ob- lata, in hominis potestate sit, per illam ea, quse ad conversionem et salutem necessaria sint, prsestare ; in another: Omnes, si velint, possunt se conver- tere ; further : Solum peccatum originale post lapsum adsequata causa dam- nationis esse non potest. Such sentiments were in the opinion of Prof. Mislenta , grossly and dangerously erroneous. Thus the signal was given for a general controversy, in which Calixt himself, and his colleague Conrad Hornejus , took part. In consequence of the efforts made by Calov , the views of Calixt and his adherents were condemned (a. d. 1655) in the Consensus Repetitus Fidei verse Lutlieranse, in which the Lutheran doctrine of original sin was set forth in the most rigid terms. Thus, in particular, Punct. 23-29 (in Henke , p. 18 sq.). For the passages see Neudecker (Fortsetzung von Munscker , ed. by Von Colin) p. 440. On the controversy in general, comp. Planck , Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 107 ss. Gass , Georg Calixt und der Synkretismus, 1846, p. 68 ss., p. 98. '[Schmid, Gesch. der Synkret. Streitigkeiten, 1846. Baur, d. Calixt. Synkretismus, in Theol. Jahrbilcher, vii. Henke , Calixtus und seine Zeit, 1853-60. Gieseler, Church Hist. (New York ed.),;v.§ 52.] 7 In the case of Spener , as in that of Luther, personal experience led him to the knowledge of sin, and moulded his views concerning its nature ; thus it happened that in his system sin and repentance are closely connected with each other. He does not wait till his views of sin become cold and indiffer¬ ent, but he strikes, as it were, the iron made red-hot in the furnace of in¬ ward experience while it retains its heat. Compare his Theologische Beden- ken (edit, by Hennicke), p. 33 ss. — Nor, when he published (1687) his first treatise, in Saxony, under the title “ Natur und Gnade,” was it his intention to present a theoretical contrast between nature and grace in a scientific way ; but his object being practical, he adopted popular forms of statement, and did not present the antagonism in all its sharpness. See Hossbach, i. 257. But even his very zeal for sanctification was represented, and opposed, by the orthodox, as a perversion of sound doctrine. 8 Both Pietism and Jansenism prove that the system of Augustine, though often charged with enfeebling the moral power of man, nevertheless produces deeper and more lasting effects than Pelagianism ; and that the charge of its undermining morality and paralysing the will, cannot be admitted, at least in that universality of application in which it is commonly advanced. The motto of Jansenism here holds good : Dei servitus, vera libertas. • Compare Pascal’s Lettres Provinciales. Beuchlin , Port-Royal, p. 33, ss. 631 ss. 268 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. B. THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION. § 249. FREEDOM AND GRACE. PREDESTINATION. (ACCORDING TO THE DIF¬ FERENT CONFESSIONS.) \Schweizer Glaubenslehre der Reform. Kirche, 1844, and Central Dogmen, 1854. Ebrard , Das Yerhaltniss d. reform. Dogmatik zum Determinismus, 1849, and Schweizer, in reply, in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift, 1851. Heppe, Dogmatik der evangel. Ref. Kirche, 1861. J. B. Mozley , Doctrine of Predestination, 1855 ; comp. Christian Remembran¬ cer, and Dublin Review, 1856. Moses Stuart, on Calvin and Arminius, in Biblical Repository, i., 1834. Bp. Davenant , De Prmdestinatione, 1630, fol. Owen's works, vols. x., xi. Julius Mahler in Studien u. Kritiken, 1856 ; that Calvin’s doctrine had a religious, and not a speculative basis. Calvin’s Pradestinationslehre, in Schaff's Kircheufreund, 1853. Bartels , Die Pradestinationslehre in Ostfriesland (John a Lasco), in Zeitschrift f. deutsche Theologie, 1860. J. A. L. Hebart, Die Pradest. lehre d. Concordienformel, in Zeitschrift f. d. Luth. Theologie, 1861. Philippi , Lu¬ ther’s Lehre von d. Predestination, in Theol. Zeitschrift, I860.] Notwithstanding the many religions conflicts to which tile Ref¬ ormation gave rise, Christians of all denominations agreed in the general belief, that the salvation of man depends on the gracious purpose of God.1 But they differed on the questions, whether the Divine decree, which has reference to this point, is unconditional, or depends on the conduct of man, whether it is general or particular. The more rigid the views of theologians on the doctrine of original sin, and the moral inability of man, the more firmly they would maintain that the decrees of God are unconditional. Hence it is not surprising that Roman Catholics,2 Arminians,3 and most of all the Socinians,4 endeavoured in a more or less Pelagian manner, to sat¬ isfy the claims of human freedom. On the other hand, both Lu¬ therans and Reformed, following Augustine, rejected the notion of the freedom of the will, and denied all co-operation on the part of man.5 Nevertheless, it is a striking fact, that the Lutherans avoided the strict consequences of the Augustinian system, and asserted that the decrees of God are conditional ;6 while the Reformed theologians not only admitted the necessity of those consequences,7 but, having once determined the idea of predestination, went beyond the prem¬ ises so far as to maintain, that the fall of man itself was predesti¬ nated by God ( Supralapsarianism.y But this view so far from meeting with general approbation, was at last almost entirely aban¬ doned to make way for its opposite ( Infralapsarianism ).9 As regards the extent of the offered grace, all the confessions, with the exception of the Reformed, held to universalism,10 in distinction from particularism ; but even all Calvinists did not on this point proceed to the same length some of them adopted the stand- § 249. Freedom and Grace. Predestination. 269 point of the universality of the provisions of grace. [The West¬ minster Assembly set forth the doctrines of sin and redemption, so as to harmonise the conflicting views about freedom and grace ; the scheme of absolute predestination was here modified by the theory of the covenants.]12 1 Compare the passages quoted by Winer , pp. 80, 81. 3 Cone. Trid. Sess. vi., can. 4 : Sicut quis dixerit, liberum arbitrium a Deo motum et excitatum nihil cooperari assentiendo Deo excitanti atque vocanti, quo ad obtinendam justificationis gratiam se disponat ac praeparet, neque posse dissentire, si velit, sed velut inanime quoddam nihil omnino agere, mere- que passive se habere: anathema sit. — Can. 17 : Si quis justificationis gra¬ tiam nonnisi prsedestinatis ad vitam contingere dixerit, reliquos vero omnes, qui vocantur, vocari quidem, sed gratiam non accipere, utpote divina potes- - tate praedestinatos ad malum : anathema sit. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Symbols was in so far decidedly opposed to the Pelagians, as the former maintained (Sess. 6, can. 3) that it is God who begins the work of conversion without any co-operation on the part of man ; but they also asserted that afterwards the freewill must be added, and man co-operate in the work of sanctification. — For further passages, see Winer, p. 84. Bellar- mine advances the following proposition (in opposition to Pelagians, etc.), at the very commencement of his treatise : de Gratia et lib. Arbitr. : Auxi- lium gratiae Dei non ita offertur omnibus hominibus, ut Deus expectet homines, qui illud desiderent vel postulent, sed praevenit omnia desideria et omnem invocationem. In ch. 2, he then proceeds to assert : Auxilium gratiae Dei non aequaliter omnibus adest. Thus far he agrees with the Protestants. He even adds, in ch. 3 : Nulla esset in Deo iniquitas, si non solum aliquibus, sed etiam omnibus hominibus auxilium sufficiens ad salutem negaret. He likewise in ch. 4, gives the practical caution (after the example of Augus¬ tine), not to doubt aforehand the salvation of any one, but to persevere in admonishing, etc. But in ch. 5, he converts this practical advice into the doctrinal theory : Auxilium sufficiens ad salutem pro loco et tempore, medi¬ tate vel immediate omnibus datur (a proposition which is somewhat limited and more fully discussed in the subsequent chapters). And then in the sequel (in Books ii. and iii) he endeavours to save the doctrine of free will. In his view, free will is not the condition of being free, but the power of choosing, and of forming purposes. It is neither actus nor habitus, but po- tentia, and, in specie, potentia activa. On the co-operation of the free will with’ the grace of God, he says, iv. c. 15 : Hinc sequitur, ut neque Deus de- terminet sive necessitet voluntatem, neque voluntas Deum. Nam et uterque concursum suum libere adhibet, et si alter nolit concurrere, opus non fiet. Simile est, cum duo ferunt ingentem lapidem, quern unus ferre non posset ; neuter enim alteri vires addit, aut eum impellit, et utrique liberum est onus relinquere. Quamquam Deus, nisi extrordinarie miraculum operari velit, semper concurrit, quando voluntas nostra concurrit, quoniam ad hoc se libere quodam modo obligavit, quando liberam voluntatem creavit. Ex quo etiam sequitur, ut, licet in eodem prorsus momento temporis et naturae Deus et vo¬ luntas operari incipiant, tamen Deus operetur, quia voluntas operatur, non con 270 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. tra. Et hoc est, quod aliqui dicunt, voluntatem prius natura operari quam Deum, non prioritate instantis in quo, sed a quo. — Concerning Predestina¬ tion, he expresses himself as follows, ibid., p. 657 : Deus ab aeterno determi- navit omnes effectus, sed non ante praevisionem determinationis causarum secundarum, praesertim contingentium et liberarum, et rursus determinavit omnes effectus, sed non eodem modo : alios enim determinavit futuros se operante vel cooperante, alios se permittente, vel non impediente, etc. — lb., p. 659 : Deus, qui perfecte cognoscit omnes propensiones et totum ingenium animi nostri, et rursum non ignorat omnia, quae illi possunt occurrere in sin- gulis deliberationibus, et denique perspectum habet, quid majus congruum et aptum sit, moveat talem animum tali propensione et ingenio praeditum, infal- libiliter colligit, quam in partem animus sit inclinaturus. 3 “ The Arminians suppose a constant cooperation of the human will , awakened by divine grace , with that grace ; but in their opinion the influence of the latter is by no means merely of a moral nature ; it is the power of the Holy Spirit accompanying the Word of God (Confess. Remonstr., 17, 2, 5), which exerts an influence upon the mind, and is supernatural as regards its nature, but analogous to the natural power of all truth, as regards the mode of its operation .” Winer, p. 86, where passages are quoted from the Con¬ fess., and Apol. Confess-. Remonstr. [Comp. Stuart, in Bibl. Repos., i., as cited above.] Comp, also Episcopii Institute, v., p. 5 ss. Limborch, Theol. Christ., Lib. iv., ab init., cap. 12, § 15: Concludimus itaque, quod gratia divina, per Evangelium nobis revelata, sit principium, progressus et comple- mentum omnis salutaris boni, sine cujus cooperatione nullum salutare bonum ne cogitare quidem, multo minus perficere, possimus. — Cap. 14, § 21 ; . Gratia Dei primaria est fidei causa, sine qua non posset homo recte libero arbitrio uti. Perinde est, ac si duobus captivis carceri inelusis, et vinculis et compedibus arte constrectis, quidam superveniat, qui carcerem aperiat, vincula demat, et egrediendi facultatem largiatur, quin et manu apprehensa eos sua- viter trahat et hortetur ut exeant : unus autem occasione hac commoda uta- tur, libertatemque oblatam apprehendat et e carcere egrediatur ; alter vero beneficium istud liberationis contemnat et in carcere manere velit; nemo dicet ilium libertatis suae esse causam, non vero eum qui carcerem aperuit, eo quod aperto carcere, perinde uti alter, non egredi et in captivitate remanere potuit. Dices : Ergo liberum arbitrium, cooper atur cum gratia ? Resp. : Fa-~ temur, alias nulla obedientia aut inobedientia hominis locum habet. Dices : An cooperatio liberi arbitrii non est bonum salutare ? Resp. : Omnino. Dices : Ergo gratia non est primaria causa salutis ? Resp. : Non est solitaria, sed tamen 'primaria ; ipsa enim liberi arbitrii cooperatio est a gratia tamquam primaria causa: nisi enim a praeveniente gratia liberum arbitrium excitatum esset, gratise cooperari non posset. Dices: Qui potestatem habet credendi, non salvatur, sed qui actu credit : cum itaque prius tantum sit a Deo, posterius a nobis, sequitur, nos nostri salvatores esse. Respondeo 1. Quonium sine po- testate credendi actu credere non possumus, sequitur eum, qui credendi potes- tatem largitus est, etiam actus fidei primariam esse causam. Unde et in Scriptura uni gratiae plerumque tides et conversio nostra adscribi solet : quia .... solenne est, opera magna et eximia adscribi causae principali, minus principalium nulla saepe mentione facta. Quod et hie usu venit, ut homo § 249. Freedom and Grace. Predestination. 271 semper beneficii divini memor agnosceret se nullas ex seipso ad tan turn bo- nnm consequendum vires babere. Non tantum enim quod possimus velle, sed et quod actu velimus, gratiae debetur, quse nos praevenit, excitat et im- pellit ad volendum et agendum, ita tamen, ut possimus non velle. 2. Certo sensu concedi potest, hominem sui ipsius servatorem esse, Scriptura ipsa ab ejusmodi loquendi ratione non abhorrente. Phil. ii. 12. 4 Sebastian Frank , Servetus , and others, were the forerunners of this tendency ; see Schenkel , Wesen des Protest, ii. 96, sq. But it was the Socinians whose views chiefly savoured of Pelagianism. Comp. Cat. Racov. qu. 422 : Estne liberum arbitrium situm in nostra potestate, ut Deo obtem- peremus ? Prorsus. Etenim certum est, primum hominem ita a Deo con- ditum fuisse, ut libero arbitrio praeditus esset. Nec vero ulla causa subest, cur Deus post ejus lapsum ilium eo privaret. Other passages are given by Winer. Comp, also F. Socinus , Praelect. Theol. c. 5, and De libero Horn. Arbitrio deque aeterna Dei Praedestinatione, scriptum J. J. Grynaeo oblatum (Opp. i. pp. 780, 781). Joh. Crellii Ethica Christ. (Bibl. Fratr. Pol.) p. 262. The Socinians, like the Pelagians, supposed divine grace to consist especially in the external institutions of God, not excluding its internal effects upon the mind. Cat. Rac. qu. 428-30 : Auxilium divinum duplex est, in- terius et exterius. (Exterius aux. div.) sunt promissa et minae, quorum tamen promissa vim habent longe majorem. Unde etiam, quod sint sub novo foedere longe praestantiora promissa, quam sub vetere fuerint, facilius est sub novo, quam sub vetere foedere voluntatem Dei facere. (Interius auxil. div.) est id, cum Deus in cordibus eorum, qui ipsi obediunt, quod promisit (vitam aeternam) obsignat. — Pag. 251 (in the revised edition) : Spir. S. ejusmodi Dei afflatus est, quo animi nostri vel uberiore rerum divinarum notitia vel spe vitise aeternae certiore atque adeo gaudio ac gustu quodam futurae felici- tatis aut singulari adore complentur. For further passages see Winer. Socinus thought assisting grace necessary, because the will of most men is weakened (not on account of Adam, but because of their own frequent transgressions); comp, the treatise mentioned above. He rejected the doc¬ trine of predestination, as destructive of all true religion ; comp. Praelect. Theol. c. 6 ss. Fock , u. s. 662, sq. 5 As early as the disputation of Leipsic, Luther compared man to a saw, which is a passive instrument in the hand of the carpenter ; see Mohler , Symbolik, p. 106. Comp. Comment, in Genes, c. 19 : In spiritualibus et divinis rebus, quae ad animae salutem spectant, homo est instar statuse salis, in quam uxor Patriarchs Loth est conversa ; imo est similis trunco et lapidi, statuae vita carenti, quae neque oculorum, oris aut ullorum sensuum cordisque usum habet. — But it was especially in his treatise : De Servo Arbitrio, against Erasmus, that he expressed himself in the strongest terms ; the many instances in which God exhorts man to keep his commandments, ap¬ peared to him ironical, as if a father were to say to his child : “ Come,’ while he knows that he cannot come (see Galle , Melancthon, p. 270, note; Schenkel , ii. 81, sq.) In respect to predestination, see his letter to an anony¬ mous person (No. 2622 in De Wette) ( Seidemann ), vi. p. 427 : Per Chris¬ tum certi facti sumus, omnem credentem a Patre esse praedestinatum. Omnem enim pnedestinavit, etiam vocavit per evangelium, ut credat et per fidem jus- 272 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. ■ tificetar. . . . Nam vernm est, Deum aliquos ex hominibus aliis rejectis ad aeternam vitara elegisse et destinasse antequara jacerentur fundaraeiita mundi. Sed quia Deus in abscondito habitat et judieia ejus occulta sunt, non licet nobis tantam profunditatem assequi. — Melancthon also advanced more rigid views in the first edition of his Loci, than in the subsequent ones. Comp. Galle, p. 247-326. — In accordance with these views the Confession of Augsburg asserts, c. 18 : De libero arbitrio docent, quod humana voluntas habeat aliquam libertatem ad efficiendam civilem justitiam et deligendas res rationi subjectas. Sed non habet vim sine Spiritu Sancto efficiendae justitise Dei seu justitise spiritualis, quia animalis homo non percipit ea, quae sunt Spiritus Dei (1 Cor. ii. 14), sed liaec fit in cordibus, cum per verbum Spir. S. concipitur. — Similar principles were set forth in the symbols of the Reformed churches ; comp. Conf. Helv. I. Art. 9, ii. 9 : Proinde nullum est ad bonum homini arbitrium liberum, nondum renato, vires nullae ad perficiendum bouum, etc. (for the other symbols see Winer , pp. 81, 82.) — The change wdiich took place in the opinions of Melancthon gave rise to the synergistic controversy, see Planck, iv. p. 584, ss., Galle , p. 326, ss. [Comp. Gieseler , Church Hist. iv. pp. 444, sgy] It is declared in the Refutation which was published, Jena, 1557, p. 36, b. (quoted by Planck , p. 598) : Fugiamus ac detestemur dogma eorum, qui argute philosophantur, mentem et voluntatem hominis in conversione seu renovatione, esse ovvepyov seu causam concur- rentum, cum et Deo debitum honorem eripiat, et suos defensores, ut Augus¬ tinus inquit, magis praecipitet ac temeraria confidentia labefactet, quam sta- biliat. The same doctrine is propounded in the Formula Concordiae, p. 662 : Antequam homo per Spir. S. illuminatur, convertitur, regeneratur et trahitur, ex sese et propriis naturalibus suis viribus in rebus spiritualibus et ad con- versionem aut regeneration em suam, nihil inchoare, operari aut cooperari potest, nec plus quam lapis, truncus aut limus. On the further dogmatic statements, see Heppe , p. 426. 6 The Formula Concordiae, p. 617-619, endeavors to avoid this difficulty, by drawing a distinction between praedestinatio et praescientia : Praescientia enim Dei nihil aliud est, quam quod Deus omnia noverit, antequam fiant. .... Haec praescientia Dei simul ad bonos et malos pertinet, sed interim non est causa mali, neque est causa peccati, quae hominem ad scelus impellat. . . . Neque haec Dei praescientia causa est, quod homines pereant ; hoc enim sibr ipsis imputare debent. Sed praescientia Dei disponit malum, et metas illi constituit, quousque progredi et quamdiu durare debeat, idque eo dirigit, ut, licet per se malum sit, nihilominus electis Dei ad salutem cedat. . . .Praedes¬ tinatio vero seu aeterna Dei electio tantum ad bonos et dilectos filios Dei pertinet, et haec est causa ipsorum salutis. Etenim eorum salutem procurat et ea, quae ad ipsam pertinent, disponit. Super hanc Dei praedestinationem salus nostra ita fundata est, ut inferorum portae earn evertere nequeant. Haec Dei praedestinatio non in arcano Dei consilio est scrutanda, sed in verbo Dei, in quo revelatur, quaerenda est. — Such definitions were the consequences of the controversy with the Calvinists. It was occasioned by the controversy of two theologians of Strasburg, John Marhach and Jerome Zancliius , the former of whom belonged to the Lutheran, the latter to the Reformed Church ; see Planck , vi. p. 809. [Comp, the Doctrine about Predestination, § 249. Freedom and Grace. Predestination. 273 from Zanchius, etc., in Toplady’s Letter to Wesley, reprinted, New York, 1811.] 7 Among the confessions of faith composed prior to the time of Calvin, the first Confession of Basle declares, Art. 1 : “ Therefore we confess that God, before the creation of the world, did elect all those to whom he will give the inheritance of eternal blessedness yet it is remarkable that this statement is not made in connection with the doctrine of original sin, but in the very first article, that respecting God. The same is the case with Zwingle , who pronounced decidedly in favor of predestination, Ad Carolum Imp. Fidei Ratio (Opp. ii. p. 539) : Constat autem et firma manet Dei elec- tio : quos enim file elegit ante mundi constitutionem, sic elegit, ut per filium suum sibi cooptaret : ut enim benignus et misericors, ita sanctus et justus est, etc. He unfolds his views in order in his work De Providentia Dei (Opera, iv. p. 7 9, sq.). The sin of Adam, he says, was included in the pre¬ destination, but also redemption. Comp. p. 109, sq. Pag. 113 : Est electio libera divinse voluntatis de beandis constitutio. . . . Quemadmodum legislatori- bus ac principibus integrum est constituere ex sequi bonique ratione, sic divinse majestatis integrum est ex natura sua, quse ipsa bonitas est, consti tuere. Pag. 115 : In destinandis ad salutem hominibus voluntas divina prima vis est : ancillantur autem sapientia, bonitas, justitia et ceterse dotes, quo fit, ut voluntati referatur, non sapientise. . . .non justitise, non liberalitati divinse. . . .Est igitur electio libera, sed non cceca, divinse voluntatis, sed non solius quantumvis prsecipuse causse, constitutio eum majestate et auctoritate, de beandis, non de damnandis. Pag. 140 : Stat electio Dei firma et immota, etiamsi per filium suum prsecepit, electos ad se transferre. . . .Firma manet elec.tio, etiamsi electus in tarn immania scelera prolabatur, qualia impii et repudiati designant. . . .Testes sunt David, Paulus, Magdalena, latro, alii. — Against the practical inference, that the elect wifi not be harmed, sin as they may, Zwingle responds (ibid.) : Qui sic loquuntur, testimonium dant, aut se electos non esse, aut fidem ac Dei cognitionem nondum habere. . . . Omnia cooperantur electis ad bonum ; omnia quoque circum illos divina providentia fiunt, neque quicquam tarn frivolum fit, quod in Dei ordinatione ac opere frivolum sit. Pag. 143 : Hoc omnino irrefragabile est, aut provi- dentiam omnia curare, nuspiam cessare aut torpere, aut omnino nullam esse. For further particulars see Hahn in the Studien und Kritiken, 1837, part 4, p. 765, ss. ; and on the other side J. J. Herzog, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 4, p. 778, ss. — Schweizer , ii. 192 ; Schenkel , ii. 386. — From a comparison instituted between Zwingle’s doctrine of predestination, and his general views on original sin and the salvation of the heathen (which dif¬ fered from rigid Augustinianism), thus much is evident, that he inferred the doctrine of predestination rather from his doctrine respecting God than from his anthropology, and proceeded from speculative rather than from ethical principles. But this by no means implies that he bordered upon pantheistic views. — Calvin brought the doctrine of predestination into closer connection with that of original sin, Instit. III. c. 21-24. Thus he says, c. 23 : Iterum quaero : Unde factum est, ut tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus ceternce morti involveret lapsus Adce absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? Hie obmutescere oportet tarn dicaces alioqui linguas. Decretum qui- 18 274 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. dem horribile fateor ; inficiari tamen nemo potent, quin prsesciverit Deus, quem exitum esset habiturus homo, antequam ipsum conderet, et ideo prses¬ civerit, quia decreto suo sic ordinarat. And in the second Confess. Helvet. the articles concerning the fall of man (8), and concerning the freedom of the will (9), precede, in the order of subjects, that concerning predestina¬ tion (10). Comp, also Conf. Gall. Art. 12. Belg. Art. 16. Canon. Dordr. i. 1, etc., quoted by Winer ; see note 11. 8 Inst. III. c. 23, § 7, he terms the exclusion of the fall of the first man from the divine predestination, a frigidum commentum. Comp. § 4 : Quum ergo in sua corruptione pereunt (homines), nihil aliud quam poenas luunt ejusdem calamitatis, in quam ipsius prcedestinatione lapsus est A.dam ac posteros suos prsecipites secum traxit. — It is on this particular point that Calvin (and his disciple Beza *) went further than Augustine, who did not include the fall of Adam in the divine decrees. Calvin infers the doctrine of predestination both from ethico-anthropological and from theologico-speculative premises ; in his opinion it has a practical as well as a theoretical aspect. [But com¬ pare Julius Muller in his essay in the Studien und Kritiken, referred to in the introduction to this section.] . The name Supralapsarians , however, does not occur prior to the Synod of Dort. It was especially the Gomarists who were favorable to the supralapsarian scheme.f “ Though the Synod of Dort hesitated to declare in favor of Supralapsarianism, yet this was, at any rate, the inmost sense of orthodoxy;” Schweizer , ii. p. 124. [ Baur , Dog- mengeschichte, p. 280 : “ The genuine Protestant antagonism to Catholicism is Calvinism, and this, too, on just that doctrine, which was at first common to all the Reformers, but was carried out systematically only in Calvinism. The whole system of the dependence of the individual upon a power, abso¬ lutely determining his will and acts, which Catholicism presents in its doc¬ trine of the church, Calvinism attaches to its absolute decree.” Pag. 315 : “ Calvin’s contradictory assertions about sin received their most paradoxical expression in his well known formula : Cadit homo , divina providentia sic ordinante , sed suo vitio cadit. From whatever side we may consider the matter, this position can only have a rational meaning, when understood as asserting that Adam was not such a man as God would have him be, unless, * On the question, how far Luther was inclined to adopt such a notion ? see Baur , in his work against Mohler , p. 38. [Beta's Brief Declaration of the Table of Predestination, 12mo, translated, London, n. d.] f Episcopius Instit., v. 5, thus defines the difference between the two schemes : Du¬ plex est eorum sententia, qui absolutam hujusmodi praedestinationis gratiam asserunt. Una est eorum, qui statuunt, decretum praedestinationis absolute a Deo ab aeteruo factum esse, ante omnem homiuis aut condendi aut conditi aut lapsi (nedum resipiscentis et credentis) considerationem vel praevisionem. Hi Supralapsarii vocantur. Altera est eorum, qui praedestinationis istius objectum statuunt, homines definite praescitos, creatos ac lapsos. Definite , inquam, praescitos, etc., ut a prima sententia distingtfatur, quae statuit, objectum praedestinationis homines indefinite praescitos, seu (ut D. Gomarus loquitur) creabiles, labi- les, reparabiles, salvabiles, hoc est, qui creari ac praedestinari poterant. Et hi Sublapsarii (Infralapsarii) vocantur. . . .Discrepat posterior sententia a priore in eo tantum, quod prior predestination em praeordinet lapsui, posterior earn lapsui subordinet. Ilia praeordinat earn lapsui, ne Deum insipientem faciat: haec subordinat, ne Deum injustum faciat, i. e. lapsus auctorem. Comp. Limlorch, Theol. Christ., iv. 2. § 249. Freedom and Grace. Predestination. 275 besides the perfection of his nature, there was also something in his nature averse to God, or a fallen nature.”] 9 This was the case, e. g ., with the preachers of Delft. Comp. SchrocJch , Kirchengesch. nach der Reformation, v. p. 224. The Synod of Dort also was satisfied with the infrajapsarian scheme ; at least its decrees made no express mention of Supralapsarianism. And the Form. Cons. Art. 5, only says that Adam’s fall was permitted. 10 Concerning the necessary connection between the universality of grace and conditional election on the one hand, and between particularism (limited redemption) and unconditional election on the other, see Planck, 1. c. Thus we find in the. Formula Concordise, p. 618 : Christus vero omnes peccatores ad se vocat et promittit illis levationem, et serio vult, ut omnes homines ad se veniant et sibi consuli et subveniri sinant. P. 619: Quod vero scriptum est, multos quidem vocatos, paucos vero electos esse, non ita accipiendum est, quasi Deus nolit, ut omnes salventur, sed damnationis impiorum causa est, quod verbum Dei aut prorsus non audiant, sed contumaciter contemnant, aures obdurent et cor indurent et hoc modo Spiritui Sancto viam ordinariam prsecludant, ut opus suum in his efficere nequeat, aut certe quod verbum auditum flocci pendant atque abjiciant. Quod igitur pereunt, neque Deus, neque ipsius electio, sed malitia eorum in culpa est. — The same doctrine was taught by the Remonstrants, Art. 2 : Jesum Christum, mundi servatorem, pro omnibus et singulis mortuum esse, atque ita quidem, ut omnibus per mortem Christi reconciliationem et peccatorum remissionem impetraverit, ea tamen conditione, ut nemo ilia remissione peccatorum re ipsa fruatur praeter hominem fidelem, et hoc quoque secundum evangelium. For other passages see Winer, p. 92. 11 Thus the first Confession of Basle (comp, note Y) does not exclude the possibility that God may have elected all men, or at least all who believe. The authors of the Confess. Helvetica also were cautious in their expressions, c. 10 : Deus ab seterno prsedestinavit vel elegit libere et mera sua gratia, nullo hominis respectu, sanctos, quos vult salvos facere in Christo .... Et quamvis Deus norit, qui sint sui, et alicubi mentio fiat paucitatis electorum, bene sperandum est tamen de omnibus, neque temere reprobis quisquam est adnumerandus. Comp, too, Conf. Angl. Art. 1Y. Scot. Art. 8. In the Catech. Heidelberg, too, Qu. 20, predestination is made to depend on faith. The Calvinists of later times were not agreed among themselves wdiether Qu. 3Y implies the universality of the merits of Christ or not ; see Heckhaus , 1. c. pp. Y0, Yl. [The 3Yth Question of the Heidelberg Catechism is, “What dost thou understand by the words He suffered ?v Answer: “That he all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sus¬ tained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind ; that so by his passion as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favor of God, righteousness and eternal life.”] The Confess. Marchica maintains naively, Art. 14 (after a previous affirmation), “that God is not a cause of the ruin of man, that he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, that he neither introduced sin into the world, nor impels men to sin, not that he will not have all men saved, for the very contrary is asserted in Scripture * 276 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. but that tbe origin of sin and perdition is to be found in Satan and the wicked, whom God, on account of their unbelief and disobedience, cast into condem¬ nation. Item , we ought not to despair of the salvation of any one , so long as the proper means for obtaining salvation are used , for no man knows when God will effectually call his people, nor who may yet believe or not, because God is not bound to any time, and orders all things according to his good plea¬ sure. Therefore his Electoral Grace rejects all and every partly blasphemous, partly dangerous, opinions and discourses, such as that we must ascend into heaven by means of our reason, and there examine a special register, or the secret chancery or council-chamber of God, as to the question who is or¬ dained to eternal life or not, though God has sealed up the book of life, so that no creature can look into it.” Nevertheless the same Confession expressly condemns as a Pelagian error the notion that God elected the saints — propter fidem provisam. — The doctrine of particular redemption is set forth not only in the Confess. Gall. Art. 12, Belg. Art. 6 (quoted by Winer, p. 88), but definitely in the decrees of the Synod of Dort (quoted by Winer , p. 89), and the Form. Cons. Art. 4 : Deus ante jacta mundi fundamenta in Christo fecit propositum seculorum (Eph. iii. 11), in quo ex mero voluntatis suse beneplacito sine ulla meriti, operum vel fidei prsevisione ad laudem gloriosse gratise suae elegit certum ac definitum in eadem corruptionis massa et com- muni sanguine jacentium adeoque peccato corruptorum numerum , in tempore per Christum sponsorem et mediatorem unicum ad salutem perducendum, etc. 12 [Westminster Confession : Chap. iii. : God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatspever comes to pass : yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin ; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature ; nor is the liberty or contingence of second causes taken away, but rather established. 2. Al¬ though God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as fu¬ ture, or that which would come to pass, upon such conditions. See also , chap. ix. on Free-Will. Shorter Catechism , Qu. 13 : Our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God. — On Redemption, see chap. vii. 3 : Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [viz., of works], the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the cove¬ nant of grace ; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. Larger Catechism , Qu. 31 : The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam , and in him with all the elect as his seed. The Westminster Confession does not distinguish between the covenant of grace, and the covenant of redemption ; nor does it use the word atonement in distinction from redemption. The Anglican divines generally stood aloof from the definiteness of Calvinism ; see Jeremy Taylor's Deus Justificatus, or a Vindication of the Glory of the Divine At¬ tributes, in the question of Original Sin, against the Presbyterian way of understanding it; Works, ix. pp. 315-421.] § 250. Controversies Respecting Predestination. 277 "With such views were closely connected the questions about the doctrine of irresistible grace, and whether grace may be lost. According to the Reformed, grace works irresistibly, nor can man lose it when once in his possession. Calvin Instit., iii. 2, 12. Canon. Dord., v. 8. The Lutherans take the opposite view, Confess. Aug., 12 (p. 13, against Anabaptists). Form. Concord., p. 705 : [Et quidem imprimis falsa et Epicurea ilia opinio graviter redar- guenda atque rejicienda est, quod quidam fingunt, fidem et acceptam justitiam atque salutem non posse ullis peccatis aut sceleribus amitti, sed etiamsi homo absque Dei timore et pudore pravis suis concupiscentiis indulgent Spiritus S. repugnet, et atrocia flagitia contra con- scientiam suam (et quidem malo proposito) designet, nihilominus tamen fidem, gratiam Dei, justitiam atque salutem retineri posse. Contra hanc pestilentissimam persuasionem singular! diligentia hae verissimae, immotae, divinae comminationes, poenae, et admonitiones christianis, per fidem justificatis saepe repetendae atque inculcandae sunt.] Comp, also the Arminian and Sociniau creeds quoted by Winer , p. 112. So, too, the doctrine of the certainty of salvation (certitudo salutis) made a part of the theology of the Reformed Church : see Calvin, Institutes, iii., c. 24, § 4. [But equally strong statements on this point were made by Luther, and even by Melancthon ; the assurance of faith is taught in the Augsburg Confession, and the Apology, and in the Saxon and Wirtemberg Confes¬ sions. Among the Reformed Confessions, it is not found in the two of Basle, the Gallican, the Belgic, the second Helvetic, the Scottish, nor in the canons of Dort. The Confession of the Westminster Assembly expressly denies, that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. Louis le Blanc, Prof, at Sedan, in his Theological Theses, 1683, maintains, against Arnauld, that the doctrine was not generally held by the Reformed. See the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, Oct., 1856, in reply to Sir William Hamilton , who, in his Dissertations, pp. 486-7 (Am. ed.), asserted, that on this point Protestants had wholly abandoned their original ground.] As regards the virtues and salvation of the heathen, the adherents of the Augustinian system adopted the views of its founder. This gave more significance to Zwingle'a different view, advanced in his Christ. Fidei brevis et clara Expositio, § 10. § 250. CONTROVERSIES RESPECTING PREDESTINATION WITHIN THE DENOM¬ INATIONS THEMSELVES. As early as the lifetime of Calvin himself, Sebastian Castellio , and Jerome Bolsec , both of Geneva, raised their voices against the Calvinistic doctrine, but did not produce any impression.1 The more6 moderate views of Arminius and his followers, always had secret adherents in the Reformed Church itself. Moses Amyraldus, a dis¬ ciple of Cameron, and professor of theology in the academy of Sau- mur, openly pronounced in favour of what is called Universalismus hypotheticus,2 a synthesis of universalism and particularism, and was followed by other French theologians.3 Claude Pajon, his dis¬ ciple, represented the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit as so in¬ timately united with the efficacy of the word, that he denied an immediate influence of the Spirit upon the heart ; but yet he pro posed to have no controversy with the Calvinistic doctrine of pre¬ destination.4 Samuel Huber , who had seceded from the Reformed to the Lutheran Church, extended the universality of salvation ' * , farther than the Lutheran theologians allowed, and was therefore 278 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. persecuted by both parties.5 — In tbe Roman Catholic Church, the advocates of the strict system of Augustine endeavoured, on differ¬ ent occasions, to re-establish its former authority. The controver¬ sies carried on in the University of Louvain,6 and the attempt of Lewis. Molina to reconcile the doctrine of predestination with that concerning the freedom of the will,7 gave rise to the papal Congrega¬ tions de Auxiliis (gratige divinse), which, however did not lead to any important result;8 until at last Jansenism established a permanent opposition to the Pelagian tendency of the Romish Church. The Jansenists also adopted the views of their master concerning pre¬ destination.9 [In the Church of England, predestination was taught in the Thirty-nine Articles ; but was gradually supplanted by the Ar- minian system, in conjunction with Episcopal and Sacramental ten¬ dencies. The Scotch Presbyterians, and the English non-conformists held to the Calvinistic view, substantially as stated in the Confess¬ ion of Faith and the Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.]10 1 Shortly after Castellio had removed from Geneva to Rasle (1544), he published an exposition of the ninth chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Ro¬ mans, in which he violently attacked the Calvinistic doctrine. In an anony¬ mous pamphlet published at Paris under the title : Auszuge aus den latei- nischen und franzosischen Schriften Calvins, the doctrine of election by grace was combated “ with the weapons of the keenest satire and acutest dialectics in a manner worthy of Voltaire .” Henry , Leben Calvins, i. p. 389. After his death were published : Sebast. Castellionis Dialogi IV. de predestinatione, de elec- tione, de libero arbitrio, de fide. Aresdorffii [Basil.] 1578. 12mo.* On the controversial writings of Bolsec , see Bretschneider, in Reformatoren-Al- manach 1821, p. 117. Henry , iii. 48 ; SchenJcel , ii. 174. 1 Concerning his history (he died 1664), see Bayle , Dictionnaire, sub voce : Amyraut ; Jablonslci , Institute Hist. Christ, recent, p. 313. SehrocJch, Kirchengesch. nach der Reformation, viii. p. 660 ss. See also above, ^ 225 a, p. 181. It was especially against the assertions of Amyraut, as well as of Lewis Cappellus and Joshua de la Place , that the rigid- doctrine of the Formula Consensus was directed (comp. § 249, note 11.) The views of Amyraut are developed in his Traite de la Predes¬ tination. Saumur, 1634. 12. comp. e. g. p. 89 : Si vous consideres le soin que Dieu a eu de procurer le salut au genre humain par l’envoy de son fils au monde, et les choses qu’il y a faites et souffertes a ceste fin, la grace est umverselle et presentee a tous les hommes. Mais si vous regardes a la condition qu’il y a necessairement apposee, de croire en son fils, vous trouve- res qu’encore que ce soin de donner aux hommes un Redempteur procede d’une merveilleuse charite envers le genre humain, neantmoins ceste charite ne passe pas ceste mesure, de donner le salut aux hommes, pourveu qu’ils ne le refusent pas : s’ils le refusent, il leur en oste l’esperance, et eux par leur in- * With a Preface by Felix Turpio Urbevetanus (Faustus Socinus) : see Athen. Raur., p. 360. § 250. Controversies Respecting Predestination. 279 credulite aggravent leur condamnation. Comp. Specimen Animadversionum in Exercitationes de Gratia Universali, Salmur, 1784, 4. — Concerning the further progress of this controversy see Walch , Biblioth. Theol. seh, vol. ii., pp. 1023 ss. On Amyraut in particular, see Schweizer, Moses Amyraldus, Versuch einer Synthese des TJniversalismus und des Particularismus (in Zel¬ ler’s Jahrb., 1852 — chiefly against Eb^ard’s representations): “ Amyral- dism has been designated , hypothetical universalism. Dut this is liable to be misunderstood , and to favor a mistaken representation of the syste?n , as if it broke through the bounds of Calvinistic particularism , and as Ebrard thinks, retained this characteristic only in seeming ; while the fact is, that Amyraut was earnest in its favor , and even made it more sharp, ivh.enever possible .” Yet still there is in Amyraldism an important mitigation of the dogma in this point of view, that “ he appended an ideal universalism to the particularising world-plan .” 3 Tessard, Daille, Elondel, Claude, Du Dose, Le Faucheur, Mestrezat, Tronchin. [On Daille and Blonde!, see above, § 225, a, Notes 8 and 9. Comp. A. Vinet, Histoire de la Predication parmi les Reformes de France au I7e siecle, Paris, 1860. He reckons Du Bose next to Claude in ability.] In opposition was Du Moulin (Molingeus of Sedan), and especially Friedr. Spanheim in his Exercitationes de Gratia Universal]*, Lugd. Batav., 1646, to which Amyraut replied in his Exercitatio de Gratia Universali, Salm., 1647. See Schweizer , p. 61. [Comp. § 225, a : Vinet, ubi supra. Du Moulin published 10 decades of sermons, and 60 controversial treatises : his Anatomie of Arminianism, transl. Lond., 1635.] 4 The views of Pajon were especially contested from the Reformed side, by Claude and Jurieu : Traite de la Nature et de la Grace, ou de Concours general de la Providence, et du Concours particulier de Grace eflicace, con- tre les nouvelles hypotheses de Mr. P. [ajon] et de ses disciples, Utrecht, 1687 : also by Leydecker and Spanheim’. from the Lutheran side by Val. Ernest Loscher (Exercitatio Theol. de Claudii Pajonii ejusque Sectatoribus quos Pajonistas vocant Doctrina et Fatis, Lips. 1692). On the relation between his individual opinion and the general dogmatic system of the Re¬ formed Church, and on its significance in the Reformed Theology, see Al. Schweizer , in the treatise referred to, § 225, Note 3 [in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb., 1852, 1853, and in Herzog's Realencyclop.] 6 He was a native of Burgdorf, in the Canton Berne, in Switzerland, but was compelled to leave his country on account of his opinions. After he had joined the Lutheran Church, he became first a pastor in the neighborhood of Tubingen, and afterwards a professor in the University of Wittenburg. His assertion that God from eternity elected all men to salvation (without respect to their future faith) gave offense to the Lutherans. He was opposed by Polycarp Lyser and JEgidius Hunnius (1593), whom he in his turn charged with Calvinism. For the particulars of the controversy, and the explanations of Huber, see Schrockh, iv. p. 661, and Andr. Schmid ii Dissert, de Sam. Huberi Vita, Fatis et Doctrina, Helmst., 1708, 4. Jul. Niggers, Beitr&ge zur Lebensgesch Sam. Hubers, in Illgen’s Zeitschrift, 1844. Trechsel, in the Berner Taschenbuch, 1844. Schweizer, Centraldogmen, i. 501 sq. 8 The old controversy between the Thomists and Scotists (Dominicans 280 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. and Franciscans) was revived in the age of the Reformation. While the Council of Trent was still assembled, a controversy broke out between Michael Bajus (de Bay, born 1513, died 1589), and his colleagues, who were followers of Scotus. Pope Pius V. issued a bull (a. d. 1567) in which he condemned 76 propositions of Bajus (several of which were literally taken from Augustine’s writings) ; but this was done only in a certain sense. Gregory XIII. confirmed this sentence a. d. 1579. But when the Jesuits, Leonard Less and John Hamel , propounded the Pelagian System too boldly, the professors in the University of Louvain raised their voices against 34 propositions taken from their lectures, and publicly condemned them. For further de¬ tails see the works on ecclesiastical history. Baji Opp. Col., 1696, 4. [Comp. Kuhn , Dogmatik, i. 490 sq. The doctrine of Less was con¬ demned by the faculty of Douay , 1588, Estius being the leader, while May- ence , Treves and Lngolstadt declared for the Jesuits. The Spanish Domini¬ can, Bannez , was the ablest Thomist and Augustinian ; against him, Pruden- tius de Monte-Mayor defended the scientia media, 1581. The same view was espoused by Petrus de Fonseca , in 1566, and defended by Suarez in Coimbra, Vasques in Compluta, Gregory of Valemtia in lngolstadt. — as well as by Molina, see next note.] 7 He was also a Jesuit, born 1540, and died 1600 (as a professor of theol¬ ogy in the University of Evora in Portugal). He wrote: Liberi arbitrii cum gratise donis, divina praescientia, praedestinatione et reprobatione concordia. He endeavoured to bring about the said reconciliation by distinguishing between praescientia and praedeterminatio ; he called the former scientia media. 8 They were drawn up a. d. 1597 by order of Pope Clement VIII, and issued 1607 by Pope Paul V. The Pope imposed (1611) silence upon both parties. — Comp. Aug . Le Blanc (Serry), Historia Congreg. de Auxiliis Gra- tiae, Antw, 1700, fol. 9 See the general history of doctrines. Pope Urban VIII, condemned the “ Augustinus” of Jansen in the bull In Eminenti. (Bullar, M. Tom. V.), and Pope Innocent X, condemned (1653) five propositions in particular. For further details see the works on ecclesiastical history. Concerning the principles of the Jansenists, see Reuchlin , Port-Royal. (Compare also § 228-) 10 [See above, § 225, 5, Notes 2, 6, 8, 15, 16, etc. The 1 7th of the XXXIX articles is of Predestination and Election : Predestination to life is the ever¬ lasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his spirit working in due season ; they through God’s grace obey the calling ; they be justified freely ; they be made sons of God by adoption ; they be made like the image of his only begotten son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain' to everlasting felicity. — Then follow cautions about the use of the doctrine — “for curious and carnal persons, § 251. Justification. Faith. 281 lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sen¬ tence of Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall,” etc. The Nine Lam¬ beth Articles (see § 225 5, Note 8) taught reprobation. On the controversy as to the doctrinal position of the church of England, see the works of Lau¬ rence , Tomline , Goode, Scott, etc., referred to in note 2 of § 225 b. Abp. William King (of Dublin), Divine Predestination and Foreknowledge, Lond. 1710; Ed. Copleston, Bp. of LlandafF, Enquiry into the Doctrines of Neces¬ sity and Predestination, Lond., 1821. Westminster Confession of Faith, chap¬ ter iii, 3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore¬ ordained to everlasting death. 5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory; out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto ; and all to the praise of his glorious grace. 6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto, etc. 7. The rest are passed by and ordained to dishonor and wrath for their sin , to the praise of his glorious justice. 8. The doctrine of this high mystery is to be handled with special prudence and care, etc.] § 251. JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. FAITH AND 'WORKS. Molder, Symbolik, p. 134 ss. Baur, p. 215 ss. Roman Catholics and Protestants agreed in ascribing to God the justification of the sinner, but differed in this, that the former con¬ founded the act of justification with that of sanctification, so as to represent both as the one act of making just,1 while the Protestants separated the one from the other, asserting that the justification of the sinner before God (which is described as a forensic act on the part of God), is antecedent to his sanctification, which is physical (that is affecting the nature) and therapeutical).2 Both Roman Catholics and Protestants ascribed to faith a justifying power, in the case of the sinner : but there was this great difference between them, that the former maintained that, in addition to faith, good works are a necessary condition of salvation, and ascribed to them a certain degree of meritoriousness,9 while the latter adhered rigidly to the proposition u sola fides justificat.”* Some opposing sects,5 however, which had their origin in Protestantism, formed here again an ex¬ ception. While Arminians and Socinians agreed with other Protest¬ ants in restricting justification in the first instance, to the act of 282 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. granting pardon,6 the Mennonites and Quakers regarded it as a thera¬ peutical act.7 Respecting the relation between faith and works, the Arminians and Socinians, as well as the Mennonites, adopted views more closely allied to those of the Roman Catholics, hut with this important difference,8 that they denied the meritoriousness of works,9 though holding them to he necessary. [Many theologians of the Anglican Church occupied an intermediate position.10] 1 Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7 : Justificatio non est sola peccatoram re- missio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum, nude homo ex injusto fit jnstns et ex ini- mico amicus, ut sit hseres secundum spem vitae aeternae, etc. Comp. Can. 11, and Bellarmine , De Justif., ii. 2: _ Sicut aer, cum illustratur a sole per idem lumen, quod recipit, desinit esse tenebrosus et incipit esse lucidus, sic etiam homo per eandem justitiam sibi a sole justitiae donatam atque infusam desinit esse injustus, delente videlicet lumine gratise tenebras peccatorum, etc. 8 Apol. Augustanse Conf. p. 125 : Justificare hoc loco (Rom. v. 1), forensi consuetudine significat reum absolvere et pronuntiare j'ustum, sed propter alienam justitiam, videlicet Christi, quae aliena justitia communicatur nobis per fidem. Comp. p. 73 ; p. 109. Form. Cone., p. 785. Helv. II, c. 15 : Justificare significat Apostolo in disputatione de justificatione : peccata remit- tere, a culpa et poena absolvere, in gratiam recipere et justum pronuntiare. — “ According to the Roman Catholic doctrine , Christ , by the act of justifica¬ tion , is really embodied in the believer , so that the latter becomes a living reflection of the prototype ; according to the Protestant doctrine, he casts only his shadow upon the believer , which so shelters him, that God does not see his sinfulness .” Mohler, Symbolik, p. 134. On the other side see JBaur p. 229 ss. and the passage quoted by Mohler p. 136, from Calvin's Antidot. in Cone. Trid., p. 702 : Neque tamen negandum est, quin perpetuo conjunctce sint ac cohcereant duae ista res, sanctificatio et justificatio. Protestants do not deny that justification and sanctification are closely connected, but they do deny that they are one* and the same thing ; when the Formula Cone. (Solida Declar. iii. p. 695) says: Totam justitiam nostram extra nos quae- rendam, it explains this immediately after by adding: extra omnium homi* num merita, opera, etc. [In the doctrine of justification by faith, the whole antagonism between Romanism and Protestantism is most clearly seen. Protestants make the subjective and individual reception of salvation to be, on the one hand, the inmost experience of the individual, while, on the other hand, it represents it as mediated as slightly as possible by the agency of the person himself. Catholicism not only lets the individual participate in it, but also introduces a whole series of intermediate acts between God and man, in which is brought out the externalizing tendency of its whole system, j Baur, p. 331.] 8 Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. c. 6-c. 8 : Per fidem ideo justificari dicimur, quia fides est humanae salutis initium, fundamentum et radix omnis justification^. — On the other hand, c. 9 : Si quis dixerit, sola fide impium justificari, ita ut intelligat nihil aliud requiri, quod ad justifications gratiam consequendam § 251. Justification. Faith. 283 cooperetur . anathema sit. Comp. c. 12. This is allied with the moral' and external (historical) idea of faith. Cat. Rom. I. i., 1 : Nos de ea fide loquimur, cujus vi omnino assentimur iis, quse tradita sunt divinitus. Faith taken in this sense (as submission to the authority of the church) may be said to be meritorious. The meritoriousness of works consists in this, that the justitia is increased by the performance of good works. Comp. Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. (quoted by Winer , p. 104) ; Catech. Rom. ii. 5, 71. JBellarmine, Justific. v. 1, iv. 7. Nevertheless (according to Bellarmine), the merits of men will not throw the merits of Christ into the shade ; they are rather themselves the effect of the merits of Christ, and serve to manifest his glory among men. Bellarmine , v. 5 (quoted by Winer , p. 105.) 4 Confessio Augustana, Art. 4 : Docent, quod homines non posgunt justi- ficari coram Deo propriis viribus, meritis aut operibus, sed gratis justificentur propter Christum per fidem, cum credunt se in gratiam recipi, et peccata remitti propter Christum, qui sua morte pro nostris peccatis satisfecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro justitia coram ipso. — But Protestants did not under¬ stand by faith mere historical faith (as did Roman Catholics),* see Art. 20 (p. 18) : Admonentur etiam homines, quod hie nomen fidei non significet tantum historiae notitiam, qualis est in impiis et diabolo, sed significet fidem, quae credit non tantum historiam, sed etiam effectum histories, videlicet hunc articulum, remissionem peccatorum, quod videlicet per Christum habeamus gratiam, justitiam et remissionem peccatorum. Comp. Apologia, p. 68. — • Concerning good works, and the relation in which they stand to faith, Luther , at first set a high value upon the genuine works of mercy, distin¬ guishing these from the dead works of the law and of ceremonies ; but he also denied the meritoriousness of the best works, and regarded them with suspicion, whenever they did not proceed from faith ; comp. Schenkel , ii. 193, sq. — The Confess. August, says, Art. 20, p. 16 : Falso accusantur nostri, quod bona opera prohibeant. . . .Docent nostri, quod necesse sit bona opera facere, non ut confidamus per ea gratiam mereri, sed propter voluntatem Dei. — Apol. p. 81 : Nos quoque dicimus, quod delectio fidem sequi debeat. Neque tamen ideo sentiendum est, quod fiducia hujus dilectionis aut propter hanc dilectionem accipiamus remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem. * The contending parties were well acquainted with the different meanings attached to the term “ faith.” See Bellarmine , De Justific. § 4. They were not engaged in any mere logomachy. Only this is to be lamented, that the Protestants (even Luther) did not hold fast to the internal and dynamic idea of faith, but frequently confounded it (like the Catholics) with the fides historica. This gave rise to a faith-righteousness, worse even than righteousness by works, since it cost no effort, and gave occasion to pride and harshness towards those who held different views; see Schenkel, ii. 200 sq. Zwingle, on the other hand, urged the moral nature of faith ; ibid., 299. Melancthon and Calvin tried to harmonize the dogmatical and ethical elements of the idea; ibid., 322 sq. [The differ¬ ence between the Reformed and Lutheran system is strikingly seen in their doctrine res¬ pecting faith. In the Calvinistic scheme, faith is one of the elements in the series of absolute predestination; the Lutheran system tries on this point to set aside the absolute decree, but in a fluctuating way, making faith on the one hand to be a gift of God, and yet on the other hand, not daring to take the Pelagian ground, that a preevisa fides con¬ ditioned the election. Baur, p. 334.] 284 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Ibid. p. 85 : Falso calumniantur nos adversarii, qnod nostri non doceant bona opera, cum ea non solum requirant, sed etiam ostendant, quomodo fieri possint, etc. Comp. Winer , p. 99 and 105, where other passages are quoted from the Lutheran symbols. — The creeds of the Reformed Church express themselves in similar terms. Thus the Confession of Basle, Art. 9, Con¬ cerning Faith and Good Works : We acknowledge the forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ, the crucified one ; though this faith continually ex¬ ercises, and manifests itself, and is preserved, by works of love, we do not ascribe righteousness and satisfaction for our sins to works as the fruit of faith, but solely to true confidence and faith in the blood of the Lamb of God, which was shed for the remission of our sins ; for we freely confess that all things are given to us in Christ. Therefore believers are not to perform good works to make satisfaction for their sins, but only in order to manifest their gratitude for the great mercy which the Lord God has shown to us in Christ. — Compare also the arrangement of the Catechism of Hei¬ delberg, where the whole system of ethics is included in the article concern¬ ing Gratitude. Conf. Helv. II. c. 15 : Docemus cum Apostola, hominem peccatorem justificari sola fide in Christum, etc. The following definition is given in ch. 18 : Fides humananon est opinio ac humanapersuasio, sed firmis- sima fiducia et evidens ac constans animi assensus, denique certissima compre- hensio veritatis Dei .... atque adeo Dei ipsius, summi boni, et praecipue promissionis divinae et Christi, qui omnium promissionum est colophon. — Heidelberg Catech., Qu. 21 : What is true faith ? Answ. It is not only a cer¬ tain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his Word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the Gospel in my heart, that not only to others, but to me also, remis¬ sion of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits. 6 For example, Thomas Munzer , David Joris , Seb. Frank , Thamer , Schwenkfeld, etc. See Schenkel, ii. 251. Hagen ., ii. 374. 6 Confess. Remonstrant. 18, 3, and Apolog. Conf. Rem. p. 112, a.> (quoted by Winer, p. 97) : Justificatio est actio Dei, quam Deus pure pute in sua ipsius mente efficit, quia nihil aliud est, quam volitio aut decretum, quo pec- cata remittere et justitiam imputare aliquando vult iis, qui credunt, i. e ., quo vult poenas peccatis eorum promeritas iis non infligere eosque tamquam jus- tos tractare et praemio afficere. — The Socinians also regarded justification as a forensic act. Catech. Racov. Qu. 433 (ibid.) : Justificatio est, cum nos Deus pro justis habet, quod ea ratione facit, cum nobis et peccata remittit et nos vita aeterna donat. Comp. Socinus , de Justif. (Opp. ii. p. 603) : Duplici autem ratione amovetur peccatum : vel quia non imputatur ac perinde habetur ac si nunquam fuisset, vel quia peccatum ipsum revera aufertur, nec amplius peccatur .... What he says further on : Utraque haec amovendi peccati ratio in justificatione coram Deo nostra con spicitur, might lead us to think that he identified sanctification and justification, but in the sequel he distinctly separates them : Ht autem cavendum est, ne, ut hodie plerique faciunt, vitae sanctitatem atque innocentiam effectual justificationis nostrae coram Deo esse dicamus, sic diligenter cavere debemus, ne ipsam sanctitatem atque innocen¬ tiam justificationem nostram coram Deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae 285 § 251. Justification. Faith. coram Deo justification^ causam efficientem ant impulsivam esse affirmemus, sed tantummodo causam, sine qua earn justificationem non contingere de- crevit, Deus. The difference between justificatio and obedientia is so defined, that by the former we are to understand the remissio peccatorum, and by obedientia a mere condition, under which justification occurs. T Ries , Conf. Art. 21 : Per vivam fidem acquirimus veram justitiam, i. e ., condonationem seu remissionem omnium tam praeteritorum quam praesentium peccatorum, ut et veram justitiam, quae per Jesum cooperante Spir. Sancto abundanter in nos effunditur vel infunditur, adeo ut ex malis. . . .fiamus boni atque ita ex injustis revera justi. — Barclay , Apol. 7, 3, p. 128, does not comprise under justification good works as such, not even when viewed as the effects of the Holy Spirit in us, but the formatio Christi in nobis , the new birth, which at the same time comprehends sanctification ; for it is realis interna animce renovatio ; for those, qui Christum in ipsis formatum habent, integrum eum et indivisum possident. 7 Limborch Theol. Christ, vi. 4, 22 :. . . .Sine operibus tides mortua et ad justificationem inefficax est. 4, 31. Comp. Conf. Remonstr. xi. 1 ss., and Apol. Confess, p. 113 (quoted by Winer , p. 102). According to Socinus (De Justif. in the Biblioth. X^ratr. f ol. Xom, n. p* 601, ss.) there is faith m obedience to the divine commandments. “ When they advance anything else concerning justifying faith ... .they borrow it from Roman Catholic theologians .” [?] Mohler , p. 634. For the views of the Mennonites con¬ cerning justification, see Ries, Confess. Art. 29: Fides. ... debet comitata esse amore Dei et firma confidentia in unum Deum. 8 Schyn , Plen. Deduct, p. 232 (quoted by Winer, p. 107) : Non cre- dimus bona opera nos salvare, sed agnoscimus bona opera pro debita obedientia et fructibus fidei. Socinus also asserted, that good works, though necessary, are not meritorious (non sunt meritoria) : de Justif. p. 603. 9 [The article on Justification in the Book of Homilies, 1547, was drawn up by Cranmer. Bp. George Bull, Harmonia Apostolica, two dissertations on the doctrine of James on Justification, and his agreement with Paul (Works, vol. iii.). John Bavenant, Bp. of Salisbury, Treatise on Justification, 1631, new ed., 1844, defends the Reformed doctrine. Bp. William Forbes (of Edinburgh, b. 1585, d. 1634), Considerationes Modestse (against Bellarmine on Justification), Lond., 1658 (posthumous), reprinted, Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol. i. 1850. The Article XI. (of the XXXIX. Articles) reads: We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings, wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. Art. XII. represents good works only as the “ fruits of faith.” The views of the Platonizing English divines are set forth most clearly in J ohn Smith’s (of Cambridge) Select Discourses ; Of Legal and Evangelical Righteousness, the 7th Discourse.] 286 m Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. § 252. FLUCTUATION'S WITHIJST THE DENOMINATIONS THEMSELVES. Differences of opinion, however, obtained among Protestant tneo- logians themselves. Thus, Andrew Osiander represented justifica¬ tion and sanctification as forming only one act ;l and as regards the relation in which good works stand to faith, the views of Nicolas Amsdorf were diametrically opposed to those of George Major . The latter asserted that good works contributed to salvation, while the former maintained, that they are productive rather of evil than of good.2 Calixtus , somewhat later, emphasized the ethical element, and although he retained the formula, sola tides, he opposed the tides solitaria* Both the Lutheran and Calvinistic mystics at¬ tached (like the Quakers) great importance to sanctification, and were strongly opposed to that theology which represents justification as an external, legal transaction.4 1 On Osiandeds doctrine in its earliest form (after 1524) see Heberle in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1844. It is further developed in the two disputa¬ tions which he held, a. d. 1549 and 1550, in his treatise : De unico Media- tore, 1551, and in various sermons. He maintained, that what was called justification by orthodox theologians, should be more properly designated redemption. (Illustrated by the case of a Moor, ransomed from slavery.) In his opinion, the signification of duccuovv is to “ make just it is only by metonymy that it can mean “ to pronounce a person just.” Comp. Planch , iv. p. 249, ss. Tholuck's Anzeiger, 1833, No. 54, 55. Schenhel , ii. 355. He was opposed by Francis Staphylus , Morlin , and others. \jBaur in Dogmengesch. 332 : Justification according to Osiander, is the mystical union of man with Christ, as the absolute principle of righteousness. . . .The believer is so embodied in Christ, that in this living concrete unity, he is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. . . .The Formula Concordia is incor¬ rect in representing his doctrine, as excluding the human nature of Christ from the work of redemption.] 2 Compare Amsdorf’s treatise: Dass die Propositio, gude Werke sind schadlich zur Seligkeit, eine rechte sei, reprinted in S. JBaumgarten , Ge- schichte der Religionsparteien, p. 11 72-7 8. Amsdorf speaks, in the first in¬ stance, of those works by which men hope to deserve salvation ; but even those works which are the fruit of faith are imperfect, on account of sin, and would condemn us before the judgment-seat of Christ, if God did not condescend to accept them for the sake of faith in Christ. In his opinion there was no medium between that which is necessary to salvation, and that which does harm. “Though the dialectical proof of this inference, or con¬ sequence, come short of being complete, which, however, it does not, it can satisfactorily be established on theological grounds.” But it is especially “ on account of monks and hypocrites that it is necessary to adhere to this proposition, though it may give offence to reason and in philosophy.” Ams- § 252. Controversies on Justification. 287 dorf admits that works may be the “ manifestations and evidences of faith ,” u for as long* as faith exists, good works also follow, and when we com¬ mit sin, we do not lose salvation, because we have previously lost it by un¬ belief? Comp. Planck , iv. p. 69, ss. Calvin is also decidedly opposed to Osiandrism, which he calls a calumnia . Comp. Institutes III. c. 11, § 10, sq ., and c. 13, § 5 : Quicunque garriunt, nos fide justificari, quia regeniti spiritualiter vivendo justi sumus, nunquam gustarunt gratise dulcedinem, ut Deum sibi propitium fore confiderent. [See above, p. 149. Pitschl , Die Rechtfertigungslehre Osianders, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologia, 1857. Frank , De Satisf. Christi ex Lite Osiandr. Erlang., 1858. Gran, De Andr. Osiand. Doctrina, 1860. Baur, Lehre d. Yersohnung, 1838, p. 326, s^.] 3 See Disputatio Theologica de gratuita Justificatione, preside J. Calixto exponit G. Titius , Helmst., 1650. Against this the Consensus Repetitus, Punct., 42-57 (in Henke's ed., p. 32, sq.). Gass , i. 74. [ Gieseler, Church Hist., New York ed., iv. § 52.] 4 Schwenkfeld had already maintained that the tendency of Luther’s doc¬ trine was to seduce common people into errors and carnal liberty. He ad¬ mitted that the doctrine (concerning faith and good works) was true in a certain sense, and under certain limitations, but he thought that it might easily be perverted so as to lead to belief in the mere letter of Scripture, and to moral indifference. Comp. Planck, v. 1, p. 83, ss. Schenkel , u. s. § 251, note. Faith, according to Schwenkfeld, is essentially dynamic, “a gracious gift of the divine essence, a drop from the heavenly fountain, a glittering of the eternal sun, a spark of the eternal fire, which is God, and in short, a communion and participation of the divine nature and essence ( vrcoo - raotq , Hebr. xi. 1) ; see his work, Yom Worte Gottes, 110, b. and Erbkam , Prot. Secten, 431, sq. — [The fundamental significance, which Osiander ascribed to the essential righteousness of Christ, in the matter of justifica¬ tion, is attributed by Schwenkfeld to the glorified flesh of Christ. Baur, p. 333.] J. JBohme (von der Menschwerdung Christi, vol. ii. c. 7, § 15, quoted by Umbreit , p. 51) says: “ The hypocritical Babylon now teaches: Our works deserve nothing, Christ has redeemed us from death and hell, we must only believe it, in order to be saved. Dost thou not know, Babylon, that the servant who, knowing his master’s will, does not fulfill it, will be beaten with many stripes ? Knowledge without action is like a fire, which glimmers, but cannot burn, because the fuel is moist. If thou wilt have thy fire of faith burn, thou must blow upon it, and free it from the moisture of the devil and of hell ; thou must enter into the life of Christ, and do his commandments,” etc. — Though Arnd adhered more firmly than Bohme to the fundamental principles of Lutheranism, he always urged the necessity of that love which proceeds from faith (see the passages quoted from his Wahres Christenthum, in Hagenbactis Yorlesungen, vol. iii. p. 377-79.) Poiret called that faith which manifests itself especially as an uncharitable spirit of opposition, military faith. (Ibid. iv. p. 327.) 288 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. § 253. THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. [Schroder, Die Ordo Salutis, in Studien und Kritiken, 185t.] The fundamental principles laid down in the symbolical books, were more fully developed by theologians, especially by those of the Protestant Church, so as to form a definite economy of redemption. After God has called the sinner (vocatio), and man heard that call (auditio), operations of the Divine Spirit (operationes Spiritus), follow each other in definite succession— viz. 1. Illuminatio ; 2. Con- versio (pcenitentia) ; 3. Sanctificatio (renovatio) ; 4. Perseverantia ; 5. Unio mystica cum Deo. Theologians, however, did not quite agree as to the precise order of these operations.1 The mystics, and the so-called pietists, neglected all those scholastic definitions, and had a system and terminology of their own.2 1 Compare the works of the orthodox Protestant theologians, cited in Be Wette, Dogmatik, p. 151, ss. Hase , Hutterus Redivivus, p. 287, ss., where passages are also quoted from the writings of other divines ; Gass , i. 362, sq ., and the works of Hulsemann , and Musaus , to which he refers. 2 The theory of the economy of salvation was established on account of, and in opposition to, the pietists. See Be Wette , p. 151. For their views concerning the so-called Theologia Irregenitorum, and the economy of sal¬ vation, see Planck , Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 223 ss. The pietists asserted that the regeneration of man commences with a change in his will ; their opponents maintained that the illumination of the under¬ standing was the first step. The conscious experience of the unio mystica raised some mystics to the height of ecstasy ; with others it subsided into quietism. See Molina's Guida Spirituale (extracts in Scharling , ubi supra, p. 55 sq), and the appendix, p. 236. [This Spiritual Guide was published in Spain, 1675 ; an English translation appeared, 1688.] As no reference was made to the unio mystica in the symbolical books, theologians entertained different views. — On the controversy between the theologians of Leipsic and- Wittenberg on the one hand, and those of Tubingen and Helmstadt on the other (which had its origin in the assertion of Justus Feuerborn , that there is an approximatio of the divine substance to the human), comp. Wa.lch, Religionsstrieitigkeiten der evangelisch — luther. Kirche, iii. p. 130 ss. [In the Augsburg Confession, justification is made the fruit of conversion, and precedes sanctification. Calvin , Inst. Ill, cap. 5, puts faith first, and then Poenitentia, with its two divisions of mortificatio and vivificatio. Ger¬ hard's order is, Poenitentia, Justificatio, Bona Opera. Uollaz is most minute : Vocatio, Illuminatio, Conversio, Regeneratio, Justificatio, Unio mystica, Re¬ novatio, Conservatio, Gratia glorificans, etc. Comp. Schroder , ubi supra. On the different positions assigned in the Lutheran and Reformed systems to decrees, imputation, satisfaction, faith, etc., see Schneckenburger , in Theol. Jahrb., 1844.] I THIRD DIVISION. THE DOCTRINES CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND ITS MEANS OF GRACE, CONCERNING SAINTS, IMAGES, THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, AND PURGATORY. (THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.) § 254. INTRODUCTION. With the differences about the formal,1 as well as the material principle,2 3 * * * * which constitute Roman Catholicism on the one hand, and Protestantism on the other, are intimately connected their res¬ pective views concerning the church and its means of grace, concern¬ ing the forms of worship, especially the mass and the sacrifice of the mass, and concerning the connection subsisting between the latter, and the state of the dead (purgatory) ; or, more properly speaking, these views are the necessary consequences of their principles. But Protestants and Roman Catholics, as distinguished from the sects, were agreed in preserving the historical and positive basis of Chris¬ tianity, though ,they differed as to extent and manner, and in retain¬ ing external and legal forms. On the other hand, the sects, rejecting more or less arbitrarily the historical development of Christianity and its higher influence in shaping the life of society, exposed them¬ selves to the disintegrating power of separatism, now on the side of barren reflection, and again in the way of fantastical mysticism.8 1 Wherever the so-called abuses of the Roman Catholic Church are men¬ tioned in the symbolical writings of the Protestants, they are rejected chiefly because they are either not founded upon Scripture, or are directly opposed to it. 3 The fundamental contrast between faith and works (the internal and the external), manifests itself also in the doctrines in question. Where Protestants suppose an invisible order of things, Roman Catholics rely upon the external form, which strikes the senses ; where the former seek means of grace, the latter find opera operato, etc. 3 Dissolution into fragments of churches, and disintegration into atoms, 290 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. are the common fate of all sects. Another thing common to them all is the disregard they manifest to whatever is symbolical in public worship. They either despise it altogether as only captivating the senses, or they regard it it as a vain ceremony. — While Protestantism was in some respects liable to foster such a development, it also included powerful principles of an opposite tendency, which gave rise to the organization of forms of worship and of eccle¬ siastical polity. The Calvinists rather endeavoured to build anew from the foundation, while the Lutherans were more attached to historical prece¬ dents. ' § 255'. THE CHURCH AND ECCLESIASTICAL POWER. Kostlin, Luther’s Lehre von der Kirche, Stuttg., 1853. Hansen , Die lutherische und die reformirte Kirchenlehre von der Kirche, G-olka, 1854. Munchmeier [die sichtbare und unsichtbare Kirche, Grotting., 1854; comp. Bitschl in Studien und Kritiken, 1859. Kostlin, Wesen der Kirche, Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1855 ; Die Katholische Auffassung, ibid. On Melancthon's views see, Reuter’s Repertorium, Sept. 1856. William Palmer , A Treatise on the Church of Christ, 3d ed., 2 vols., 1842, repr. New York. Abp. Whately, The Kingdom of Christ, 1841, repr. New York. Edward Arthur Litten, The Church of Christ in its Idea, etc., repr. New York, 1856. Charles Hodge, The Church, etc., in Princeton Review, 1853, 4, 6, reprinted in his Essays and Re¬ views, 1857.] The old antagonism between the external and internal idea of the church was more fully developed by the conflicts between*Romanism and Protestantism. According to Roman Catholics, the church is a visible society of all baptised persons, who adopt a certain exter¬ nal creed, have the same sacraments, and acknowledge the Pope as their common head.1 Protestants assert that the church consists in the invisible fellowship of all those who are united by the bonds of true faith, which ideal union is but imperfectly represented by the visible church, in which the true gospel is taught, and the sacraments are rightly administered.2 In the view of the former, individuals come to Christ through the church ; in the view of the latter, they come to the church through Christ.3 With this difference in funda¬ mental principles is connected the different view entertained by Protestants and Roman Catholics concerning ecclesiastical power and the hierarchy. Protestants not only reject the papacy, and all the gradation of ecclesiastical dignities in the Roman Catholic sense, but, proceeding from the idea of the spiritual priesthood of all Christians, regard the clergy not, like their opponents, as an order of men specially distinct from the laity, but as the body of the teach¬ ers and servants of the Church, who being divinely called and prop¬ erly appointed, possess certain ecclesiastical rights, and have to perform certain duties which they derive partly from divine, partly § 255. The Church and Ecclesiastical Power. 291 from human law.4 In their opposition to the hierarchy, the Anabap¬ tists and Quakers went still further, rejecting not only the order of priests, but also that of instructors , and made the right of teaching in the church to depend on an internal call alone.5 [The Church of England occupied an intermediate position between the Roman Catholics and the other reformed churches, retaining the Episcopate and the theory of apostolical succession,6 though not at first denying the validity of the orders of other churches,7 and vigorously oppo¬ sing the pretensions of the papacy.8 The Presbyterian polity was shaped most completely in Scotland.9 Independency (Congregation¬ alism) was planted in New England, and had a temporary triumph in England under Cromwell.10] 1 After the example of Augustine (in his controversy with the Donatists), the Roman Catholics maintained that the church militant on earth* is com¬ posed of the good and the wicked. See Confess. August. Confut., c. 7, and Cat. Rom., i. 10, V. It is in Bellarmine's treatise, De Ecclesia Milit., in par¬ ticular that this doctrine is very clearly developed, c. 2 : Nostra sententia est, ecclesiam, unam. tantum esse, non duas, et illam unam et veram esse coetum hominum ejusdem christianae fidei professione et eorundam sacramentorum communione colligatum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum ac praecipue unius Christi in terris vicarii, romani pontificis. Ex qua definitione facile colligi potest, qui homines ad ecclesiam pertineant, qui vero ad earn non per- tineant. Tres enim sunt partes hujus definitionis : Professio verae fidei, sacramentorum communio, et subjectio ad legitimum pastorem, romanum pontificem. Ratione primae partis excluduntur omnes infideles, tarn qui nun- quam fuerunt in ecclesia, ut Judaei, Turcae, Pagani, tam qui fuerunt et reces- serunt, et haeretici et apostatae. Ratione secundae excluduntur catechumeni et excommunicati, quoniam illi non sunt admissi ad sacramentorum commu- .nionem, isti sunt dimissi. Ratione tertiae excluduntur schismatici, qui habent fidem et sacramenta, sed non subduntur legitimo pastori, et ideo foris profitentur fidem et sacramenta percipiunt. Includuntur autem omnes alii, etiamsi reprobi, scelesti et impii sunt. Atque hoc interest inter sententiam nostram et alias omnes, quod omnes alias requirunt internas virtutes ad con- stituendum aliquem in ecclesia et propterfea ecclesiam veram invisibilem faciunt ; nos autem et credimus in ecclesia inveniri omnes virtutes, fidem, spem, carit.atem et cet.eras; tamen ut aliquis aliquo modo dici possit pars verae ecclesiae, de qua scripturae loquuntur, non putamus requiri ullam internam virtutem, sed tantum externam professionem fidei et sacramentorum commu- nionem, quae sensu ipso percipitur. Ecclesia enim est coetus hominum ita * The distinction which Roman Catholics make between ecclesia militans and trium- phans , has reference to this world, and to that which is to come, while the distinction made by Protestants between the visible and invisible church, has reference to this world only. Comp. Schweizer , ii. 663, [in his Glaubenslehre der reform Kirche : Ecclesia est partim militans partim triumphans in coelis ; ilia quae adhuc in terris colligitur, est visibilis, vel invisibilis : Aretiusi\ 292 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. visibilis et palpabilis, ut est coetus populi romani vel regnum Gallic aut res- publica Yenetorum. 2 On the gradual development of tbe idea of tbe church in Luther’s sys¬ tem, see SchenJcely Wesen der Protest., iii. 1 sq., and Kostlin , ubi supra ; on Zwingle’s views, see SchenJcely p. 61 sq. On Calvin , ibid., p. 99 sq. (compar¬ ing the fourth Book of his Institutes). Conf. Aug., Art. 7 : Est ecclesia congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur et recte adminis- trantur sacramenta. Apol. Confess. Aug., p. 144 ss. : Et catholicam eccle- siam dicit [articulus ille in Symbolo], ne intelligamus, ecclesiam esse politiam externam certarum gentium, sed magis homines sparsos per totum orbem, qui de evangelio consentiunt, et habent eundem Christum, eundem Spiritum Sanctum, et eadem sacramenta, sive habeant easdem traditiones humanas, sive dissimiles. — p. 148: Neque vero somniamus nos Platonicam civitatem, ut qiiidem impie cavillantur, sed dicimus existere hauc ecclesiam, videlicet vere credentes ac justos sparsos per totum orbem. First Confess, of Basle, Art. 5 : “ We acknowledge a holy Christian Church, i. e. the communion of saints, the spiritual assembly of believers, which is holy, and an offspring of Christ, of which all those are citizens who truly confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world, and who give evidence of their faith by works of love.” Conf. Helv. II, c. 17 ; Oportet semper fuisse, esse et futuram esse ecclesiam, i. e. e mundo evocatum vel collectum coetum fidelium, sanctorum inquam omnium commu- nionem, eorum videlicet, qui Deum verum in Christo servatore per Yerbum et Spiritum Sanctum vere cognoscunt et rite colunt, denique omnibus bonis per Christum gratuito oblatis fide participant. . . .Illam docemus veram esse ecclesiam, in qua signa vel notse inveniuntur ecclesise verse, imprimis vero verbi divini legitima vel sincera prsedicatio. Conf. Gall., Art. 27. Belg. 27 : Credimus unicam ecclesiam catholicam seu universalem, quse est congregatio sancta seu coetus omnium vere fidelium christianorum, qui totam suam salu- tem in uno Jesu Christo exspectant, sanguine ipsius abluti et per spiritum ejus sanctificati atque obsignati. Sancta hcec ecclesia certo in loco non est sita vel limitatay aut ad certas singular esque personas alligatay sed per totum mundum sparsa atque diffusa. — Comp. Angl., 19, Scot. 16. [Westminster Confession, chap, xxv : The Catholic or universal church, which is invisible-, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof ; is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together with their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.] The doctrine concerning the Church is most ably and acutely developed by Calvin Instit., iv. 1 ss. Comp. Henry , vol. ii. p. 90 ss. The Arminians ( Limborch Theol., vii. 1, 6) and the Mennonites adopted substantially the same principles as the Calvinists. RieSy Conf. Art. 24. Concerning the views of the Quakers and Socinians, see Winery p. 168. — The latter, in particular, attached little importance to the doctrine concern¬ ing the church. See Socinusy Opp. T. i. 3 : Quod si dicas, ad salutem § 255. The Church and Ecclesiastical Power. 293 neeessarium esse, ut quis sit in vera Christi ecclesia, et propterea necessarium simnl esse, ut veram Christi ecclesiam inquirat et agnoscat, negabo consecu- tionem istarn. . . . Nam simulatque quis Christi salutarera doctrinam habet, is jam vel re ipsa in vera Christi ecclesia est, vel ut sit non habet necesse in- quirere, quaenam sit vera Christi ecclesia, id enim. . . .jam novit. From this he infers : Qusestionem de ecclesia, quaenam, sive apud quos sit, quae hodie tantopere agitatur, vel inutilem propemodum esse, vel certe non esse necessa- riam. — The principle extra ecclesiam nulla salus was also retained by the Protestant Church, though in a somewhat different sense. Comp. Winer , p. 169. It also concedes that the true church can not err (as to the faith) ; it is a columna veritatis; see Augsb. Confes. p. 148. The later Lutheran divines lay claim to this predicate exclusively for their (the Lutheran) church, excluding not only the Roman Catholics, but also Calvinists, from the church ; see Con¬ sensus Repetitus Fidei, punct. 59 (in Henlce, p. 44) : Rejicimus eos, qui do¬ cent ad ecclesiam christianam pertinere non tantum Lutneranos et Grsecos [sic], sed Pontificios etiam et Calvinianos. 3 Thus Calvin , 1. c. laid some stress on the phraseology of the Apostles’ Creed, where it is not said, Credo in ecclesiam, like, credo in Deum, in Christum ; but simply, Credo ecclesiam. “ Protestantism demands obedi¬ ence under Christ , and connects therewith the participation of the individual in the church ; Roman Catholicism on the other hand demands obedience under the hierarchy , and makes dependent thereon the participation of the in¬ dividual in the blessings received from Christ ; Schenk el, iii. 26. 4 On the connection between the Roman Catholic notion of the priestly office and the sacrifice of the mass, see Concil. Trident. Sess. 23, c. 1. On the other side, Apol. Confess. Aug., p. 201 ; Sacerdotum intelligunt adversarii non de ministerio verbi et sacramentorum aliis porrigendorum, sed intelli¬ gunt de sacrificio, quasi oporteat esse in Novo Testamento sacerdotium simile Levitico, quod pro populo sacrificet et mereatur aliis remissioLem peccato- rum. Nos docemus, etc. . . .Ideo sacerdotes vocantur, non ad ulla sacrificia velut in lege pro populo facienda ut per ea mereantur populo remissionem peccatorum, sed vocantur ad docendum evangelium et sacramenta porrigenda populo. Luther expressed himself on this subject as follows : “ Every Christian man is a priest, and every Christian woman a priestess, whether they be young or old, master or servant, mistress or maid-servant, scholar or illiterate.” Opp. Altenb., ed. i., fol. 522, (in Spener , geistliches Priester- thung, Frankf. 1677, p. 76 sq.): “All Christians are, properly speaking, mem¬ bers of the clerical order, and there is no difference between them, except that they hold different offices. (1 Cor. xii.) By baptism we are all made priests, (1 Pet. ii.) We do not want to be made , but born , popes, and to have our papacy by inheritance, through our birth from our fathers and mothers ; for our father is the true pope and high priest (Ps. cx.) Hence we take persons from such born popes, and call them to such offices. Papal or Epis¬ copal ordination can only make hypocrites and oil-idolaters” [Germ. Oelgot- zen.]. . . .Not only those “who are anointed and have received the tonsure” are priests, “ but every one who is baptised may consider himself an ordained priest, bishop, and pope, though it does not belong to every one to exercise the duties belonging to such offices. For, though we be all priests, none 294 Fourth Period Thi Age of Symbolism. must take upon himself, without being commissioned and approved of by ourselves, to do that to which we all possess equal rights. . . .The office of a Christian minister ought not to be different from that of a bailiff. While he is in office he has the precedence before others ; but when he is removed from office, be is a peasant or citizen like everybody else (he has not a char¬ acter indelcbilis). Nor are women excluded from the general priesthood of Christians, but they must not teach publicly (1 Cor. xiv.). But all derive their priestly office from Christ the sole high priest.” See also his Appeal to the Nobles of the German Nation (in Walch , x. p. 302 sq.) : ‘‘Hence the bishop’s consecration means only this, that he takes one out of the crowd instead of the whole body, who all have like authority, and commands him to exercise this authority for the others. Just as if ten brothers, the children of the king, should elect one to govern for them ; they were all kings and of equal rights, and yet one of them is appointed to rule. To set it in a clear¬ er light, if a company of pious Christian laymen were captured and sent to a desert place, and had not among them an ordained priest, and were all agreed in the matter, and elected one, and told him to baptize, administer the mass, absolve, and preach, such an one would be as true a priest, as if all the bishops and popes had ordained him.” (Comp, ibid., x. p. 1858). ... “ When on the other hand, the popish parsons, to prove their priesthood, show their pates and grease,, and long coats to boot, we are very willing to let them boast of their dirty trumpery, for we know, that it is very easy to fleece and grease a pig or sow, and put a long coat on the animal.” Comp. Luther , De Capt. Babyl. and his treatise: Von der Winkelmesse und der Pfaffenweihe (Wit- tenb. edit., vii. p. 433 ss.) Comp. SchenJcel , as above, p. 16 sq., Kostlin , 59. The universal priesthood was also insisted on by Ziuingle and Calvin . The former, in the concluding address to the first Zurich disputation (1523, see his Works, i.,199), calls the Catholic church “the wife of Christ;” “since it follows that all who love the head are members and children of God” (Thesis 8). Accordingly (Thesis 62), there are no other priests, “ than those who preach God’s word.” Comp. Calvin’s Instit. II. 15, 6 ; IV. 18, 13, 16, 17. — The distinction made by Protestants between sacerdotium and ministerium is very ably set forth in the Confess. Helv. II. Art. 18 : Deus ad colligendam vel constituendam sibi ecclesiam, eandemque gubernandam et conservandam, semper usus est ministris, iisque utitur adhuc, et utetur porro, quoad ecclesia in terris fuerit. Ergo ministrorum origo, institutio et functio vetustissima et ipsius Dei, non nova aut hominum est ordinatio. Posset sane Deus sua potentia immediate sibi adjungere ex hominibus eccle¬ siam, sed maluit agere cum hominibus per ministerium hominum. Proinde spectandi sunt ministri, non ut ministri duntaxat per se, sed sicut ministri Dei, utpote per quos Deus salutem hominum operatur. . . .Rursus tamen et hoc cavendum est, ne ministris et ministerio nimium tribuamus. . . . Diver- sissima inter se sunt sacerdotium et ministerium. Illud enim commune est christianis omnibus, ut modo diximus, hoc non item. Nec e medio sustulimus ecclesiae ministerium, quando repudiavimus ex ecclesia Christi sacerdotium papisticum. Equidem in novo testamento Christi non est am- plius tale sacerdotium, quale fuit in populo vetere, quod unctionem habuit externam, vestes sacras, etc.... quae typi fuerunt Christi, qui ilia omnia § 2 55. The Church and Ecclesiastical Power, 295 veniens et adimplens abrogavit. — In addition to piety, it is especially theo¬ logical knowledge by which the teachers of the church must be distinguished from the laity : Eligantur autem non quilibet, sed homines idonei, eruditione justa et sacra, eloquentia pia prudentiaque simplici, denique moderatione et honestate vitae insignes .... Damnamus ministros ineptos, et non instructos donis pastori necessariis. — As regards the right to officiate as a minister, it is necessary, also, in the Protestant Church, to be rite vocatus* : Nemo autem honorem ministerii ecclesiastici usurpare sibi, i. e ., ad se largitionibus, aut ullis artibus, aut arbitrio proprio, rapere debet. Yocentur et eligantur elec- tione ecclesiastica et legitima ministri ecclesiae, i. e ., eligantur religiose ab ecclesia vel ad hoc deputatis ab ecclesia, ordine justo et absque turba, sedi- tionibus et contentione. For further passages quoted from other symbols, see Winer , p. I75f. 6 On the views of the Anabaptists, see Schenkel , iii. 88, sq. Munzer's positions, as given by Stohel (Leben Mtinzers), p. 19, sq. : Quis non septies spiritu sancto profusus fuerit, Deum audire et intelligere minime potest. . . . Vera ecclesia est, quae audit vocem sponsi. — The Quaker principles are given in Barclay , Theol. Christ. Apol. Thes. 10 : Sicut dono et gratia seu lumine Dei omnis vera cognitio in rebus spiritualibus recipitur et revelatur, ita et illo, prout manifestatur et in intima cordis receptum est, per ejus vim et potentiam unusquisque verus evangelii minister constituitur, prseparatur et suppeditatur in opere ministerii, et hoc movente, ducente et trahente oportet evangelistam, pastorem christianum, duci et mandari in labore et ministerio suo evangelico, et quoad loca, ubi, et quoad personas, quibus, et quoad tem- pora, quando ministraturus est. Porro, qui hujus habent auctoritatem, pos- sunt et debent evangelium annunciare, licet humanis mandatis carentes et humanse literaturae ignari. E contra vero, qui hujus divini doni auctoritate carent, qnamquam eruditione et scientia praediti et ecclesiarum mandatis et hominum auctoritate ut plurimum pollentes, impostores tantum et frauda- tores, non veri evangelii ministri seu praedicatores habendi sunt. Praeterea, qui sanctum et immaculatum donum acceperunt, sicut gratis accepere, ita et gratis distributuri sunt absque mercede vel pacto stipendio, absit, ut eo utan- tur sicut arte ad lucrandam pecuniam, etc. (Women are also permitted to teach. Barclay , Comment. 27.) 6 [The Anglican literature has been very fruitful on the subject of the Church and its polity, in opposition to Rome, on the one hand, and to Pres¬ byterian and other Protestant churches on the other hand. The question of the relation of the church to the state was also largely discussed — as, e. g ., on the question of passive obedience, and in the controversies with the non- jurors. — In the XXXIX. Articles, Art. XIX. of the Church , declares : The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered, ac¬ cording to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requi- * On the different views of Lutherans and Calvinists (Ordinatio vaga) respecting ordi¬ nation, see the Canon law. f Socinians, in the doctrine about the church, follow in substance the statements of the Protestant symbols, but view the matter, when possible, in a still more external way, ice Feck's Socinianismus, and note 2 above. 296 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. site to the same. Art. XX. declares that the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith — yet that it is not lawful for it to ordain anything contrary to God’s word. Art. XXXVI. approves the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, as set forth in the time of Edward VI. — Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity (see § 225, 5., note 11,) advocates the Anglican system with the greatest ability. See also, Abp. Potter , Disc, of Church Government, 1724 (1838). Parker's Gov¬ ernment of the Church, 1683. Jeremy Taylor , Episcopacy Asserted. John Pogers (1679-172 9), on the Visible and Invisible Church, 2d ed., 1719. Hilson , Perpetual Gov. of Church, 1593-1842. William Nichols, 1664— 1712, Defence of Doctrine and Discipline of Church of England, 3d ed., 1730. Bp. Robert Sanderson , (1587-1663), Divine Bight of Episcopate, and, The Church, ed. W. Goode. — Richard Field (1561-1616), Of the Church, 1606, fifth book, 1610, 2d ed., 1628, 1635 , or Eccles. Hist. Soc. 4, Camb., 1847-52. Thos. Jackson , Of the Church, etc., in Works, Vol. xii. — Thos. Brett , (non-juror, 1667-1743), Account of Church Government, 1710; Divine Right of Episc., 2d ed., 1728. — George Hickes (non-juror, b. 1642, d. 1 7 1 5), Treatises on Christian Priesthood and Episcopal Order, 4th ed., Oxf., 1847, 3 vols. (Libr. Angl. Cath. Theol.) ; he also edited Bibliotheca Script. Eccles. Anodic. — a Collection of Tracts on the Church. Richard Cosin O (civilian), Ecclesiae Anglic. Politeia, 1684. Herbert Thorndike , d?. 1672, On the Government of the Churches, 1541, 1841, in Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol., 1844, vol. 1. Bp. John Overall (1559-1619), Convocation Book, Gov. of Church, 1690, Lib. Angl. Cath. Theol., 1844. Peter Heylin , Ecclesia Vin- dicata in Hist. Tracts, 1681. Bp. Thos. Morton (1564-1659), -Episcopacy of Church of England Justified, 1670. William Saywell , The Ref. of Ch. of Eng. Justified, 1688. Bp. Stilling fleet, Irenicum, a Weapon-salve for the Church’s Wounds, or the Divine Right of particular Forms of Church Gov¬ ernment, 1661 (Works vol. 2). Bp. Sami. Parker (Oxford, b. 1640, d. 1687) Discourse of Eccles. Politie, 1670 ; Defence of same, 1671 ; Account of Government of Church for first hundred years, 1683. Slater's Original Draft of the Primitive Church, 1 7 1 7 ; repr., 1830 (reply to King). — General Works on Church Polity: Gibson's Codex Juris Ecclesiast. 2 fob, 1764; Sir Henry Spelman (1562-1641), Concilia, Decreta, Constitutiones, etc., 2 fob, 1639-64. David Wilkins (d. 1745) Concilia; accedunt Constitu¬ tiones, etc., 4 fob, 1737. Jos. JBingham , Antiquities of Christ. Church, new ed., 9 vols., 1840. On the English Convocation , see Apb. William Wake , State of the Church and Clergy of England, occasioned by a book entitled The Rights and Powers of an English Convocation, fob, Lond., 1704. Hody , Hist, of Convocation. G. Trevor, Hist, of Convocation, 1853; see Christ. Rembr., 1853, and Oct., 1854.] T [On the question of the position of the Church of England in respect to the recognition of the validity of the orders of other churches, see Wm. Goode, Vindication of the Doctrine of the Church of England, etc., 1851 ; republished in Xew York, 1853 ; abridged, 1860 ; replies by the bishop of Exeter, and Archd. Churton. See also Bp. John Cosin, on the Validity of « Orders, etc., ed. Goode ; and the works on the Church by Abp. What el y , and Edward Arthur Litton. — Tracts for the Times, 1833-4, No. 74, Catena § 255. The Church and Ecclesiastical Power. 297 Patrum, Testimony of Writers in the English Church to the Apostolical Succession. — Bp. Burnet, in his Exposition of the Articles, says, that their authors, and successors for half an age after, did “ acknowledge the foreign churches .... to be true churches as to all essentials of the church,” al¬ though somewhat “ irregularly formed.” Even Hooker concedes (Eccl. vol. vii. 14) “that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop.” Clergymen from the continent, who received benefices in England, were only required to subscribe the Articles, not to be reordained. Abp. Usher said : “ in places where bishops cannot be had, the ordination by presbyters standeth valid.” Abp. Wake: Eccle- sias Reformatas etsi in aliquibus a nostra Anglicana dissentientes libenter amplector. . . .Interim absit ut ego tarn ferrei pectoris sim, ut ob ejusmodi defectum (sic inihi absque omni invidia appellare liceat) aliquas earum a communione nostra abscindendas credam ; aut, cum quibusdam furiosis inter nos scriptoribus, eas nulla vera ac valida sacramenta habere, adeoque vix Christianos esse pronuntiem. Letter, 1719, 4th App. to Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist., transl. by Maclaine.] 8 [On the Controversy with Rome : Cardinal Bellarmine1 s Notes of the Church refuted by Tenison, Kidder, Patrick, Williams, etc. ; repr. 1840. BrogdeFs Catholic Safeguard (a collection of treatises) 3 vols., Loud., 1846. Gibson ( Edmund , 1667-1748), Preservation against Popery (also a collec¬ tion of tracts), 18 vols., Lond., 1848-9. Jewel1 s Apology. Bp. Thos . Harlow , (1607-91), Popery, 1679; Brutuin Fulmen, 1681. Isaac Harrow (1630-1677), Treatise of Pope’s Supremacy. Jeremy Taylor , Dissuasive from Popery. Crakanthorp , Defens. Eccles. Angl., new ed., 1847. Chil~ liny worth1 s Religion of Protestants (see § 225, b.) Andrew Willett (1562— 1621), Synopsis Papismii, 5th ed., 1634, repr., 10 vols., 1852. Roger Twys- den , Hist. Yind. of Ch. of Eng., 1657, 3d ed. James , Bellum Papale, 1600. 1847. Bp. Henry Fern (1602-1661), Ref. Church of England, against Ant. Champney, of the Sorbonne, 1653. Henry Hammond (1605-1660), Works 4 fob, 1774 ; on Schism; a Parsenesis, in defence against Romanists (vol. 2). Daniel Hrevint (d. 1695), Missale Romanum, etc. Geo. Hickes , Controver¬ sial Disc., and Corruptions of Church of Rome, 1705, 3d ed., 1727 ; he also edited Bp. Joseph Hall (1574-1656), in Works, vol. 8, on the Peace of Rome, etc. Geo. Reynolds , Hist. Essay on Gov. of Church of England, 1743. Andrew Sail , d. 1682, True Cath. and Apostolic Faith, new ed. by Allport, 1840. Francis Mason (1566-1621), Vindicise Eccles. Anglicanse, against Bellarmine, etc., fob, 1638 ; transl., 1728. Bp. John Buckeridge (of Ely, d. 1631), De Potestate Papae in rebus temporalibus, Lond., 1614. Abp. John Sharp (1644-1714), Works, vol. 7 (1754), on Roman Cath. contro¬ versy. Abp. Wm. Laud (1573-1645), Relation of Conference with Mr. Fisher, 1624 ; in Works, vol. 2, Oxf., 1849 ; Rome’s Masterpiece (in Remains,) by Wharton , fob 1700, vol. i. p. 567, sq. Francis White , d. 1638, Reply to Jesuit Fisher, etc., 1624. Nathl. Spinckes (non-juror, b. 1653 or 1654, d. 1727), Essay on Cath. Communion in Union with Rome, 1705. Bp. Ed . Stilling fleet, Rational Account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, 2d ed., 1681 (Works, vol. 4). William Sherlock , Preservative against Popery; Summary of Controversies; on Bellarmine’s Notes. Dean Hum- 298 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. ghrey Prideaux , Ecclesiastical Tracts; Validity of Orders of Ch. of England; against Papists, 1688. Thos. Brown , Story of the Ordination at Nag’s Head, 1731. Peter Francis Coarayer (b. 1681, d. 1776), Hiss, on Validity of English Ordinations, and Defence of the same, new ed., Oxf., 1844. William Cave (1637-1713), Hiss, on Gov. of Ancient Church, 1683. Abp. Wm. Wake, Continuation of the Controversy between Church of England and Rome ; being a full account of the books published on both sides, Lond., 1688.] 9 [Presbyterian Church Government. Ratio ac Forma publice orandi Deum, etc., Genev., 1556, (drawn up by the English exiles in the Marian Persecution.) George Gillespie , Aaron’s Rod blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government. Publ. by authority, Lond., 1646. Cartwright , vs. abp. Whitgift. Smectymnus , An Answer to Bp. Hall’s Divine4 Right of Episcopacy (the authors, whose initial letters make up the name of the book, were Steph. Marshall, Edm. Calamy, Thos. Young, Matth. New¬ comen, and Wm. Spurstowe). John Milton wrote an Apology for Smec¬ tymnus ; also a work on Prelatical Episcopacy against Wall and IJsher ; Reason of Church Gov. against Prelacy. Edm. Calamy , Vind. of Presb. Government, 1654. London Ministers, Jus Divinum Regiminis Eccles., 1646. Divine Right of Church Gov., new ed., 1799 ; repr. New York, 1844. Ay ton's Original Constitution of the Church. Peter King (Lord Chancellor) b. 1669, d. 1733, Inquiry into the Constitution of the Prim. Ch. (anon.), 1812, often reprinted, is favorable to the Presbyterian view. — • Among the opponents of Presbyterians in the Church of England, were Henry Hammond , Vind. Episc. Dissert, quatuor (against Blondel) ; H. Hodwell , Separation of Churches, 1679; Bp. Sanderson , Puritan Prejudices against Clergy of Church of England; F. Brokesby (1657-1715) Hist, of Gov. of Prim. Ch. (against Blondel) ; Bp. Henry Fern , Episc. and Presb., 1647 ; The Case as it Stands, 1655 ; Bp. John Sage (of Scotland), b. 1652, d. 1711, Charter of Presb., and Principles of Cyprianic Age; Peter Heylin , Aerius Redivivus, Hist. Presb., 2d ed., 1672 ; Bp. Wm. Lloyd, Hist. Account of Church Gov. (against Blondel), 2d ed., 1700; Bp. Ed. Stilling fleet, Unreasonableness of Separation, 2d ed., 1681 (Works, vol. 2) ; Wm. Sher¬ lock , Defence of the same, 1675 ; Disc, of Church Unity, 1681-2.] 10 [ John Cotton (see § 225, b., note 44), Doctrine of Church to which are committed the Keys, etc., Lond., 2d ed., 1643, 1644 ; Vindiciae Clavium ; Way of the Churches, against Baylie and Rutherford, 1648. Cotton’s work made a convert of John Owen ; he had previously brought Thos. Goodwin and Philip Nye over to his views. Robinson’s church, and the Plymouth church were formed on this basis. See Owen's Nature and Gov. of the Gospel Church, and other treatises in his works, vols. xv. xvi. Thos. Goodwin (b. 1600, d. 1679), Works, 5 fob, Lond., 1681 ; Constitution and Gov. of the Churches of Christ, vol. vi., 1-408, and other works in the same volume. Thos. Hooker (see ante, p. 192), Survey of Summe of Church Discipline, 1648. — Thos. Shepard (ante, p. 192), Power of Keys, 1653. John Wise , (Ipswich, New Engl.) Churches Quarrel, 1710; Vindication of Gov. of Churches, 1715; fourth ed., Boston, Congregational Board, 1860. Cambridge Platform, 1648. Say brook Platform, 1708.] § 256. Doctrine about the Church. 299 The definitions concerning the relation in which the church stands to the state , depend on those concerning the nature of the church. According to Bellarmine's definition, before mentioned, the Roman Catholic Church is a state quite as much as the Republic of Venice, etc. Accordingly, it is independent of every other (secular) state. — The Pro¬ testants also maintained that the church, as the kingdom of God, is independent of all secular power, and when they committed the government of the visible church more or less into the hands of the state, they had not the intention of founding for it that system of cesaropapacy subsequently established [in which the sovereign took the place of the pope]. In the historical point of view, it was of the greatest importance, that the reform¬ ers, in an age so full of commotions, should endeavour to maintain the authority of secular power, as “ an institution ordained by God,” first, by securing it against the pretensions of the hierarchy, which undermined the existence of every state ; and, secondly , by an energetic opposition to the anarchical notions of the Anabaptists. Thus it happened that, in most confessions of faith, the article, De Magistratu, was laid down as a political and moral principle. And inasmuch as the reformers, at the same time, proceeded on the idea of a Christian magistracy (analogous to the theocratic kings of the Old Testament), some, e. g. Zwingle , were of opinion, that the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline (the “ abolition of crimes”) might well be left to the magistrate, without making it necessary to have a distinct ecclesiastical court, while others, as (Ecolampadius and Calvin , re¬ tained the ecclesiastical institution of excommunication, but reduced it to its primitive apostolical form. Comp. Schrockh, Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation, iii. p. 84. Henry's Calvin, ii. p. 97, Schenkel , iii. 338 sq. — According to the first Confess, of Basle, Art. 7, the Christian Church inflicts the punishment of excommunication “ only as a cor¬ rective, and gladly receives the excommunicated persons back into her fellowship, when they have amended their scandalous life.” For further passages from the symbolical books of the Protestant Churches, see Winer , p. 180. On the controversy begun by Thomas Eras- tus (Liebler) of'Heidelberg and the disputation which took place a. d. 1568, see Beckhaus, fiber den Heidelberger Katechismus, 1. c. p. 90 ss. Athense Raur. p. 428. Vierordt , Gesch. der Reform, in Grossh. Baden, p. 474 sq. \J. R. Prettyman , The Church of Eng¬ land and Erastianism, Lond. 1854. Pusey, on Royal Supremacy, 1849. W. G. Gladstone , The State in its Relations with the Church, 2 vols., 4th ed., 1841. Comp, also the debates in the Westminster Assembly ; and Hetherington's History of the same.] A question of practical importance arose on the point, how far the civil power should cooperate in the suppression of heresy or error? While in the Wartburg Luther warned the Elector about staining himself with the blood of the false prophets. And he also tanght, that u heresy belongs to spiritual things, and can not be hewed with iron, or burnt with fire, or strangled in water” (see Kostlin , p. 187). To this was opposed the procedure of the governments in the case of the Anabaptists and Anti-Trinitarians (Servetus). And yet they were de¬ fended by theologians, particularly in the Calvinistic Church. See the discussions about it in Trechsel, Servetus, p. 265 sq. § 256. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE CHURCH. Later Protestant theologians developed more fully the difference between ecclesia visibilis and ecclesia invisibilis (in addition to which the other distinction between ecclesia militans and ecclesia tri- umphans continued to be made). The ecclesia visibilis is either universalis (i. e. scattered through the world), or particulars ( i . e . some church which has adopted a particular form). The particular churches are either opposed to, or stand on friendly terms with, each 300 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. other.1 As regards the organization of the visible church (ecclesia synthetica), the Lutheran divines made a distinction between the status ecclesiasticus, the status politicus, and the status oeconomicus. Different views obtained among Calvinists / nor did they agree with the Lutherans as to the representation of the church (ecclesia re- prmsentativa). But these formal distinctions were of less import¬ ance than the new life which Spener brought into the church, by restoring the Protestant doctrine of a spiritual priesthood/ and the work which Thomasius performed by advocating the so-called ter¬ ritorial system.4 The mystics and enthusiasts offered, like the sects of the middle ages, a constant opposition to all ecclesiastical estab¬ lishments, both Roman Catholic and Protestant.6 1 The passages relative to this distinction are quoted from the works of the Protestant theologians by De 'Wette (Dogmatik p. 191, ss.), and Hase , Hut- terus Redivivus, p. 320, ss. 2 See Wendelin , Alsted , and Heidegger, quoted by De Wette , 1. c. p. 195. — For the different forms of church government ( e . g. the government of the church by consistories [in the Lutheran Church], Presbyterianism, Indepen¬ dency, etc.), see the Canon law. 3 He advanced his views in his work entitled : Das geistliche Priester- thum , aus gottlichem Wort hurzlich beschrieben und mit einem einstimmigen Zeugnisse gottseliger Lehrer beJcrdftigt , Frankf., 1677, 8 (arranged in ques¬ tions and answers). P. 7, Qu. 11 : “Does the title of priest belong to none but preachers? Answ. No; preachers are not properly speaking, priests, nor is that title applied to them in the New Test. ; but they are called ser¬ vants of Christ, stewards of the mysteries of God, bishops, presbyters, ser¬ vants of the gospel, of the Word of God, etc. The name priest is rather a name common to all Christians, nor does it belong to ministers in a dif¬ ferent sense from that in which it belongs to other Christians.” 1 2. “ But are not the priests alone the 1 Geistlichen V ” [the word “ Geistlichen” has a twofold signification, i. e ., one who is spiritually minded, and, cler¬ gymen.] Answ. “ No ; for this title also belongs to every Christian (Rom. viii. 5.) — Sacrificing, praying, and blessing, are priestly offices which every Christian may perform, and concerning which Christ alone possesses the dignity of high priest.” — Nevertheless Spener admitted, like all Protestants, the necessity of the ministry. Qu. 26. '“ Are all Christians ministers, and are all called upon to preach ?” Answ. “ No ; it requires a particular vocation to fulfil the ministerial duties in the congregation be - fore all, and over all, its members ; therefore he who of himself assumes such powers over others, and encroaches upon the rights of the min¬ ister, commits sin ; hence teachers and hearers are different persons,” etc. (On the other hand, the laity possess the full right of searching the Scrip¬ tures. See § 243, note 7). 4 According to Thomasius , the reigning prince possesses the right of regulating the ecclesiastical affairs of his country, of banishing persons who disturb the peace of the church, etc. But he himself cannot be subject to § 257. The Adoration of Saints and Images. 301 ecclesiastical discipline. Thomasius, however, did not give his unqualified assent to the principle of Hobbes : Cujus regio, illius religio. Comp, his treatise : Yon dem Recht evangelischer Fiirsten in Mitteldingen oder Kir- chenceremoniem ; it appeared 1692, in Latin, and was afterwards translated into German ; compare also the treatise entitled : Das Recht evangelischer Fiirsten in theologischen Streitigkeiten, 1696; and other works, referred to by Schrockh , Kirchengeschichte seit der Reformation, vii. p. 541, and Luden , 1. c. 6 JBdhme , Kuhlmann , Gichtel , Labadie , Anna Schurmann , Poiret , and others, vied with each other in attacks upon the established church and its ministers. Poiret called the theology of the latter, Theologia adulatoria seu culinaria : see Arnold iii. p. 166. J. Bohme , heaped reproaches .upon the priests of Baal. § 257. ADORATION OF SAINTS AND IMAGES. The reformers combated the invocation and adoration of saints, but the theologians of the Roman Catholic as well as the Greek Church retained the practice, and endeavored to defend it with the arguments brought forward at an earlier period by the scho¬ lastics,2 or to vindicate it against the charge of idolatry, by making use of idealising interpretation.3 The same may be said with regard to the adoration of images and relics,4 as well as ecclesiastical cere¬ monies in general. In all these particulars Calvinists carried their opposition farther than Lutherans.5 1 The Protestants did not teach that there are no saints at all , but only rejected their invocation. See Marheincke , Symbolik, iii. p. 439. Conf. August. Art. 21 : De cultu Sanctorum docent, quod memoria Sanctorum proponi potest, ut imitemur fidem eorum et bona opera juxta vocationem. Sed Scriptura non docet invocare Sanctos seu petere auxilium a Sanctis, quia unum Christum nobis proponit mediatorem, propitiatorium, pontificem et intercessorem : hie invocandus est et promisit se exauditurum esse preces nostras, et hunc cultum maxime probat. Comp. Apol. p. 223. — The Arti¬ cles of Smalcald use much stronger terms, p. 310 : Invocatio Sanctorum est etiam pars absurda errorum Antichristi, pugnans cum primo principali ar- ticulo et delens agnitionem Christi. — Similar principles are laid down in the confessions of faith adopted by the Calvinists, Arminians, and Socinians ; see Winer, p. 47. [Bp. Ridley , Treatise on Image- Worship, in Tracts of An¬ glican Fathers, vol. ii. ; Abp. Wake, on Idolatry, in Gibson’s Preserva¬ tive, vol. vi. ; Freeman , Claggett , and Whitby , on Worship of Saints, ibid., vol. vii.] a Cone. Trid. Sess. 25 : (Doceant episcopi) Banctos una cum Christo regnantes orationes suas pro hominibus Deo afferre, bonum atque utile esse * * Hence the invocation of saints is not made a necessary condition of salvation. 302 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. suppliciter eos invocare et ob beneficia impetranda a Deo per filium ejus Jesuin Christum, qui solus rioster redemtor et salvator est, ad eorum ora- tiones, opem auxiliumque confugere ; illos vero, qui negant, Sanctos seterna felicitate in ccelo fruentes invocandos esse, aut qui asserunt, vel illos pro hominibus non orare, vel eorum, ut pro nobis etiam singulis orent, invoca- tionem esse idololatriam, vel pugnare cum verbo Dei adversarique honore unius mediatoris Dei et hominum Jesu Christi, vel stultum esse, in coelo regnantibus voce vel mente supplicare, impie sentire. — Concerning the angels , the Catech. Rom. 3, 2. 10. asserts : Invocandi sunt, quod et perpetuo Deum intuentur et patrocinium salutis nostrae sibi delatum libentissime suscipiunt. — The Roman Catholics also retained the distinction made by the scho¬ lastics between invocatio and adoratio. — For the symbols of the Greek Church see Winer, p. 44-46. 3 This was done e. g. by JBossuet, Exposition de la Doctrine de Peglise catholique, Pag. 19: The Church, in teaching us the utility of addressing prayers to the saints, commands us to invoke them in the same spirit, and in accordance with the same law of society, which induces us to seek assistance from our brethren upon earth. . . .Pag. 27 : It is in this manner that we honor the saints, in order to obtain by their intercession all the graces of God ; the principal grace which we hope to obtain is that by which we shall be enabled to imitate them ; to this we are also excited by the contempla¬ tion of their admirable examples, and by the honorable mention of their blessed memory which we make before God. Those who will consider the doctrine which we propound, will be compelled to acknowledge that we neither take from God any of those perfections which are essential to his infinite essence, nor ascribe to created beings any of those qualities or oper¬ ations which belong to none but God himself ; there is therefore such a great difference between us and idolaters, that it is difficult to perceive why our opponents give us that name.... Pag. 80. And, lastly, no Roman Catholic ( ? ! ) ever thought that the saints of themselves know our wants, nor even the desires on account of which we address to them secret prayers. The Church has been content to teach, in accordance with all antiquity, that such prayers are very useful to those who offer them, whether the saints may hear of them by the medium of the ministry and intercourse of the angels, who, according to Scripture, know what happens among men whether God himself makes known our wishes to them by means of a par¬ ticular revelation, or, lastly, reveals to them our secret desires in his infinite essence, which comprehends all truth. Thus the Church has decided nothing as to the different means which God may be pleased to use for this purpose. 4 Comp. Winer , p. 47, ss., where the passages bearing upon this point are quoted from the symbolical writings. . 6 Luther's sermon against the Iconoclasts of Wittenberg. — Similar prin¬ ciples to those adopted by Luther were defended by Schmid in the disputa¬ tion of Zurich ; but his views were not adopted. During the period of the Interim, the Lutheran Church returned to many of the ceremonies of the Romish Church, which gave rise to the Adiaphoristic controversy. — The minor sects followed the example of the Reformed Church. § 258. The Sacraments. 303 § 258. THE SACRAMENTS. The doctrine of seven sacraments , which both the Greek and Roman Churches- adopted/ was rejected by the reformers, who admitted (after some wavering), as scriptural only tivo sacraments' — viz., those of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper.3 These two, together with the Word of God/ constitute, in the Protestant view, the means of grace (adminicula gratise) whiqji profit only believers / on the contrary, the theologians of the Roman Catholic Church asserted the efficacy of the sacraments ex opere operato.6 But both Roman Catholics and Protestants agreed to the necessity of sacra¬ ments (in opposition to Quakers)/ and their higher significance as the medium by which spiritual blessings are communicated (in opposi¬ tion to Arminians, Mennonites, and Socinians, who regard them as mere ceremonies).8 Only the strict Zwinglian theory limited the sacraments to the idea of a mere symbol of duty.9 1 Cone. Trid. Sess. 7, can. 1 : Si qnis dixerit sacramenta sacra© legis. . . . esse plura vel pauciora qnam septem, videlicet baptismum, confirmationem, eucharistiam, poenitentiam, extremam unctionem, ordinem et matrimonium, aut etiam aliquod horum septem non esse vere et proprie sacramentum : anathema sit. — The reasons why the number seven is fixed upon are more fully developed in Catech. Rom. ii. 1, 20, quoted by Winer, p. 123, where their respective dignity is also determined, ii. 1, 22 : Sacramenta non parem omnia et asqualem necessitatem aut dignitatem habent, atque ex iis tria sunt, quae, tametsi non eadem ratione, tamen prae ceteris necessaria dicuntur, bap- tismus, poenitentia, ordo ; verum si dignitas in sacramentis spectetur, eucha- ristia sanctitate et mvsteriorum numero ac magnitudine longe caeteris antecellit, Conf. Orth. p. 154 : 'E-nro. pvorrjpia rrp g efcfchrjoiag, ra, bnota eIvcu ravra * to fiaurtopa , ro pvpov rov xpioparog, 7] ev^apioria, rj pEravoia , i i lepcjcrvvr], 6 riptog yapog na\ ro EvxsXaiov ravra ra ercra pvarr\pia dvafiifid^ovraL elg ra err ra \ aptapara rov ayiov Tcvsvparog. The Greeks, however, considered baptism and the Lord’s Supper the principal sacra¬ ments, to which some added penance. Comp. Winer, p. 124. 2 At first Melancthon even doubted about the propriety of making use of the word sacrament (which is not found in the Bible) ; see his Loci Com¬ munes, 1521 (in the Corpus Ref., ed. Bretschneider, p. 210) : Quae alii sacramenta, nos signa adpellamus, aut, si ita libet, signa sqcramentalia , nam sacramentum ipsum Christum Paulus vocat. 8 The two Catechisms of Luther and the Confession of Augsburg treat only of two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, without excluding the other five. Melancthon would have allowed ordination and marriage to be sacraments (see Thiersch, ii. p. 200), and he even admitted absolution. (Apol. p. 167) : Absolutio proprie dici potest sacramentum. But comp, the 304 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Loci, 1521 (Corp. Ref., p. 211) : Duo sunt autem signa a Christo in Evan- gelio instituta : baptismus et participate mensae Domini. Luther also spoke of three sacraments in his De Captiv.Babyl. : Baptismus, Pcenitentia, Panis. On the contrary in the Catech. Major, p. 549, penance is included in bap¬ tism. The Apol. Conf., p. 200, is opposed to regarding seven as the fixed number : Sed liic [adversarii] jubent nos etiam septem sacramenta numerare. Nos sentimus prsestandum esse, negligentur res in ceremoniae in Scripturis institute, quotcunque sunt. Nec multum referre putamus, etiamsi docendi causa alii numerent aliter, si tamen recte conservent res in Scriptura traditas. — Yet the Apology also mentions penance among the sacraments: Yere igi- tur sunt sacramenta baptismus, coena Domini, absolutio, quae est sacramentum poenitentise. — The number two is more definitely stated in the symbolical writings of the Reformed Church. Confess. Basil. I., Art. 5, § 2 : In this church we use only one kind of sacrament — viz. baptism, by which we are received into the Church, and the Lord’s Supper in after life, as a testimony of faith and brotherly love, according to our promise in baptism. — Conf. Helv. II., c. 19 : Novi populi sacramenta sunt baptismus et coena dominica. Sunt qui sacramenta novi populi septem numerent. Ex quibus nos poeni- tentiam, ordinationem ministrorum, non papisticam quidam illam, sed apos- tolicam, et matrimonium agnoscimus instituta esse Dei utilia , sed non sacra¬ menta . Confirmatio et extrema unctio inventa sunt hominum , quibus nullo cum damno carere potest ecclesia. Comp. Conf. Gall,, Art. 35, Belg. 33. Calvin, Instit. iv., c. 19. [Anglican (XXXIX. Art.) Art. 25 : Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profes¬ sion, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. — There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. — Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. — The Sacraments were not or¬ dained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation ; but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith. — This Article as it now stands, is largely altered from its form in Edward the YIth’s Articles : Archb. Parker in 1562 inserted the clause against the Popish sacraments, employing the phrase “extreme annoyling for this, Bishop Jewel, 1571, substituted “ unction.” See Kidd on Thirty-nine Articles, p. 241.] [Westminster Confession; chapter xxvii. : Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him : as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world : and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Chris/:, § 258. The Sacraments. 305 according to his word. 2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified, whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one, are attributed to the other. 4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord : neither of which may be dispensed by any, but a minister of the word, lawfully ordained.] The Arminians also had only two sacraments. The Mennonites made mention of the washing of feet as a usage instituted by Christ (according to John xii.) ; but Hies, Conf., Art. 30, spoke only of two sacraments. Comp. Winer , p. 124. 4 In the view of Protestants, the sacred Scriptures are not only the source of knowledge, but the Word of God contained in them is a living and quickening principle. Both the law and the gospel have each their peculiar evzpyeia, the former that of bringing men to the knowledge of sin, the lat¬ ter that of being the medium through which grace is bestowed on them (Art. of Smalcald, p. 319). — The Catech. Rom. (iv. 13, 18) also speaks of the Word of God as a cibus animi, and places it on the same level with the sacraments, but understands by it the prcedicatio verbi as sanctioned by the Church, rather than the Scriptures. 6 Confess. August, p. 11 : Per verbum et sacramenta, tanquam per in- strumenta, donatur Spir. S., qui fidem efficit, ubi et quando visum est Deo, in iis qui audiunt evangelium, etc. Comp. Cat. Maj. p. 426, Art. Smalcald, p. 331, Form. Concord, p. 670. — Conf. Helv. II. cap. 1. Belg. 24. — Heidelberg. Catechism, Qu. 65 : Whence cometh (justifying) faith ? Answ. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and con¬ firms it by the use of the sacraments.* — On the other hand, the Protestant symbols are equally definite against the Roman Catholic doctrine. Confess. Aug. p. 13 : Damnant^ illos, qui docent, quod sacramenta, ex opere operato justificent, nec docent fidem requiri in usu sacramentorum, quae credat remitti peccata. Apol. p. 203 : Damnamus totum populum scholasticorum doctorum, qui docent, quod sacramenta non ponenti obicem conferant grar- tiam ex opere operato , sine bono motu utentis. Haec simpliciter judaica opinio est, sentire, quod per ceremoniam justificemur, sine bono motu cordis, k. e. sine fide. . . . At sacramenta sunt signa promissionum. Igitur in usu debet accedere fides. . . . Loquimur hie de fide special!, quae praesenti pro- missioni credit, non tantum, quae in genere credit, Deum esse, sed quae credit offerri remissionem peccatorum. — Helv. II. c. 19 : Neque vero approbamus istorum doctrinam, qui docent, gratiam et res significatas signis ita alligari et includi, ut quicunque signis exterius parti cipent, etiam interius gratiae rebusque significatis participes sint, qualesquales sint. . . .Minime probamus eos, qui sanctificationem sacramentorum attribuunt nescio quibus characteri- bus et recitationi vel virtuti verborum pronuntiatorum a consecratore et qui habeat intentionem consecrandi. — But Protestant theologians also taught that the integritas of the sacrament did not depend on the dignity either of * This in allusion to the enthusaists. — On the division of the means of grace into domed, kclI hrjKTuca (Quenstedt, Syst., iv., p. 281), see Gass, i. 372 [the former as offered to man, the latter as received by man.1 306 Fourth Period The Age of Symbolism. the person who administered it, or of him who receives it. Conf. Helvet 1. c. [Westminster Conf. above, Thirty-Nine Articles, XXVI.: Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacra¬ ments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacra¬ ments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them ; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be min¬ istered by evil men. — Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the church, that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those who have knowledge of their offences; and, finally, being found guilty, by just judgment, be deposed.] 6 Cone. Trid. Sess. 7, can. 8 : Si quis dixerit, per ipsa novae legis sacra- menta ex opere operato non conferri gratiam, sed solam fidem divinae pro- missionis ad gratiam consequendam sufficere : anathema sit. — The further development of this doctrine by Bellarmine , De Sacram. ii. 1, is given by Wine r, p. 125. Against the objections of the Protestants, Cone. Trident, sess. xiv. c. 4 : Quamobrem falso quidam calumniantur catholicos scriptores, quasi tradiderint, sacramentum poenitentiae absque bono motu suscipientium gratiam conferre, quod nunquam Ecclesia docuit neque sensit. See Thiersch , Protest, p. 210. 7 The Quakers reject both the idea and the name of a sacrament. They only acknowledge spiritual baptism and a mystical Lord’s Supper. Barclay , Apol. xii. 12, quoted by Winer, p. 120. 8 See the passages quoted by Winer, pp. 122, 123, and compare the fol¬ lowing §. The difference referred to may (after the example of Winer) be so defined, that according to the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists, God bestows something on man by the medium of the sacrament, while those sects taught that man renders something to God (or testifies to some¬ thing in the presence of men before God). Yet the idea of service on man’s partis also contained in the Catholic view of sacrifice. See the next section. 9 Zwingle , De vera et falsa Relig. p. 231 : Sunt sacramenta signa vel ceremonm (pace tamen omnium dicam, sive neotericorum sive veterum}* quibus se homo ecclesise probat aut candidatum aut militem esse Christi, redduntque ecclesiam totam potius certiorem de tua fide, quam te ; si enim fides tua non aliter fuerit absoluta, quam ut signo ceremoniali ad confirma- tionem egeat, fides non est : fides enim est, qua nitimur misericordise Dei inconcusse, firmiter et indistracte, ut multis locis Paulus habet. Comp. Fidei Rat. ad Carol. V. : Credo omnia sacramenta tarn abesse ut gratiam confe- rant, ut ne afferant quidem aut dispensent. ... Credo, sacramentum esse saerse rei A. e.factce gratice signum. — Klare Underrich tung vom Nachtmahl Christi (Works ii. 1) p. 429 : “A sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing. * This does not harmonize with the caption given by Schenkel , i. 4L2 sq. “ The Depre* datum of the Sacrament by, the Reformed .” § 258. The Sacraments. 307 .... Now the priests well knew that this word sacrament denotes nothing but a sign, nevertheless they left the simple-minded in the mistaken idea, that it was something else, or something very precious, which they (the simple-minded) did not understand, but were induced to believe that the sacrament was God himself.” Annot. in Evang. Matth. (Opera, vi. p. 373): Ad hoc enim Christus sacramenta instituit, non ut his jam justitiam quae- reremus aut collocaremus, sed ut per hsec admoniti et excitati ad veram coru;si adeoque fidei justitiam penetrareraus. Signa enim externa non justi- ficant, ut quidam perhibent, sed justificationis per fidem admonent et vitae innocentiam excitant. — Annot. in Evang. Marci, ib. p. 554 : Nequaquam rejicienda sacramenta quae Deus instituit, sed summa cum religione et vene- ratione tractanda* Yerum his tribuere quod solius est Dei, non minus est impium. Comp, his Expositio Fidei (Opera, iv. 2, p. 56) : Sacramenta res sanctae et venerandae sunt, utpote a summo sacerdote Christo institutae et susceptae. ... Testimonium rei gestae praebent. . . . Vice rerum sunt, quas significant, unde et nomina eorum sortiuntur. . . . Res arduas significant. Ascendit autem cuj usque signi pretium cum aestimatione rei, cujus est sig- num, ut si res sit magna, pretiosa et amplifica, jam signum ejus rei eo majus reputetur. (Annulus reginae uxoris tuae, quo earn despondit tua majestas, illi non auri pretio aestimatur, sed pretium omne superat, etc.). . . . Auxilium opemque afferunt fidei. . . .Vice jurisjurandi sunt. [See, further, in Chris¬ toff el's Zwingle, Cochran’s translation, 1858, seventh section.] — Comp, the Catechism of Leo Judce ( Grab’s edition), p. 227 : “As Christ will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, he has appointed for us, his members, while here in the flesh, two external signs of duty , that our tim¬ idity may abate.” Page 329 : “A sacrament is an oath , or sacred duty : those who speak to us of holy matters have called it a sign of sacred things, to present and image forth these things to us ; whereby, too, those who make use of it bind and pledge themselves to these same holy things.” — Calvin unfolds the idea of the sacrament in the 4th Book of his Institutes, cap. 14. He defines the sacrament, in § 1, the externum symbolutn, quo benevolentim erga nos suae promissiones conscientiis nostris Dominus obsignat, ad sustinendam fidei nostrse imbecillitatem, et nos vicissim pietatem erga eum nostram tarn coram eo et angelis quam apud homines testamur. § 3 : Ex hac definitione intelligimus, nunquam sine prseeunte promissione esse sacramentum, sed ei potius tamquam appendicem quandam adjungi, eo fine, ut promissionem suam confirmet ac obsignet, nobisque testatiorem, imo ratam quodammodo faciat : quo modo nostrae ignorantise ac tarditati primum, deinde infirmitati opus esse Deus providet : neque tamen (proprie loquendo) tam ut sacrum suum sermonem firmet, quam ut nos in ipsius fide stabiliat, siquidem Dei veritas per se satis solida certaque est, nee aliunde meliorem confirmationem, quam a se ipsa accipere potest. Yerum ut exigna est et imbecilla nostra fides, nisi undique fulciatur, ac modis omnibus sustentetur, statim concutitur, fluctuatur, vacillat adeoque labascit. § 9 : Quamobrem .... velim lectorem .... non quasi arcanam vim nescio quam illis perpetuo insitam putem, qua fidem per se promovere aut confirmare valeant, sed quia * This does not harmonize with the caption given by Schenkel, l 412 sq., viz., “ The De¬ preciation of the Sacrament by the Reformed 308 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. sunt in hoc a Domino instituta, ut stabiliendse augendseque fidei serviant. • § 12, be calls sacraments pignora. He refutes not only those who despise the sacraments, but also those (§ 14), qui arcanos nescio quas virtutes sacra* mentis affingunt, quae nusquam illis a Deo insitse leguntur. — The substance of the sacraments (materia et substantia) is Christ himself (§ 16) ; they have in him their soliditas. They are nothing, separated from him. Cal* vin does not hold to a specific difference between the sacraments and the Word. § 17 : Quamobrem fixum maneat, non esse alias sacramentorum quam verbi Dei partes : quae sunt offerre nobis ac proponere Christum, et in eo ccelestis gratiae thesaurus : nihil autem conferunt aut prosunt nisi fide accepta. — He also calls the Old Testament types (Noah’s rainbow, etc.), sacraments (§ 18), and only distinguishes them from the New Testament sacraments by the act that the former represent the promised Messiah in type, the latter tes¬ tify to him in fact (§ 20). Comp. § 26 : TJtraque paternam Dei in Christo benevolentiam ac Spiritus Sancti gratias nobis offerri testantur ; sed nostra illustrius ac luculentius. In utrisque Christi exhibitio ; sed in his uberior ac plenior. Comp. Schenkel, i. 425, sq ., and the passages there adduced. § 259. THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. THE LORD’S SUPPER. Lavater , L. Historia Controversiae Sacramentarise. Tigur., 1563, 1672. Hospiniani, ZT Historia Sacramentaria, Tigur., 1598, 1602, ii. f., 1611, 4. The Works of Luther ( Watch , vol. xvii, xx.) Ebrard's Abendmahl, ii. ; M. Gobel, Luther’s Abendmahlslehre vor und in dem Streite mit Carlstadt (Stud. u. Kritiken, 1843). Julius Muller , Lutheri et Calvini Sententise de sacra Ccena inter se comparatse, Hal. 1853, 4to. A. W. Li - eckhoff, Die Evangelische Abendmahls lehre in Reformations zeit alter, Gotting. 1854. [K. F. A. Kahnis, Die Lehre von Abendmahle, 1851. L. J. Euckert, Das Abendmahl, Wesen, Geschichte, Leipz. 1856: comp. Baur, in Theol. Jahrb. 1857: and Euckert in Zeitschrift f. wiszenchafl. Theologie, 1858. — John Cesirn , Hist, of Popish Transubstantiation, new ed. by J. Brewer, 1851. Jeremy Taylor. The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ, against Transubstant. (Works, vol. ix, x). See also the works of Hooker, Abp. Bramhall and Bishop Andrews , for the doctrine of the Church of England. Hampden's Bampton Lectures (viii). W. Wright, Doctrine of Real Presence in the Divines of the Church of England, 2 Parts, 1855. E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence, the Doctrine of the English Church, with Yindication of the Re¬ ception of the Wicked, and of the Adoration of Jesus Christ truly present, 1857 : ibid., The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent, a Sermon, 1843. W. Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, 2, 1856 (against Pusey, and in the Denison case). E. J. Wilberforce, Doctrine of Eucharist, 1853. Tracts for the Times, No. 81.] ? * While the Reformers made common cause in their opposition not only to the doctrine of transubstantiation/ hut especially to the sac¬ rifice of the mass/ and the witholding of the cup from the laity/ all of which they rejected as unscriptural, they still differed widely in their opinions concerning the positive aspect of the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Different interpretations of the words pronounced § 259. The Lord’s Supper. 309 by our Saviour at the institution of this sacrament were at short in¬ tervals advanced by Carlstadtf Zwingle / and (Ecolampadius * Luther opposed all these, in his controversial writings/ and in the Colloquium of Marburg (1529, Oct.),8 and even to the close of his life. He insisted upon the literal interpretation of the words of the institution of the Supper ; and, as a consequence, upon the actual reception with the mouth of the glorified body of Christ, present in the bread, and of his real blood. In accordance with his views the authors of the symbolical books of the Lutheran Church declared the doctrine of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist ( Consubstantiation ), and along with it (in part) that of the ubiquity of his body,9 to be the orthodox doctrine of the Church.10 The divines of the Reformed Church never denied a presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though they did not expressly emphasize it.11 But they did not look for this presence, testified by faith , in the bread, and interpreted the reception of Christ in the ordinance, not as that of his body received by the mouth, but as a spiritual participation.13 Calvin 13 in particular, after the precedence of Bucer, emphasized this spiritual participation, and thus made the Lord’s Supper not a mere sign, but a seal and pledge of divine grace imparted to the communicants. Thus there always remained this important difference, that even in Calvin’s view, it is only the believer who is united with Christ in the sacrament ; and that the body of Christ, as such, is not in the bread, but in heaven, from whence, in a mysterious and dynamic way it is imparted to the com¬ municant ; while, on the contrary, Luther, from the objective point of view, maintained that the unbelieving also partake of the body of Christ, in , ivitli , and under the bread , though they do it to their own hurt.14 The view of Schwenkfeldf resting upon a perversion of the words of the institution, had but slight influence. The most prosaic view is that of the Socinians, Arminians, and Mennonites, who, in connection with their more negative opinions on the nature of the sacraments, regarded the Lord’s Supper merely as an act of commemoration.16 And, lastly, the Quakers believed, that in con¬ sequence of their internal and spiritual union with Christ, they might wholly dispense with partaking of his body.17 [The West¬ minister Confession is in harmony with the views of Calvin :18 the Independents and Baptists adopted substantially the theory of Zwingle. The Church of England laid more stress upon the real presence, and upon the idea of the eucharistic sacrifice.19] 1 Luther combated the idea of transubstantiation both in his treatise De Captiv. Babyl., and in his controversy with Henry VIII., who defended the scholastic doctrine. (Comp. "Which, xix.) [Henry VIII. : Adsertio septem sacramentorum adversus Mart. Lutherum. Lond., 1521, 4to. Rom., 1521 (the Pope granted to Henry in consequence the title Defensor Fidel) ; transl. 310 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. by T. W., Lond., 1687. In 1526, Literarum quibus invictissimus Princeps, Henricus octavus. . . .Fidei Defensor, respondit ad qnandam Epistolam Mart. Luth., etc., 1526.] Yet Luther himself made use of the expression transub- stantiation (Verwandlung) in his Sermon on the Venerable Sacrament, 1519, (cited in Ebrard , ii. 112). The Symbols also declare against trail substantia- tion. Art. Smalcald, p. 330 :. . . .De transsubstantiatione subtilitatem sophis- ticam nihil curamus, qua fingunt, panem et vinem relinquere et amittere naturalem suam substantiam et tantum speciem et colorem panis et non ve- rum panem remanere. — Form. Cone., p. 729 : Extra usum dum reponitur ant asservatur (panis vel hostia) in pyxide ant ostenditur in processionibus, ut fit apud Papistas, sentiunt non adesse corpus Christi. P. 760 : Negamus elementa ilia sen visibiles species benedicti panis et vini adorari oportere. — • Comp. Conf. Helv. II., Art. 21 (p. 74, Augusti). On the other side, Cone. Trid., Sess. 13, can. 4 : Denuo hoc sancta sy nodus declarat, per consecratio- nem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi, et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus, quae conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta catholica ecclesia transubstantia¬ te est appellata. Comp. Cat. Rom., II., 4, 37. Bellarmine , Controv. de Sacram. Euch., iii., 18-24. 2 It was not only the theology of the reformers, but also the common sense of the people, which opposed the sacrifice of the mass , as well as the adoration of images. At least in Switzerland these two points were closely connected with each other. Thus at the second disputation of Zurich (Zuin- glii Opera, ed., Schulthess, i., p. 459 ss.). Among the many works either for or against the mass, compare e. g. the following : Ob die Mess ein Opffer sey, beyder parteyen Predicanten zu Basel antwurt uff erforschung eins Er- samen radts eingelegt, 1527. (The Reformed Church was led by (Ecolam- padius.) — “ No part of the Roman Catholic doctrine has met with more violent opposition on the part of the Reformers , than the mass , which is rejected in the symbolical writings of the Lutherans as well as the Reformed Church , not only in strong terms , but even with expressions of abhorrence .” Winer , p. 148. To the mass as such, Luther and his followers did not object. “ The nearer,” said Luther , “ our masses are to the first mass of Christ, the better they will be ; the greater the distance between them, the more pernicious they are.” (Sermon von dem N. Test., 1520.) We meet with similar lan¬ guage in the symbolical writings of the Lutheran Church, e. g. the Confess. Aug. p. 23 : Falso accusantur ecclesiae nostrae, quod Missam aboleant; retine- tur enim Missa apud nos, et summa reverentia celebratur. Servantur et usitatae ceremonise fere omnes, praeterquam quod latinis cantionibus admis- centur alicubi germanicse, quae additae sunt ad docendum populum. — On the other hand, the sacrifice of the mass, and the abuses to which it gave rise, such as private masses, masses for the dead, etc., were rejected, p. 25 : Ac- cessit opinio, quae auxit privatas Missas in infinitum, videlicet, quod Chr. sua passione satisfecerit pro peccato originis, et instituerit Missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis, raortalibus et venialibus. Ilinc manavit pub- lica opinio, quod Missa sit opus delens peccata vivorum et mortuorum ex opere operato. . . .De his opinionibus nostri admonuerunt, quod dissentiant a scripturis sanctis et laedant gloriam passionis Christi. Nam passio Christi § 259. The Lord’s Supper. 311 fait oblatio et satisfactio, non solum pro culpa originis, sed etiam pro omni¬ bus reliquis peccatis. .Jam si Missa delet peccata vivorum et mortuorum ex opere operato, contingit justificatio ex opere Missarum, non ex fide, quod Scriptura non patitur. Comp. Apol. of Conf., 250, 269. A definite distinc¬ tion is made between the sacramentum and sacrificium, in Art. xiii., § 1 7 (p. 253) : Sacramentum est ceremonia vel opus, in quo Deus nobis exhibet hoc, quod ofFert annexa ceremonise promissio, ut Baptismus est opus, non quod nos Deo ofFerimus, sed in quo Deus nos baptizat, videlicet minister vice Dei, et hie offert et exhibet Deus remissionem peccatorum. . . .E contra sacrifi- cium est ceremonia vel opus, quod nos Deo reddimus et eum honore afficia- mus. (Expiatory sacrifice, and sacrifice of thanks : the latter to be brought by believers, but not ex opere operato, sed propter fidem). Art. Sinalcald, p. 305 : Quod Missa in papatu sit maxima et horrenda abominatio et hostila- ter e diametro pugnans contra articulum prifnum, quae tamen prse omnibus aliis pontificiis idololatriis summa et speciosissima fuit. Form. Cone. p. 602. Calvin speaks very strongly against the mass : Instit. iv. 18, 18 : Certe nulla unquam validiore machina Satan incubuit ad oppugnandum expugnandum- que Christi regnum. Haec est Helena, pro qua veritatis hostes tanta hodio rabie, tanto furore, tanta atrocitate digladiantur, et vere Helena, cum qua spirituali fornicatione (quae omnium est maxime exsecrabilis,) ita se conspur- cant. And so in the symbolical writings of the Reformed Church the mass is entirely rejected, nor is a distinction made between the earlier and the later mass. Ileidelberger Catechism, Qu. 80 ... . Hence the mass is in reality nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice of Christ, and an execrable idolatry. Conf. Helv., II., c. 21 : Missa, qualis aliquando apud veteres fuerit, tolerabilis an intolerabilis, modo non disputamus ; hoc autem libere dicimus, Missam, qurn hodie in usu est per universam romanam ecclesiam, plurimas et justissimas quidem ob caussas in ecclesiis nostris esse abrogatam. — On this subject the symbolical writings of the Roman Catholic Church express themselves as follows, Cone. Trid. Sess. 22, can. 1 : Si quis dixerit, in Missa non offeri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium, aut quod ofFerri non $it aliud, quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari ; anathema sit. . . . Can. 3 : Si quis dixerit, Missse sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum ac tionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, veli sol prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro pec¬ catis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus ofFerri dehere : anathema sit. Bellarmine Controv. de Eueh. lib. 5 and 6, the principal passages of which are quoted by Winer , p. 148. — In the Confess. Orthod. of the Greek Church, also, p. 165, the Eucharist is called avaigaitTog Ovola. For further statements, see Winer, p. 149. — The fuller development of the arguments advanced by Roman Catholic theologians, especially Bellarmine, in support of the idea of a sacrifice, will be found in Marheinelce , Symbolik iii. p. 351, ss. Partic¬ ularly remarkable are the exegetical arguments, e. g., that derived from the phrase : Hoc facite in memoriam meam, where they maintain that facere is sometimes used in the sense of sacrificing, analogous to the Hebrew word ?f©y (Exod. xxix. 41 ; Numb. xv. 3 ; Ps. lvi. 15) ; or that derived from the history of Melchisedec, where they assign to the word the meaning of 312 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. sacrificing, because it is translated e^fjveyice (obtulit) by the LXX* Mar- heineke 1. c. pp. 377, 378. 3 Confession of Augsb. p. 21 : Apology of Conf. p. 233 ; Art. of Smal- cald, p. 330 ; Formula Concordiae, p. 602. Conf. Helv. II. c. 21 : Impro- bamus illos, qui alteram speciem, poculam inquam Domini, fidelibus subtraxe- runt. Graviter enim peccant contra institutionem Domini. Confess. Anglic, p. 94. Conf. Scotica, Art. 22. Declaratio Thorunens. p. 64. Consensus Repet. Fidei verse Lutheran, (ed. Henke) p. 53. 4 Carlstadt thought the words used by our Saviour at the institution of the Eucharist were to be understood deiKTiie&s (i. e. that Christ in pro¬ nouncing them pointed to his body). Comp. Walch , vol. xv. p. 2422, ss., xx. p. 186, ss. Gobel , M., an essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1841, part 1 .* 5 Z mingle* s first statements about the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper were made in opposition to the Romish sacrifice of the mass. In the interpreta¬ tion of the 18th Article (Werke, i. 257), in the year 1523, he says: “I called the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ a memorial of the passion of Christ , before I heard of the name of Luther; and Luther called the body and blood of Christ a testament ; both statements are cor¬ rect, and come from the mouth of Christ.” Comp, his letter, Wyttenb., June 15, 1523 (Opera, p. 297). But Zwingle does not recognize the element of life-union with Christ. This is especially marked in his treatise De Canone Missse (Opera, iii. 114, sq.), written in August of the same year, where he speaks of eating the body, and drinking the blood of Christ (in the old ascetic spirit of the church) : see the passages in Ebrard , ii. 107. In a ser¬ mon delivered at Berne, in 1528, he speaks of being fed with the body of Christ for the resurrection (Werke, ii. 212 ; Ebrard , ii. 110). In his work entitled : Christenliche Ynleitung, 1523 (Werke, i. 563), he says, that the Eucharist is food for the soul, and a visible sign of his body and blood. _ The first document of Zwingle’s works, in relation to the Saxon controversy about the sacrament, is the letter addressed to Matth. Alber, in Reutlingen, in the Subsidium de Eucharistia, which forms an appendix to his Comment, de Yera et Falsa Religione, Opera, iii. p. 327 (1525), and is to be compared with his treatise: Klare Underrichtung vom Nachtmahl Christi (1526); then the treatise : Arnica exegesis — -i. e., Expositio Eucharistiae Negotii ad M. Luther (1527) ; the work, Dass diese Worte Jesu Christi “ das ist myn- lychnam, etc.,” ewiglich den alten eynigen Sinn haben werdend, etc., and in several other controversial writings ( e . g., that wider des Doctor Strussen Btichlin), comp, his works, Schuler’s edit, deutsche Schriften, ii. 2, and iii. Opp. Lat. iii. 1. Comp. Ebrard, ii. 136. The following passages may suf¬ fice as an exposition of his views. o. In respect to the symbolical or metabolical interpretation of the words of institution : Subsidium de Eucharistia, p. 343 (referring to Exodus xii 11): Ita igitur vox est , hoc loco, citra omnem parabolae suspicionem posita * In the opinion of Zwngle the views of Carlstadt were correct in the main but “ he did not show himself very skillful in the interpretation of the word tovto, which he evi¬ dently misunderstood,” and “on the whole he was rather unhappy in his expressions.” See bis treatise : Ueber des Dr. Strussen Biichlin, in Schuler’s edit, of his works, ii. 1, p. 479 § 259. The Lord’s Supper. 313 est. . .Quis tam tardus erit, ne dicam hebas aut pertinax, ut non videat est h. 1. positum esse pro signified t ; aut symbolum est, aut figura est. . . .Quid nunc, quaeso, causae est, cur eundem tropum nolint quorundam mentes reci- pere in constitutione novae et eternae gratiarum actionis ? cum omnia sic conveniunt, sic sibi respondeant, ut qui eis credere nolit, disperdere videatur, non aedificare velle. (It is also urged, that Christ himself was still with his disciples, and could not give them to eat, either the body that was yet to be crucified, or the body translated to heaven). Compare his response to Bugenhagen, Opera, p. 603, and Klare Underrichtung (Werke, ii. 1), p. 456 : “ Thereby is to consider, that the Scripture is everywhere full of figur¬ ative expressions, called in Greek tropos , which are to be understood or ex¬ plained by something else. As when Christ says, I am the vine. . . .ye are the branches. ... item John i. 29, This is the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. . . .John vi. 35, I am the living bread (and other like passages). Comp, his work, Dass diese Worte Jesu Christi : Dat ist myn Lychnam, etc., ewiglich den alten einigen sinn haben werdend, etc. (Werke, ii. p. 16 sq.) At the Marburg Conference he also cited the pas¬ sage, John xix. 26 : Woman, see, this is thy son 1 — In respect to the gerafiokri, Zwingle agrees entirely with the older fathers. The bread of the supper ceases to be common bread, and becomes holy (sacramental) by its relation to Christ. See his Sermon at Berne (Werke, ii. 270) : “Just as a flower is more noble when it is put in the wreath of a bride, though as to its matter it be one and the same ; and as one is otherwise treated who takes the sig¬ net-ring of the King, than if he had taken only so much gold, though the matter be one and the same ; so here, too, the matter of the bread is the same, but the breaking thereof and the dignity of the Lord's Supptcr give it such value , that it is not like other bread," b. In respect to the efficacy of the sacrament : Subsidium, p. 332 : Fide constat salus, non corporali manducatione , neque ea fide, qua te fingas credere quidquid finxeris, sed qua fidis filio Dei pro te in cruce impenso, Klare Underrichtung, p. 441 : Christ means by “ eating his flesh and blood,” nothing more than trust in him , who has given his flesh and blood for our life. “ To trust in him is salvation, but to eat, see, touch him, is not.” Ueber des Dr. Strussen Biichlin (Werke, ii. 1, p. 481) : “ Our controversy is not chiefly about the question, whether the body of Christ is in the sacra¬ ment , but, whether it is therein eaten bodily, although it is not there, nor can be according to God’s word.” (On the doctrine of the body of Christ in heaven, in relation to this matter, see in the Christology below.) Zwingle speaks of a presence of the body of Christ to faith, in his Fidei Ratio ad Carol. Imp. : Credo, quod in sacra eucharistiae h. e. gratiarum actionis coena, verum Christi corpus adsit fidei contemplatione . Sed quod Christi corpus per es- sentiam et realiter h. e. corpus ipsum naturale in coena, aut adsit aut ore den- tibusque nostris manducetur, quemadmodum Papistae et quidam, qui ad ollas ACgyptiacas respectant, perhibent, id vero non tantum negamus, sed errorem esse, qui verbo Dei adversatur, constanter adseveramus. — It must be admit¬ ted that his works contain but few passages of so positive a character, because the principal task of his life was rather to oppose the false and erroneous notions of his age : but that great reformer and martyr has too often been 314 Fourth Period. The Age oe Symbolism. charged with that cold sobriety which is more befitting only a critic. “ The ques¬ tion, what is the Lord's Supper in relation to the subjective life and faith of each individual, was foreign to Z mingle' s thoughts : he only had in view the relation which the sacrament in the church as a whole has to the death of Christ." Ebrard , ii. 155. 6 The interpretation adopted by (Ecolampadius, it is usually claimed, differed only grammatically from that of Zwingle. He retained the literal mean¬ ing of egtl, but took the predicate to owga gov in a figurative sense. But this difference vanishes, when it is remembered, that Zwingle was also willing instead of significat , to say, est symbolum. See note 5, and Ebrard, ii, 152. (Ecolampadius first unfolded his views in his treatise: De Verborum Domini : Hoc est corpus meum, juxta vetustissimos Auctores Expositione Liber, 1525, (see Herzog, Leben Oekolamp. i. 322 sq. ; Ebrard, iii. 162 ; Dieckhoff, 514 sq.), in which he avoids direct opposition to Luther,* and chiefly contends against the mediaeval scholasticism, starting with Peter the Lombard, and making use of Augustine’s definition of a sacrament. The work is full of subtle remarks on the tropical element in the Bible. — John Brenz, Erhard Schnepf and others opposed his views in the Syngramma Suevicum, (see Hart¬ man und Jaeger , Joh. Brentz, Hamburg, 1842, i. 141 sq. ; Ebrard, ii. 168 sq.), in which special emphasis was laid upon the Word, which was said to be joined with the bread in a wonderful manner ; and it was thence inferred that there was a real (bodily?) participation of the body of Christ. On the interpretation of the Syngramma, however, older and* more recent divines are divided; see Hieckhoff 570, 582, 619; and Keim, Die Stellung der Schwabischen Kirche zur Zwinglisch-lutherischen Spaltung (in Zeller’s Theol. Jahrb., 1854). In reply (Ecolampadius published his Antisyngram- ma (De Dignitate Eucharistise, sermones duo. 1526.) He further engaged in a controversy with Pirkheimer, Billican, and Luther himself. Compare also his important dialogue : Quid de eucharistia veteres turn Grseci, turn Latini senserint, Dialogus, in quo Epistolse Philippi Melancthonis et J. (Ecolampadii insertse, auctore Joan. (Ecolampadio, 1530, 8. 7 On the earlier struggles of Luther, in which he was tempted to adopt the symbolical interpretation, see his letter to the Christians of Strasburg (quoted by De Wette, ii. p. 577). The first of Luther’s writings in which he enters more fully into the question of the significance of the Lord’s Supper is his Sermon von dem hochwiirdigen Sacrament, 1519, on which see Dieckr hoff, p. 195 sq. Kahnis finds in it “a mystic bridge (?) between the medi¬ aeval and the reformed views of Luther .” He here says “ Hence to partake of this sacrament in bread and wine, only means to participate in a certain sign of this fellowship and incorporation with Christ and all believers.” Here, too, faith is expressly demanded, if the Supper is to be of any avail. But in his treatise: Yom Anbeten des Sacraments, an die bohmi- schen Briider, 1523 (Walch, xix. p. 1593), he refuted not only the doctrines * On the other hand he does not generally spare the views of the opponents : Barbariea plusquam Scythica vel Diomedea est in panis involucro cell in cenigmate ipsam hospitis canem quaerero. Rusticitas est et stupor, non observere nec agnoscere, in quo hospes bene volenti am suam doceat, et pro spirituali carnalem requirere coenam. § 259. The Lord's Supper. 315 of transnbstantiation, and of tbe sacrifice of the mass, but also the theory of a mere symbol, as well as that of a purely spiritual participation. Comp. Gieselcr , iv., p. 406. After the two last theories had found many supporters among the adherents of the Reformation, Luther zealously opposed (at first in letters addressed to several persons, e. g. Reutlinger, quoted by De Wette , iii. p. *70), those “ who will now teach us, that in the sacrament of the altar there is nothing but bread and wine, and not the very body and blood of Christ,” and directed attention to the differences obtaining among them as to the interpretation of the words of our Saviour. Afterwards he combated the “ Sacramentarians, enthusiasts,” etc., in his “ Sermon von dem Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts Christi” (published ^towards the close of the year 1526), and in his treatise “Dassdie Worte Christi : das ist mein Leib, etc., noch fest stehen, etc.,” and above all in his “ Grosses Bekenntniss,” published 1528 (all these works are in Watch , xx.). Luther rested his theory, first on the literal interpretation of the words of our Saviour, which, in his opinion, is alone admissible :* “For we are not such fools as not to understand those words. If they are not clear, I do not know how to talk German. Am I not to comprehend what is meant, when a person puts a loaf of bread before me, and says : Take, eat, this is a loaf of bread? and again, Take, drink, this is a glass of wine ? In the same manner, when Christ says : Take, eat, this is my body, every child must understand that he speaks of that which he gives to his disciples.” (Watch, xx. p. 918.) Thus, at the Marburg colloquy, Luther wrote upon the table the words, Hoc est corpus meum , and insisted upon it so strongly, as to assert, that if God commanded him to eat crab-apples or manure, he would do it.f In accordance with this literal in¬ terpretation, Luther taught the real presence of Christ's body in the bread (consubstantiality), though he defended himself against the charge of a gross impanation which had been brought forward by his opponents : “We poor sinners are not so foolish as "to believe, that the body of Christ exists in the bread in the same visible manner in which bread is in the basket, or wine in the goblet, as the enthusiasts would lay to our charge, in order to deride our foolishness. That the fathers, and we also, sometimes speak in this way, is simply because we believe that Christ’s body is present ; otherwise we are quite willing that any one should say : Christ is in the bread, or is the very bread, or is there , where the bread is, or as he likes. We will not quarrel about words [? ], but merely insist upon keeping to the literal meaning — viz. that it is not simply bread of which we partake in the Lord’s Supper, but the body of Christ. ( Watch , 1. c., p. 1012.) — In the same place he adverts to the fact, that God has other means by which he can enable one thing to be in another than those commonly known to us, such as wine being in the barrel, bread in the basket, money in the pocket. Thus Levi was in the loins of Abraham (Hebr. vii. 5) ; heaven and earth may be in man’s eye, etc. Comp, his “Grosses Bekenntniss,” p. 1186. A thing may be present * In bis letter addressed to the Christians of Strasburg, referred to above, he said, “ The language is too forcible to be deprived of its obvious meaning by mere reasoning.” f He tries to make the tropical interpretation ridiculous, in a very plump fashion, in his treatise, Dass diese Worte. . . .noch fest stehen (Walch, xx. 590) : e. g. what he saya of the cuckoo and ground sparrow. 316 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. localiter (circumscriptive), definitive, repletive. But Christ is always pre¬ sent in the bread in a way that is above reason, and which can only he per¬ ceived by faith : “ How it takes place, thou canst not know, but thy heart perceives him, and by faith thou art convinced of his presence.” (Walch, xx., p. 922, and many other passages.) And yet at the Marburg Colloquy he said, that the body was in the bread, as the sword in the sheath, etc. And in the Cassel Declaration, he even says, in so many words : “ This is sure in our opinion, that the body of Christ is really eaten in and with the bread : so that all which the bread does and suffers, the body of Christ does and suffers, so that it is divided, eaten, bitten with the teeth, propter unionem sacramentalem” ( Planck , iii. 368 ; Ebrard , ii. 365). Compare, how¬ ever, the Formula Concordiae, cited below. 8 On the colloquium of Marburg, comp. L. J. K. Schmitt , das Religions- gespriich zu Marburg, 1829, and Gieseler, Church History, iv. p. 133, where the literature and the documents are given. Ebrard , p. 286 sq. Die 15 Marb. Artikel nach dem Original veroffentlicht, von H. Heppe , Marb., 1848. (Zeitschrift f. d. Hist. Theologie, 1848.) 9 Luther was led, logically, to the theory of the ubiquity of Christ’s body, which, however, he did not propound till a later period of his life. Comp. Rettberg, Occam und Luther (in Studien und Kritiken, 1839, part 1). The idea of ubiquity, however, was for a long time a fluctuating one. If the body of Christ was everywhere, it was in all bread ; and so nothing was proved for the specific ubiquity in the Lord’s Supper. Hence, theologians were afterwards led to make more exact definitions. See Ebrard , ii. 698, sq ., and the Christology, below. Calixt called the ubiquity controversy, in- faustum certamen ; but was on this account called a heretic by the orthodox theologians ; see Gass , p. 65. 10 Conf. Augsb., p. 12 : De coena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in coena Domini, et impro- bant secus docentes. Comp. Apol. of Conf. p. 157. Art. Smalcald p. 330 : De sacramento altaris sentimus, panem et vinum in coena. esse verum corpus et sanguinem Christi, et non tamtum dari et sumi a piis , sed etiam ab impiis christianis. — Cat. Maj. p. 553 : Quid est itaque sacramentum altaris? Est verum corpus et sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi in et sub pane et vino per verbum Christi nobis christianis ad manducandum et bibendum insti- tutum et mandatum. — Form. Cone. p. 599 : Credimus, quod in coena Domini corpus et sanguis Christi vere et substantialiter sint praesentia, et quod una - cum pane et vino vere distribuantur atque sumantur. Credimus, verba tes- tamenti Christi non aliter accipienda esse, quam sicut verba ipsa ad litteram sonant, ita, ne panis absens Christi corpus et vinum absentem Christi san¬ guinem significent, sed ut propter sacramentalem unionem panis et vinum vere sint corpus et sanguis Christi. — Comp. p. 736 : Docent, quemadmodum in Christo duae distinctae et non mutatae naturae inseparabiliter sunt unitae, ita in sacra coena duas diversas substantias, panem videlicet naturalem et verum naturale corpus Christi, in instituta sacramenti administratione hie in terris simul esse praesentia. Further on its authors protest against the as¬ sertions of their opponents, p. 604 : Prorsus rejicimus atque damnamus capernaiticam manducationem corporis Christi quam nobis Sacramentarii § 259. The Lord's Supper, 317 contra suae conscientiae testimonium post tot nostras protestationes malitiose affingunt, ut doctrinam nostram apud auditores suos in odium adducant, quasi videlicet doceamus, corpus Christi, dentibus laniari et instar alterius cujusdam cibi in corpore bumano digeri.* Credimus autem et asserimus secundum clara verba testamenti Christi verarn , sed supernaturalem mandu- cationem corporis Christi, queraadmodum etiam vere, super naturaliter tamen, sanguinem Christi bibi docemus. Haec autem humanis sensibus aut ratione nemo comprehendere potest, quare in hoc negotio, sicut et in aliis fidei ar- ticulis, intellectum nostrum in obedientiam Christi captivare oportet. Hoc enim mysterium in solo Dei verbo revelatur et sola fide comprehenditur. 11 See above, the extracts from Zwingle and the Reformed Confessions. 12 Prior to the time of Calvin, Martin Bucer , Oswald Myconius, and others, spoke of the spiritual participation of Christ’s body, which is present in heaven, an idea with which Zwingle was by no means unfamiliar, but which is less prominently brought forward in his writings than the negative side of the question (see note 5.) Hence the Conf. Tetrapolitana, (1530) admits “ a true partaking of the real body and blood of Christ” in terms so definite, that it scarcely differs from the Conf. Augustana. In the first Con¬ fession of Basle (1534), in the composition of which Calvin had no share, it is also said : “ But we firmly believe that Christ himself is the food of believ¬ ing souls unto everlasting life , and that our souls, by means of true faith in the crucified Redeemer, receive the body and blood of Christ as their meat and drink. . . .Hence we confess that Christ, in his holy Supper, is present to all who really belfeve in him.” — On the other hand, it is also very signi¬ ficantly added : “ But we do not include the natural, true, and essential body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, suffered for us, and is ascended into heaven, in the bread and wine of the Lord ?” etc. And the second Con¬ fession of Basle (Helv. I.) a. d. 1536, Art. 22, concedes: Coenam mysticam esse, in qua Dom. corpus et sanguinem suum, i. e ., se ipsum, suis vere ad hoc offerat, ut magis magisque in illis vivat et illi in ipso : non quod pani et vino corpus Domini et sanguis vel naturaliter uniantur vel hie localiter inclu- dantur vel ulla hue carnali prsesentia statuantur ; sed quod panis et vinum ex institutione Domini symbola sint, quibus ab ipso Domino per ecclesiiB ministerium vera corporis et sanguinis ejus communicatio non in periturum ventris cibum, sed in aeternse vitae alimoniam exhibeatur. The Lutheran church, moreover, does not exclude the idea of a spiritual reception of the body and blood of Christ ; but this alone, it says, is not enough : comp. Form. Concord. 744. In particular, the Lutheran divines say that the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel refers to the spiritualis manducatio, which, however, they distinguish from the sacramental (by the mouth). 13 Calvin was in complete agreement with the earlier views on this point (much as he had at first taken offence at the prosaic interpretation of * Luther said that the body of Christ could not be treated like a sausage, for example ( Watch , xx. 989) ; in like manner at the Marburg Colloquy, that we do not eat the body of Christ like “roasted pork” — which aroused Zwingle1 s indignation : see Ebrard , ii. 317 : “ many things are so sacred, that they may not be identified, nor even contrasted, with some others.” 318 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Zwingle,* designating it as a profana sententia), but also developed them more fully; comp. Instit. iv. 17. 10, and Henry , i. p. 127, ss. While Zwin¬ gle lays principal stress upon the historical fact, and the idea of a festival of commemoration, Calvin attaches greater importance to the intimate union of believers with Christ ; and he emphasizes the bodily presence, not as having entered into the bread, but as communicated from above, in a won¬ derful manner, by a spiritual agency, viewing it as a pledge of the resurrec¬ tion of our bodies — an idea which Zwingle repels. Thus, in his opinion, the Lord’s Supper is not only an act to commemorate a past event, but also the pledge and seal of something that is present and future. As bread and wine sustain our earthly body, so are we nourished and quickened by a spiritual recep¬ tion of the body and blood of Christ. But further on it is said : Cogitemus primum spirituale quiddam esse sacramentum, quo Dom. non ventres nos¬ tros, sed animas pascere voluit. Ac Christum in eo quseramus, non nostro corpore, nec ut sensibus carnis nostrse comprehendi potest, sed sic, ut anima velut prsesentem sibi datum et exhibitum agnoscat. Denique ipsum spiri- tualiter obtinere satis habemus. Compare with this his treatise : Be Coena, quoted by Henry , i. p. 261, ss., and the Conf. Fidei de Eucharistia, quam obtulerunt Farellus, Calvinus et Viretus, cui subscripserunt Bucerus et Capito, 1537, quoted by Henry , i. Appendix No. 5. In the earlier part of this Conf. Calvin appears to express views allied to those of Luther : Yitam spiritualem, quam nobis Christus largitur, non in eo duntaxat sitam esse con- fitemur, quod spiritu suo nos vivificat, sed quod spiritus etiam sui virtute carnis suae vivificse nos facit participes, qua participatione in vitam aeternam pascamur. Itaque cum de communione, quam cum Christo fideles habent, loquimur, non minas carni et sanguini ejus communicare ipsos intelligimus quam spiritui , ut ita totum Christum possideant, etc. On the other side he pronounces, in terms equally strong, in favor of the symbolical interpreta¬ tion : Caeterum istis nihil repugnat, quod Dominus noster in ccelum sublatus localem corporis sui praesentiam nobis abstulit, quae hie minime exigitur. Nam utcunque nos in hac mortalitate peregrinantes in eodem loco cum ipso non includimur et continemur, nullis tamen finibus limitata est ejus spiritus efficacia, quin vere copulare et in unum colligere possit, quae locorum spatiis sunt disjuncta. Ergo spiritum ejus vinculum esse nostrae cum ipso partici¬ pation^ agnoscimus, sed ita, ut nos ille carnis et sanguinis Domini substantia vere ad immortalitatem pascat et eorum participatione vivificet. Hanc autem carnis et sanguinis sui communionem Christus sub panis et vini sym- bolis in sacrosancta sua coena offert et exhibet omnibus, qui earn rite cele¬ brant juxta legitimum ejus institutum. — JBucer and Capito indeed protested against the appellation nuda et inania symbola, as applied to the bread and wine, and denounced such usage as an error which the Church ought to reject; but had Zwingle ever made use of the expression “ nuda et inania symbola?” — Thus Calvin (Instit. iv. 17, 32), also says : Fidem vero nos ista, quam enarravimus, corporis participatione non minus laute affluenterque * In a letter addressod to Yiret (quoted by Schlosser , Peter Martyr, p. 451, note.) On the question whether Calvin, as Planck supposes, held at first the opinion of Luther, but abandoned it afterwards, see Bretschneider in Reformations- Almanach iii., p. 81, and Henry , L, p. 262. 259. The Lord's Supper. 319 pascimus, quam qui ipsum Christum e coelo detrahunt. Ingenue interea confiteor, mixturam carnis Christi cum anima nostra vel transfusionem , qua¬ ds ab ipsis docetur, me repudiare, quia nobis sufficit, Christum e carnis sum substantia vitam in animas nostras spirare, imo propriam in nobis vitam dif- f under e , quamvis in nos non ingrediatur ipsa Christi caro. Comp, also § 10 : Nos vero talem Christi prsesentiam in coena statuere oportet, quae nee panis elernenta ipsum affigat , nec in panem includat, nec ullo modo circum- scribat, etc. . . . Caeterum his absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimen- dam veram substantial emque corporis et sanguinis Domini communicationem, quae sub sacris coenae symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter recipio : atque ut non imaginations duntaxat aut mentis intelligentia perci- pere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum vitae aeternae intelligantur. Against the Hamburg preacher, Wcstphal (1552), Calvin defended himself in the most definite way from the charge of holding to a merely spiritual presence ; but he also equally denied a local presence of Christ’s body, and limited his statements to a dynamical. Defensio II. p. 68-72 : Ita Christum corpore absentem doceo nihilominus nontantum divina sua virtute, quae ubique diffusa est, nobis adesse, sed etiam facere, ut nobis vivifica sit sua caro. . . . Reclamat hie Westphalus, me spiritus preesentiam opponere carnis prcesentice ; sed quatenus id faciam, ex eodem loco clare patere malevolentia excaecatus non inspicit. Neque enim simpliciter spiritu suo Christus in nobis habitare trado, sed ita nos ad se attollere, ut vivificam carnis sues vigorem in nos transfundat. Slightly as Zwingle and Calvin differed respecting the Lord’s Supper, the divines at Zurich at first looked with some mistrust upon the theory of the latter ( Lavater , Histor. Sacram. p. 98.) But the Agreement between the churches of Zurich and Geneva was set forth in the Consensus Tigurensis, where it is said distinctly, No. 21: Tollenda est quaelibet localis praesentiae imaginatio. Nam quum signa hie in mundo sint, oculis cernan- tur, palpentur manibus : Christus, quatenus homo est, non alibi quam in coelo, nec aliter quam mente et fidei intelligentia quaerendus est. Quare perverso et impia superstitio est , ipsum sub dementis hujus mundi includere. 22 : Proinde, qui in solennibus coenae verbis ; Hoc est corp. m. etc., praecise literalem, ut loquuntur, sensum urgent, eos tamquam praeposteros interpretes repudiamus. Nam extra controversiam ponimus, figurate accipiendia esse, ut esse panis et vinum dicantur id quod significant. — Comp, also Conf. Gall. Art. 36. Helv. II. c. 21. Belgica 35. Anglica 34. Scot. 21. In some Cal- vinistic symbols the positive element is prominently brought forward, but something is always added in order to prevent any close approach to the Lutheran view. Thus it is said in the Catechism of Heidelberg, Qu. 76 : “ What do ye understand by eating the crucified body of Christ, and drink- the blood which he shed on the cross ? Answ. By this we understand, not only that we accept with a believing heart the sufferings and death of Christ, but also , that by the influence of the Holy Ghost, who dwells at the same time in Christ and in ourselves, we are so intimately united to his blessed body, that although he be in heaven and we on earth , we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, and eternally live, and are governed by one spirit (as the members of our body are governed by one soul.”) — Confess. Sigism. c. 8 :. . . .“ Therefore we simply abide by the words pronounced by 320 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Christ at the institution of this ordinance — viz. that the bread is his true body, and the wine his true blood, sacramentally, i. e. in the manner in which God ordained and instituted the holy sacraments of both the Old and the New Test., that they should be visible and true signs of the invisible grace com¬ municated by them ; and in the manner in which our Lord himself signifies, that the holy Eucharist is a sign of the New Testament (covenant), hut not a mere sign , nor an empty one , and instituted for the commemoration of Christ’s death. . . .that thus it might he a memorial of consolation , a memo¬ rial of gratitude , and a memorial of love? 9 : “ And inasmuch as faith is, as it were, the mouth by which wTe receive the crucified body of Christ, and the blood shed for us, his electoral grace holdeth with steadfastness, that this sacrament does not help unbelievers , or those who do not repent , and that they do not participate in the true body and blood of Christ .” For further passages see Winer , p. 138, ss. SchenJcel , i. 561, sq. Ebrard , ii. 402, sq. The idea of an elevation of the soul to heaven is from a Lasco / see Ebrard, ii. 535. 14 Formula Concordiae, vii., p. 732 : Non propter alicuius aut perso¬ nam aut incredulitatem verbum Dei (quo Coena Domini instituta est et propter quod rationem Sacramenti habet) irritum et vanum fieri potest. Quia Christus non dixit : Si credideritis aut digni fueritis, turn in Coena sacra corpus et sanguinem meum prsesentia habebitis, sed potius ait : Acci- pite, edite et bibite, hoc est corpus meum, etc. . . .Verba Christi hoc volunt : Sive dignus sive indignus sis, habes hie in Coena Christi corpus et sanguinem. Comp. 743 : Quod autem non tantum pii et credentes in Christum, verum etiam indigni, impii, hypocritse (v. g. Judas), et hujus farinse homines. . . . etiam verum corpus et verum sanguinem Christi ore in Sacramento su- mant, et grande scelus indigne edendo et bibendo in corpus et sanguinem Christi admittant, id D. Paulus expresse docet, etc. 16 By doing violence to the rules of grammar (viz. by inverting the order of subject and predicate) Schwen/cfeld and Krautwald made out this sense : My body which is given for you, is the very thing which I distribute among you — viz. bread, a real food, and the efficacious means of preserving eternal life. As analogous instances they adduced : the seed is the Word of God ; the field is the world ; the rock was Christ. See Das Buch vom Christen- menschen (Werke, Bd. i. p. 898). SchenJcel , i. 556 ; Planch , v., i., p. 90. Schwenhfeld also insisted upon the mystical aspect of the Lord’s Supper : “ From the fountain of God’s love and sweetness, we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, to strengthen the conscience, quicken the heart, and for the increase of the inner man in all the spiritual riches of God.” “ The bread of eternal life must be well masticated (i. e. thoroughly contemplated) by all who eat it. They eat it, and have eaten thereof, who have grasped this act of the New Testament and of our salvation with true faith, and who know, that they are not only redeemed by this same body of Christ which was broken for us, but that it also has other food and nourishment, and power to everlasting life.” (Werke, i. 911 ; in Schenkel, ubi supra). Comp. Erb- ham's Protest. Secten im Zeitalter der Reform., 468. 16 Cat. Rac. qu. 334 : (Coena Domini) est Christi institutum, ut fideles ipsius panem frangant et comedant et ex calice bibant, mortis ipsius annunci- § 259. The Lord’s Supper. 321 andse causa. Quod permanere in adventum ipsius oportet. Ib. qu. 335 : (Annunciare mortem Domini) est publi ceet sacrosancte Christo gratias agere, quod is pro ineflfabili sua erga nos caritate corpus suum torqueri et quodam- modo frangi et sanguinem suum fundi passus sit, et hoc ipsius beneficium lau- dibus tollere et celebrare. Ib. qu. 337 : Nonne alia causa, ob quam coenam instituit Dom., superest ? Nulla prorsus, etsi homines multas excogitarint, cum alii dicant esse sacrificium pro vivis et mortuis, alii usu ipsius se conse- qui peccatorum remissionem et firmare fidem sperant, et quod eis mortem Domini in mentem revocet, affirmant. Comp. Socinus , De Coena Domini, p. 753, 6, where the effects commonly supposed to be produced by the sacra¬ ment are ascribed to the word, with which the ceremony is only externally connected. — Ostorodt , Underichtung, says, p. 230, that the Lord’s Supper is only a ceremony, and is called a sacrament without any reason : see Fock's Socinianismus, p. 573 sq. The Socinians regarded the controversy between the Lutherans and Calvinists as mere logomachy, and sharply criticised their entire forgetfulness of Christian love in strife about such a matter. They avowed their agreement with Zwingle. See Fock , p. 5 7 7. -—Concern¬ ing the views of the Arminians, see Confess. Remonstrant, 23, 4, and Lim- borch , Theol. Christ, v. 71, 9 ss. (where he combats the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper as held by orthodox Calvinists). The opinions of the Mennonites on this point will be found in Hies, Conf., Art. 34 (Winer, p. 135). 17 Comp. § 258, note 7. 18 [Westminster Confession, chap. xxix. : Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world ; for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death, the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourish¬ ment and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe unto him ; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body. 2. In this sacra¬ ment Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but only a commemoration of that once offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same ; so that the popish sac¬ rifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. 5. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly, and only, bread and wine, as they were before. 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corpo¬ rally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death : the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally nor carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine ; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses. 8. Although ignorant and wicked men receive 322 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. the outward elements in this sacrament, yet they receive not the thing signified thereby ; but by their unworthy coming thereunto are guilty -of the body and blood of the Lord to their own damnation.] 19 Article xxviii. of XXXIX Articles. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another : but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death ; insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. — Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, can not be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sac¬ rament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. — The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spirit¬ ual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. — The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. — Article xxix. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper . The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ : but rather to their condemnation, do eat and drink, the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing. [The quotation from Augustine is an interpolation ; the words are not found in any of the 20 MSS. of Augus¬ tine collated for the Louvain and Paris edition. See Porson's Letters to Travis, p. 229.] Article xxx. Of both kinds. — The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay-people : for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacra¬ ment, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike. — Article xxxi. Of the One Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits. — On the general subject of the position of the English Church in respect to the doctrine, see Tracts for the Times, No. 81 : The testimony of writers of the later English Church to the Doctrines of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, with an Historical Account of the Changes made in the Liturgy as the Expression of that Doc¬ trine. Burnet on the Articles, pp. 402-465. Pusey on the Real Presence, ubi supra. W. Goode , Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist, 2, 8vo., 1856. John Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unveiled, 1st ed., 1714, 2nd ed., 1724, in Oxford Library of Anglo-Catholic Divines, 2 vols., 1847. Rev.. John Patrick , Full View of Doctrine and Practice of the Ancient Church relating .to the Eucharist, Lond., 1638, reprinted in Gibson's Pre¬ servative.] The doctrinal differences of. the various denominations are closely connected with tnen § 260. The Lord’s Supper, 323 respective modes of celebrating this ordinance. The principal difference is this, that the Roman Catholic Church persisted in withholding the cup from the laity, while all other parties, inclusive of the Greek Church, demanded that it should be restored to them. (See Note 3, and the passages quoted from their symbolical writings by Winer , p. 145- 147.) On the usage about the host (in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches, partly also in the Reformed Church), and as to the bread (in the Greek and Reformed Churches) ; on the breaking of the bread in the Reformed Church, and the reception with the hand instead of the mouth ; on the elevation of the host ; on the manner in which the congrega¬ tion receive the sacrament (whether they go to the table, or remain in their seats) ; on the modes and formulas of distribution ; on private communion, auricular or general confession, etc., comp, the works on archaeology and those on liturgies. Ebrard , Abendmahl, ii. 794- 796. — The strict Lutherans opposed the breaking of the bread, for the following, among other reasons, in the Consensus Repetitus Fidei Verae Luth. punct. 72 (in Henke, p. 56): Profitemur et docemus, panis fractionem et vini effusionem in ora fidelium non fuisse fac- tam a Christo ob representation em mortis dominicae, sed ob distributionem inter commu- nicantes, adeoque dproiclaoiav non fuisse formalem seu essentialem ritum hujus sacramenti, sed tantum ministerialem, qui facerat ad meliorem distributionem. — It was a fundamental principle of Protestantism, that the participation in the Lord’s Supper should be a commu¬ nion shared in common : Luther also at first adopted this view (see his Letters, ed. De Wette , iv. p. 160), and sanctioned even the communionvof the sick only conditionally (ibid, v., p. 227). Differences of usages were introduced into the Lutheran and Reformed Churches only at a later period. § 260. INTERNAL FLUCTUATIONS AND FURTHER DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT. Though Preexisting differences of opinion rendered impossible an im¬ mediate union between the various sections of the Protestant Church, there were not wanting those who, on the one hand, may he styled Crypto-Calvinists / and, on the other, Crypto-Lutlierans .2 But the existence of these parties gave rise to increased efforts on the part of the orthodox theologians in either church to establish a more pre¬ cise definition of their distinguishing doctrines, and to secure them against corruption and misinterpretation. The schoolmen made a three-fold distinction in the Lord’s Supper — viz. between matter , form, and end, or object, which were again subdivided according to various categories.3 The mystics, abiding by the mysterious import of the doctrine, took no part in the ecclesiastical controversies ;4 some of them even showed that each of the principal sections of the church rests on a religious idea, the living appropriation of which is, in their opinion, the principal thing in this ordinance, whatever meaning may be attached to it.& Among Roman Catholic writers, Bossuet endeavoured to defend, on philosophical grounds, the doc¬ trine of transubstantiation and of the mass,6 while the Jansenists and Roman Catholic Mystics rigidly retained the doctrine of the church. But they directed their attention not so much to dialectical argu¬ ments for the mere notion, as to the mysterious effects which this sacrament produces upon the internal man.7 324 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. 1 Compare above, § 215, note 7, Ebrard , p. 686 sq. 2 Marbach of Strasburg , and Simon Sulzer of Basle. The latter was op¬ posed by H. Erzberger. Comp. Hagenbach , Geschichte der Basler Confess, p. 87 ss. The very remarkable creeds of Sulzer and Erzberger are there given, Appendix C, p. 232, and Appendix B, pt 218 ss. Comp. Hundeshagen Conflicte, p. 147 sq. ; Ebrard , ii. 484. 3 The matter is (a) terrestris (the elements bread and wine) ; (b) coelestis, which is subdivided into a. corpus et sanguis Christi, (3. gratia divina ; 2. The form is (a) interna (unio sacramentalis), (b) externa, which is composed of a. consecratio, (3. distributio, y. sumptio; 3. Finis (fructus) est collatio et obsignatio gratise divinse. This end is subdivided into (a) finis ultimus (salus seterna) ; (b) intermedius, (a) recordatio et commemoratio mortis Christi, quae fide peragitur, ((3) obsignatio promissionis de remissione pecca- torum et fidei confirmatio, (y) insitio nostra in Christum et spiritualis nutri- tio ad vitam, (d) dilectio mutua communicantium. See Hase, Hutterus Re- divivus, pp. 314, 315. Among the Calvinistic theologians see Heidegger , Loci, xxv. p. 13 ss. 4 Thus Phil . Paracelsus , Sagac. Lib. i, c. 5, § 10, comp. ii. 2, (quoted by Preu , Theol. des Paracelsus, p. 1) ; he there speaks rather of an internal (mystical) communion, than of a real participation of the elements. “ The regenerate must be nourished by Christ, and not only obtain the art and wisdom of nature, as we gather pears from the trees, but receive wisdom from him who has sent it. Respecting Christ, it is said, we must eat his flesh, and drink his blood, that is, we must be born of him ; he is the first born, but we fill up the number.” Comp. Schwenkfeld , above. 6 Thus Poiret in his treatise : Gewissensruhe. See Hagenbach , Vorlesun- gen, vol. iv., p. 326. 6 Exposition de la Doctrine Catholique, c. 10 ss. In his opinion, there is no medium between the view of infidels who reject everything, and the or¬ thodox doctrine of the Church. Every other view is inconsistent with itself ; God has suffered the Protestants to fall into such inconsistencies, in order to facilitate their return to the Roman Catholic Church. The figurative inter¬ pretation, however, may be admitted in a certain sense (as implied in the real), p. 140 : “ Nevertheless the truth which the Eucharist* contains in its internal aspect, does not prevent its being considered a sign of the external and tangible ; but it is a sign of that sort which, so far from excluding the reality, necessarily implies it.” 7 Concerning the views of the Jansenists, comp. § 228, note 3. On the controversy respecting the Lord’s Supper, between Peter Nicole and Anton Arnauld , on the one side, and Claude, a Calvinistic minister, on the other see Schrockh , vii. p. 367. Among the mystics similar opinions obtained to those of the preceding period. Thus Francis of Sales said, Introd. ii. 14 : Hoc (sacramentum) religionis christianse centrum est devotionis cor, pietatis anima, mysterium ineffabile, quodque divinse charitatis abyssum in se com- prehendit, ac per quod se Deus ipse realiter nobis applicans gratias et dona sua nobis magnifice communicat. — Comp. Bonce Tract. Ascet. de Sacrificio Missse (Opp. p. 177 ss.). Fenelon , GHuvres Spirit., i. p. 414. § 260. The Lord’s Supper. 325 As regards the other Roman Catholic Sacraments (respecting baptism, see § 270), their fundamental principles must be considered by Protestant theologians in other parts of their works on systematic theology ; thus Penance is treated of in connection with the economy of Redemption, though some of the earlier Lutheran divines placed it after the chapters on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (e. g. Hollaz , p. 1141); the sacrament of Holy Orders , in connection with the doctrine concerning the church ; that of Matrimony forms a part of ethics and the Canon Law, though some, e. g. Gerhard , still assigned to it a place in doctri¬ nal theology (Loci Theol. Tom. xv.) ; and lastly, the sacraments of Confirmation (which has nothing in common with the Protestant rite of the same name), and of Extreme Unc- tion , are only considered in a negative aspect — viz. as sacramenta spuria, see Heidegger , Loci xxv., c. 23 ss. As regards Penance , the Roman Catholic Church retained the scholastic division into contritio (different from attritio) cordis, confessio oris and satisfactio operis, while the only distinction made by Protestants was that between contritio and tides. Comp. ConciL Trid. Sess. 14, c. 3, and in defence of the Protestant view, Conf. Aug. Art. 12: Constat autem poenitentia proprie his duabus partibus : Altera est contritio, seu terrores incussi conscientiae agnito peccato. Altera est tides, quae concipitur ex evangelio seu absolutione et credit propter Christum remitti peccata, et consolatur conscientiam, et ex terroribus liberat. Deinde sequi detent opera bona, quae sunt fructus pcenitentice. Art. Smalcald, p. 321, and the other passages quoted by Winer, p. 150. Respecting Confession , the two great sections of the Protestant Church differed in this, that the earlier Lutherans attached importance to private confession, while the Reformed wore satisfied (as a general rule) with public confession. But neither of them demanded, like the Roman Catholics, a special enumeration of all sins, in consequence of which, both rejected • auricular confes¬ sion. Luther especially, in his treatise : De Captiv. Babyl., and in the Articles of Smalcald, expressed himself in strong terms against this confessio carnijicina. Art. Smalcald, p. 323. : Confessio sic instituabatur, ut homines juberentur omnia sua peccata enumerare (quod factu impossibile est) hsec ingens carnificina fuit. Et si quis quorundam peccatorum ob- litus esset, is eatenus absolvebatur, ut si in memoriam ilia recurrerent, ea postea confite- retur, etc. As to the relation between the confessor and the person who confesses, the Roman Catholics, on account of their different views about the priesthood, entertained different opinions from the Protestants ; see Winer, 1. c., and the passages quoted by him and J. H. Jordan, Einige Capitel fiber die Beichte, Anspach, 1847. Here, too, Zwingle advances still further and objects to Luther, that in respect to absolution he still holds the old doctrine [“That the words of Christ,” etc., Werke , ii. 2, p. 22.] — As regards the satisfactio, Protestants from the first not only rejected pilgrimages and similar observances, but also looked on prayers, fastings, and alms, in a very different light. Concerning Fasting , see Winer, p. 155. The nova obedientia which some Protestants would have substituted for the satisfactio operis, is, properly speaking, the same with tides (the second part of pen¬ ance): nevertheless it is said in the Apol. Conf., p. 165: Si quis volet addere tertiam [partem], videlicet dignos fructus pcenitentise, h. e. mutationem totius vitae ac morum in melius, non refragabimur. — The Protestant theologians further distinguished between, 1. Poenitentia prima (magna) ; 2. Continuata (quotidiana) ; 3. Iterata (lapsorum); 4. Sera (quae fit ultimas vitae momentis.) The question whether the last kind was admissible or not, gave rise to a controversy with the Pietists (the so-called lis terministica). Comp. Hose, Hutterus Redivivus, p. 394. — Concerning the Sale of Indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church, and the various modifications of the theory of Indulgences (which had their origin in the opposition made by the reformers) see Winer, p. 159. — Respecting the other sacraments (Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders), see ibid., p. 160 ss. The difference of opinion among Protestants and Roman Catholics, as to the validity and dissolubility ot Matrimony (divortium), prohibited degrees of relationship, the marriage of the clergy, the vow of chastity (in connection with monachism), resulted from differences in fundamental principles. (For the respective passages, see Wirier, 1. c.) Comp. Klee, Dogmengeschichte, vol. ii. [For the views of the Anglican Church, see Burnet , on XXX IX Articles, and Pearson on the Creed. Rev. D. Macleod , View of the Anglican Church on Confession, Lond. 1849. Bp. Hopkins , History of the Confessional, 1850. 326 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. Church Review, (New Haven) 1849. R Laurence , Essay on Confess., Penance, Absolu¬ tion, reprinted, 1852. 1. R. Beard, The Confessional, Lond., 1860. Correspondence on Auricular Confession between Rev. E. B. Pusey , and Rev. R. H. Fortescue , 1854.] § 261. THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING PURGATORY. . In connection with, the doctrine of the mass and its efficacy, the Eoman Catholic Church maintained the existence of a Purgatory to which the souls of all those pious persons depart, who die without having made full satisfaction for their sins, and out of which they may be delivered by means of private masses and indulgences .2 The Protestants unanimously rejected this unscriptural doctrine,8 and also the Greek theologians, though the latter admitted the notion of an intermediate state of the departed.4 [The leading divines of the Anglican church held to the doctrine of the intermediate state, while rejecting purgatory.]5 1 Cone. Trid. Sess. 22, cap. 2 : Non solum pro fidelium vivorum peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus, sed et pro defunctis et in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite juxta Apostolorum traditionem, offertur. Comp. c. 9, can. 3 : Si quis dixerit, Missse sacrificium .... non pro defunctis offerri debere : anathema sit. 2 Ibid. Sess. 6, can. 30, but especially Sess. 25, Cat. Rom. i. 6, 3 : Est pur- gatorius ignis, quo piornm animae ad definitum tempus cruciatse expiantur, ut eis in aeternam patriam ingressus patere possit, in quam nihil coinquinatum ingreditur. Ac de hujus quidem doctrinas veritate, qnum et scripturarum testimoniis et apostolica traditione confirmatam esse sancta concilia decla¬ rant, eo diligentius et saepius parocho disserendum erit, quod in ea tempora incidimns, quibus homines sanam doctrinam non sustinent. Comp. Bellar- mine , De Amiss. Grat. et Statu Peccati, i. c. 14, p. 116, De Justific. v. 4. p. 1084. Possuet, Exposit. 8, p. 72, made but slight mention of purga¬ tory, and bestowed praise upon the Council of Trent on account of the great caution ( grande retenue ), with which it expressed itself concerning this point. 3 Art. Smalcald. p. 307 : Purgatorium et quidquid ei solennitatis, cultus et qnaestus adhaeret, mera diaboli larva est. Pugnat enim cum primo articulo, qui docet, Christum solum et non hominum opera animas liberare. Zwingle taught that after death there is an immediate entrance into the heavenly mansions; Fidei Expositio (Opeifa, p. 65) : Credimus animas fidelium protinns ut ex corporibus evaserint, subvolare in coelum, numini conjnngi aeternumque gaudere : comp. p. 50 (De Purgatorio). — Conf. Helv. IL c. 26 : Quod quidam tradunt de igne purgatorio, fidei christianse, “Credo remissionem peccatorum et vitam seternam,” purgationique plense per Christum et Christi sententiis adversatur. Conf. Gall. 24 : Purgatorium arbitramur figmentum esse ex O O eadem ofiicina profectum, unde etiam manarunt vita monastica, peregrina- tiones, interdicta matrimonii et usus ciborum, ceremonialis certorum dierum § 261. The Doctrine Concerning Purgatory. 327 observatio, confessio auricularis, indulgentiae, ceteneque res omnis ejusmodi, quibus opinantur qnidam, se gratiam et salutem mereri. 4 Conf. Orth. p. 112 : IIa3f irpenec va ypoucovp,ev Sea to tcvq to tcaOap- TTjpiov ; ovdepia ypacftr) diaXapiftavei nepl avTOv • va evplonETac drjXadrj Kav uia npoorcaipog rcoXaaig KaOapTinr] tu)V 'ipvx&v, voTepa and tov OavaTOV. For further partieulars see Winer , pp. 157, 158. 6 [See JBurnet , Pearson , and Browne on Thirty-Nine Articles. Art. 22 declares : “ The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worship¬ ping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warrants of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” — Doctrine of the Church on Purgatory, by j Dr. Thos. Beacon (a non-juring bishop, died 1753), 8 vo., 1718. Archd. Blackburn, Historical Account of Controversy about Intermediate State, 2d ed., 1772 (Works, vol. 3, 1804). Archbishop Usher , on Prayers for the Dead, reprinted in Tracts for the Times, No. 72. — On Purga¬ tory, in Tracts for the Times, No. 79.] t SECOND CLASS. DOCTRINES IN WHICH PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHO¬ LICS MORE OR LESS AGREED (IN OPPOSITION TO THE MINOR SECTS.) FIRST DIVISION. THEOLOGY PROPER. § 262. TRINITARIANS AND ANTITRINITARIANS. ( However much Protestants differed from Roman Catholics in their general system of faith, they were in perfect accordance as to the doc¬ trine of the Triune God , resting on the decisions of the ancient oecu¬ menical councils.1 The views of the earlier Unitarians , as well as of the latter Socinians , were directly at variance with the Trinitarian doc¬ trine of three persons and one nature in God ; and it is worthy of observation that they revived the various Antitrinitarian views of former times. Michael Servetus adopted the position of Sabellius, hut with this difference, that (after the example of Photinus) he made^a distinction between the Son of God who appeared in time, and the eternal Logos (Word).2 Others, again, bordered upon Arianism.3 Faustus Socinus returned to the (abstract) Unitarianism of the Nazarenes, or the Alogi, who, acknowledging only the Father as God, regarded Christ as a mere man, endowed with extraordinary gifts, and afterwards elevated to heaven, and the Holy Ghost as a divine energy.4 The Arminians adhered on the whole, to the ortho¬ dox doctrine, but with intimations as to the subordination of both the Son and the Spirit6 to the F ather, which brought upon them the reproach of a tendency to Socinianism. [In England the subordina¬ tion scheme was vindicated by Bishop Bull , on the basis of the con¬ sent of the early fathers ; the Arian system was revived by Samuel § 262. Trinitarianism and Antitrinitarjanism. 329 Clarke; and a tendency to Tritheism was imputed to William Sherlock , by Wallis and South, who, in turn, were charged with Sabellianism.]6 1 Insinuations were, nevertheless, thrown out against the reformers them¬ selves, as if they countenanced Antitrinitarian errors/ Thus, Colvin was at one time charged with Arianism by Caroli ; see Henry , Leben Joh. Calvins, vol. i. p. 181. It is, however, remarkable, that the terms Trinity and per¬ son were avoided in the Confession of Geneva ( Henry , p. 182). Melancthon , too, in the first edition of his Loci, pronounced the scholastic definitions re¬ specting the nature of the Trinity foreign to Christian theology.* And Luther frankly confessed (Ueber die letzten Worte Davids, Wittenberg, edit, vol. v. p. 551) : “It is not to be wondered at, that when a man reads this mysterious, incomprehensible article, strange thoughts should occur to him, of which one or another is sometimes little appropriate, and gives rise to dangerous expressions. Yet, the foundation of our faith remaining unshaken, such splinters, chips, and straws, will do us no harm. But the basis of the faith is our belief that there are three persons in one God, and each person is the one, perfect God ; so that the three persons are not confounded, nor the divine 'substance divided, but the distinction of persons and unity of nature go together. This is the great mystery, which angels will never cease to contemplate and to admire, and the beholding of which constitutes their blessedness. If they could ever see the end of it, there would also be an end of their blessedness.”! Calvin expresses himself in a more specula¬ tive way, e. g ., in his Institutes, i. 13, and elsewhere (against Servetus). His exposition of the Trinity, says Gass (p. 105) “is undoubtedly the best1 the most comprehensive and careful , which can be found in the writings of the reformers .” The definitions of the schools, however, were not introduced into the Church Confessions of the Protestants. The Lutherans simply ap¬ pealed to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, which, together with the Apostles’ Creed, were prefixed to the Liber Concordiae. Among the symbolical books of the Reformed Church, the First Confession of Basle designates the first article (that concerning the Trinity) as a symbolum commune : der gemein Gloub. In several Confessions of Faith, the erro¬ neous innovations of the times were rejected. Thus, in the Conf. Aug. Art. 1 : . Nomine Personae utuntur ea significatione, qua usi sunt in hac causa scriptores ecclesiastici, ut significet non partem aut qualitatem in alio, sed quod proprie subsistit. Damnant omnes haereses . Samo- satenos veteres et neotericos, qui cum tantum unam personam esse contendant, de Yerbo et de Spiritu Sancto astute et impie rhetoricantur , quod non sint personae distinctae, sed quod Yerbum significet verbum vocale et Spiritus motum in rebus creatum. In the Apol. it is said ; Primum articulum Con- * This is otherwise in the later editions : the doctrine is most fully unfolded by I^elanc- thon in the third edition of his Loci (Corp. Reform, xxi., p. 614), but yet without any proper speculative construction. \ There are also in Luther hints about a speculative treatment of the doctrine (see Eeppe , p. 285, Dieckhoff, § 214); but they have the air of reminiscences from the earlier scholastic mysticism. 330 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. fessionis nostras probont nostri adversarii. . . .Hunc articulum semper d^cni- mus et defendimus, et sentimus earn habere certa et firma testimonia in Scripturis Sanctis, quae labefactari non queunt. Comp. Conf. Helvet. II., Art. 3, where, in proof of this doctrine, the following passages are quoted from Scripture — viz., Luke i. 35 ; Matt. iii. 16, 17 ; John i. 32 ; Matt, xviii. 19 ; John xiv. 26, xv. 26.* Comp. Conf. Gall. 6 ; Belg. 8 and 9 ; Angl. 1 and 2 ; Scotica 1. On the doctrine of the Trinity as propounded in tbe Catecb. Heidelberg. ( God tbe Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost), see Beckhaus in Illgen, 1. c. p. 52. 2 De Trinitatis Erroribus in 7 books, extracts from which are given in Trechsel , Antitrinitar. p. 67-98. Servetus instead of commencing his deduc¬ tion with the Logos, i. e., in a speculative manner, adopted the analytico- historical mode of procedure. He treats first of the person of Christ, f i. e.y Christ in human manifestation. This is the Son of God ; orthodox theolo¬ gians, he says, incorrectly represent the Word (taken in the sense applied to it by the Apostle John) as the Son, and thus deny that the man Christ is the Son of God. — He expressed himself in decided terms against the separa¬ tion of two natures. In his opinion, Christ is man filled with the divine nature, and wholly pervaded with the divine nature. He only denied that God is man, but not that Christ is God. — He regarded the Holy Spirit as a divine energy and breath in creation, and a moral principle working in man ; in reference to the latter point he is called Holy Spirit. — But Servetus en¬ deavored, in every way, to ridicule the ecclesiastical (post-Nicene) doctrine of the Trinity ; he only admitted a triad in the sense of Sabellius: Quia tres sunt admirandse Dei dispositiones, in quarem qualibet divinitas relucet, ex quo sanissime trinitatem intelligere posses : nam Pater est tota substantia et unus Deus, ex quo gradus isti et personatus descendunt. Et tres sunt, non aliqua rerum in Deo distinctione, sed per Dei o’ucovopiav variis Deitatis formis; nam eadem divinitas, quae est in Patre, communicatur filio Jesu Christo et spiritui nostro, qui est templum Dei viventis ; sunt enim filius et sanctificatus spiritus noster consortes substantiae Patris, membra, pignora et instruments, licet varia sit in iis deitatis species ) et hoc est, quod distinctae personae dicuntur, i. e., multiformes deitatis aspectus, diversae facies et spe¬ cies. Servetus asserted that the term Logos , in the writings of John, does - not denote a person, but, according to its etymology, signifies oraculum, vox, sermo, eloquium Dei. In his argumentation, he returned to the ancient distinction between Aoyof kvdiaderog and tt pocfroputog (f. 48, quoted by Trechsel , p. 79) : Verbum in Deo proferente est ipsemet Deus loquens. Post prolationem est ipsa caro ; seu Verbum Dei, antequam caro ilia fieret, intelligebatur ipsum Dei oraculum inter nubis caliginem nondum manifesta- tum (the hidden God), quia Deus erat ille sermo. Et postquam Verbum homo factum est, per Verbum intelligimus ipsum Christum, qui est Verbum * It is remarkable that the well known passage, 1 John, v. 7, is nowhere quoted; Lu¬ ther also omitted it in his translation. — In the first Confession of Basle no scriptural proofs were adduced, but in a marginal note it was observed : “ this is proved by the whole Scripture, by many passages in both the Old aod the New Testaments.” f Hence we must here anticipate somewhat, treating of the christology in connection with theology. fi. § 262. Trinitarianism and Antitrini^arianism. 331 Dei et vox Dei ; nam quasi vox est ex ore Dei prolatus. Propterea dicitur ipse Sermo Patris, quia Patris meutem enuuciat et ejus cognitionem facit. In his opinion there was no interval between the (hypostatical) generation of the Son, and the birth of Christ. The prolatio verbi and the generatio carnis are one and the same act. He also rejected what were commonly called the opera ad intra. Comp. Heherle : Michael Servets Trinitatslehre und Christologie (in the Tubingen Theologische Zeitschrift, 1840, 2. The chief refutation of Servetus was by Calvin , in his Defensio orthod. Fidei ad- versus prodigiosos Errores Serveti. 8 This was the case, e. g., with William Campanus , who, though refusing to admit the Arian phrase, r/v n ore ore ovk fjv} nevertheless strongly as¬ serted the subordination of the Son to the Father, and termed him “ the steward and servant, the messenger and ambassador of God.” But the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was especially by Campanus impugned : “ Noth¬ ing in the world can be more futile, and against nothing can more pow¬ erful arguments be adduced from Scripture.” Accordingly, he supposed the existence of two Divine persons alone— viz., the Father and the Son; as matrimony too admits only two persons, and excludes every third. See Trechsel , p». 32 (after Scfielhorn , Dissert, de Joh. Campano Antitrinitario, in his Amoenitatt. Litt. T. xi. p. 32, ss.) Adam Pastoris (Rudolph Martini) also appears to have propounded Arian errors rather than Sabellian ; see Trechsel , p. 32. 4 F. Socinus agreed with Servetus in rejecting the idea of persons in the Divine nature ; but he considered Christ as 'ipiXog avdpomog, not, like Serve¬ tus, as a man filled and pervaded with the Divine nature, or, as it were, God appearing in the world, manifesting himself in the flesh. He differed from the Ebionites only in this, that he (like the Nazarenes) supposed the birth of Christ to be supernatural. He substituted a man who became, as it were, God, for God becoming man ; for he ascribed a kind of divine worship to that Christ who after his resurrection, wTas elevated to heaven (a species of worship resembling that which Roman Catholics render to their saints, though of a higher order). Comp. Catech. Racov., p. 32 : Vox Deus duobus potissi- mum modis in Scripturis usurpatur : prior est, cum designat ilium, qui in coelis et in terra omnibus ita dominatur et prseest, ut neminem superiorem ag- noscat, atque in hac significatione Scriptura unum esse Deum asserit. Pos¬ terior modus est, cum eum denotat, qui potestatem aliquam sublimem ab uno illo Deo habet aut deitatis unius illius Dei aliqua ratione particeps est. Ete* nim in Scripturis propterea Deus file unus Deus deorum vocatur (Ps. 1. 1.) Et hac quidem posteriore ratione filius Dei vocatur Deus in quibusdam Scrip- tura3 locis. — That Christ was ex essentia patris genitus , is most strongly denied in the Catech. Racov., p. 56. Other passages are quoted by Winer , p. 42. (Compare below on Christology.) — Concerning the Holy Spirit, So¬ cinus said, in his Breviss. Institt. p. 652 : Quid de Spir. S. dicis? Nempe ilium non esse personam aliquam a Deo, cujus est spiritus, distinctam, sed tantummodo (ut nomen ipsum Spiritus, quod flatum et afilationem, ut sic loquar, significat, docere potest) ipsius Dei vim et efficaciam quandam, i. e. earn, quae secum sanctitatem aliquam afferat, etc. Comp. Bibl. Fratr. Pol. ii., p. 445, b. : Spiritum Sanctum virtutem Dei atque efficaciam, qua aliquo 332 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. modo res ab ipso Deo sanctificantur, esse credimus. Personam vero ipsum Spiritnm Sanctum, proprie et in potiorem significatum acceptum, et ab ipso Deo, cujus est splritus, distinctum esse, negamus. Sanctam motionem, crea- tam a Deo in anima bominis metonymice auctorem rei pro re ipsa nominando, Spiritnm Sanctum appellari posse, dubitari nequit. Sed aliud est appellari posse, aliud vero re ipsa esse. According to the Socinians, the doctrine of the Trinity is equally opposed to Scripture* and to reason; they combated it on both grounds : see Fock , Socinianismus, p. 454 sq. 5 The Confess. Remonstr., c. 3, was indeed silent on the subject of subor dination, but Fpiscopius expressed himself as follows, Inst. Theol., 4, 2, 32, p. 33 : Sed addo, certum esse ex Scripturis, personis his tribus divinitatem divinasque perfectiones tribui non collateraliter aut coordinate, sed subordi¬ nate, ita ut pater solus naturam istam divinam et perfectiones istas divinas a se habeat sive a nullo alio, filius autem et Spir. S. a patre : ac proinde patei divinitatis omnis, quae in filio et spiritu sancto est, fons ac principium sit. — * Limborch Theol. Christ., ii. 17, § 25 : Colligimus, essentiam divinam et filio etspiritui sancto esse communem. Sed et non minus constat, inter tres hasce personas subordinationem esse quandam, quatenus pater naturam divinam a se habet, filius et spir. S. a patre, qui proinde divinitatis in filio et spiritu sancto fons est et principium. Communis christianorum consensus ordinis ra- tione prgerogativam hanc agnoscit, patri semper tribuens primum locum, secundum filio, tertium spiritui sancto. Sed et est quasdam supereminentia, patris respectu filii, et patris ac filii respectu spiritus sancti, ratione dignitatis ac potestatis. Dignius siquidem est generare, quam generari, spirare quam spirari, etc. 6 [Compare above, § 234, Notes 10 and 11, p. 213. Bishop Bull’s De- fensio Fidei Nicen., 1680, was intended to restore the authority of the early fathers of the church, which had been abandoned by some of the orthodox. Petavius even had endeavoured to show that little dependence could be placed upon them. The Defensio is partly in opposition to him, and also to Zwicker and Sandius. Bossuet claimed that Bull held to the infallibility of the Council of Nice (Hist, de Variat., liv. xv., § 103), but without adequate grounds. Bull’s Judicium Ecclesise Catholic®, 1694, had more direct refer¬ ence to the lax views of Episcopius and Curcellaeus. His last chief work, Primitive and Apostolical Tradition, was against Zwicker who represented the divinity of Christ, and the Incarnation, as inventions of the early heretics. Bull’s mode of discussion is historical rather than metaphysical. He held to a subordination of the Son in the divine essence, while opposing Tritheism, Arianism, and Sabellianism. — The controversy was carried over into the metaphysical question by Dr. Wm. Sherlock, in his Vindication of the Doc¬ trine of the Trinity, 1690, in reply to two anonymous books, viz., Brief Notes on the Creed of Athanasius, and a Brief View of the Unitarians and Socinians. Dr. Sherlock proposed an “ easy and intelligible” mode of ex¬ plaining the Trinity. But he was opposed as tritheistic by Dr. Wallis , Savilian Prof.'of Geometry (in 7 Letters to a Friend, 1690-1), and by Robert South , Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock’s book, 1693. The two latter were * 1 John, v. 7, is not genuine, but even if so, it asserts only the agreement in testimony and not the unity of essence. § 263. Systematic Development. 333 accused of Sabellianism. The parties were termed tritheists and nominalists. In this controversy Bull took no direct part, hut some of the points are dis¬ cussed in his posthumous work, Discourse on the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in the first three Centuries, etc., drawn up for Lord Arundell. Cud - worth's Intellectual System, and Stilling fleet's Vindication of the Trinity, 1697, appeared about the same time. The latter says : “ whether an infinite nature can communicate itself to three different substances without such division as is among created beings, must not be determined by bare num¬ bers, but by the absolute properties of the Divine nature, which must be owned to be above our comprehension.” Dr. Sherlock , besides his Vindi¬ cation, also wrote a Defence of his Notice of a Trinity in Unity ; the Present State of the Socinian Controversy ; Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians, etc. The discussion was continued between Samuel Clarke and Waterland , (see p. 213 above), turning upon the possibility of a kind of second, and inferior deity, which was maintained by Clarke, who appealed from the fathers to the Scriptures. His position was substantially that of the high Arians. Dr. Waterland replied, vindicating the eternity and con- substantiality of the Son, and exploding the distinction between absolute and relative deity. Other works called out in the progress of the discussion were, Waterland' s Sermons at Lady Moyer’s Lectures, 1720 ; Whitby's Modest Disquisition, 1715, with Waterland’s replies (turning on the mean¬ ing of essence, person, personality, hypostasis); Waterland says, that Whitby here changes the state of the question : “ With Bishop Bull, the question was, whether the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed the Son to be an eternal , uncreated , and strictly divine substance : with you (Whitby) it is, whether they believed him to be the same numerical, intellectual essence , {i. e. person), with the Father.” Works of Calamy (Sermons on Trinity), Glocester Ridley (Divin¬ ity of Holy Ghost, reprinted, Oxf., 1802), Whiston (Council of Nice, 1713), Thos. Randolph (Vind. of Christ’s Divinity), Arthur Collier (Treatise on the Logos, 1732), continued the controversy to the close of the period. Compare also, John Howe's Calm Discourse of the Trinity in the Godhead ; and John Owen's reply to Sherlock, and Brief Vind. of Trinity (works, vol. x.) ; Stilling fleet's Scripture Mysteries, and Trinity and Transubstantiation compared (republ. in Bp. Randolph’s Enchiridion Theologicum, vols. 2 and 3) ; JBerriman on the Trinity, 1732 ; Sherlock on the Socinian Controversy, 1698 ; Edwards' Preservative against Socinianism, 1703. See Van Mil¬ der t's Life of Waterland.] § 263. THE SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING GOD, TOGETHER WITH ITS MYSTICAL AND SPECULATIVE ASPECT. * Faith in the Trinity served as a basis for the farther develop¬ ment of theology in the Protestant Church. Among the argu¬ ments for the existence of Gody the ontological proof was revived by Des Cartes' Most doctrinal writers of this period, however, made 334 Fourth Period. The Age of Symbolism. the historical fact of a divine revelation to man the starting point of their systems, and thus necessarily presupposed the metaphysical existence of God.3 They indulged more freely in definitions respect¬ ing his attributes, adopting for the most part the scholastic method of investigation.53 But the doctrine of the Trinity in particular was further carried out both by systematic and argumentative theolo¬ gians, and by theosophic mystics. The theology of the schools, (which even went so far as to make salvation dependent upon dog¬ matic definitions),4 made a distinction between the relation in which the divine persons stand to each other (opera ad intra), and the rela¬ tion in which they stand to the world and to mankind (opera ad extra), which were again variously subdivided.5 On the other hand, the mystics endeavoured to fathom the depths of the mystery, but in doing this frequently confounded theology with natural philoso¬ phy.6 1 Cartesii Meditatt. de Prima Philos, in quibus Dei Existentia et Animae humanae a Corpore Distinctio demonstratur. Amst., 1641, 4 (1654.) — Principia Philosophise, Amst. 1650, 4, Lib. i. c. 14 : Considerans deinde inter diversas ideas, quas apnd se habet [mens], nnam esse entis summe intel- ligentis, summe potentis et summe perfecti, quae omnium longe praecipua est, agnoscit in ipsa existentiam non possibilem et contingentem tantum, quem- admodum in ideis aliarum omnium rerum, quas distincte percipit, sed om- nino necessariam et seternam. Atque ut ex eo, quod, exempli causa, percipiat in idea trianguli necessario contineri, tres ejus angulos aequales esse duobus rectis, plane sibi persuadet, triangulum tres angulos habere aequales duobus rectis, ita ex eo solo, quod percipiat existentiam necessariam et aeternam in entis summe perfecti idea contineri, plane concludere debet, ens summe perfectum existere. (As regards the question whether God may be com¬ prehended, or not, Des Cartes appropriately distinguished between compre- hendere Deurn, and intelligere. The former is denied to us, the latter alone is permitted, 1. c. c. 19.) 2 Melanctkon speaks of the consciousness of God implanted in man ; see his Locus de Deo (Corpus Reform, xxi. p. 107), and the passages cited by Heppe , p. 261, sq. \e. g. in his Comm, on Romans, i. 19: Divinitas ejus et seterna potentia, i. e ., quod sit Deus aeternus, potens, sapiens, justus, bonus, puniens injustos, exaudiens et adjuvans justos, haec, inquam, agnoscit mens, intuens opificium mundi. In his De Anima, he says, that the works of the visible creation would not lead men to a knowledge of God, nisi prius fulge- rent in mentibus nostris multae notitise, distinctio unitatis et multitudinis, distinctio naturae sapientis et bonae. Imo etiam aliquam Dei notitiam inter has fulgere in nobis oportet, ut ad earn accommodari signa possint.] Luthe * speaks in the same way, ibid. p. 264, sq. [The knowledge of God, he says, in his Commentary on Romans, i. 19, is implanted in the heart of man, etc. Calvin , also in his Institutes, strongly asserted this implanted knowledge of deity ; and this was generally held by the Reformed divines : see Schweizer , Glaubenslehre, i. ; and Heppe, Dogmatik der evang.-Reform. Kirche, 1861, § 263. Systematic Development. 835 p. 37, s cipua Fidei Capita, Lips., 1749. (This work enjoyed at the ume a great celebrity.) 378 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Peter Peusch (born 1603, died 1757) : Introductio in Theol. revelatam. J. E . Schubert ( born 1 71 7, died 1774): Introductio in Theol. rev. Jen., 1749, 8, and Institutiones theol. dogm., 1749, 1753, 8. Siegmund Jacob Baumgarten (born 1705, died 1757) : Theses. Theol. seu Elementa Doc- trinae sanctions ad Duct. Breviarii J. A. Freylinghausen , Hal., 1746, ’50, ’67, 8vo. — Evangelische Glaubenslehre mit Einleitung von Semler , Halle, 1759, ’60, iii. 4. On the great influence which Baumgarten exerted upon his age, see Tholuck , ii. p. 12. — Several Calvinistic theologians also followed the method of Wolf, more or less closely, such as Daniel Wyttenbach of Berne (born 1706, died 1779, as a professor in Marburg) : Tentamen Theol. Dogm. Methodo scientifica pertractatae, Bern., 1741, 42, iii. 8. Francof. a. M., 1747, iv. 8. John Frederic Stupfer, of Berne (died 1775): Institutiones Theol. Polemicae, Tur., 1743-47, v. 8. Grundlegung zur wahren Relig. (a popular treatise), Ziir., 1746-53, xii. 8. J. Chr. Beck , of Basle (born 1711, died 1785) : Fundamenta Theol. Naturalis et Revelatse, Bas., 1757. (Comp, the Prolegomena to this work ; in which the author expressly recommends the handling of natural religion as preparatory to that of revealed religion, pp. 25, 26) ; Synopsis Institutionum universae theologiae, 1765; and Samuel Endemann (born 1727, died 1789, as a professor in Marburg) : Institutiones Theol. Dogmat. T. I. H., Hanov., 1777, 8. § 275. INFLUENCE OF DEISM AND NATURALISM. RATIONALIZINO ATTEMPTS. Lerminier , De l’lnfluence de la Philosophie du 18° Siecle, Paris, 1833, Leipz., 1835. Vil- lemain , Cours de Litterature Franfaise; Tableau du 18° Siecle, Paris, 1838, Tom. ii. p. 222, ss. Henke , Kirchengeschichte, vol. vi. edited by Vater. Staudlin, Geschichte des Rationalismus und Supranaturalismus, Gott., 1826, p. 119, ss. Amand Saintes , Histoire Critique du rationalisme en Allemagne, Paris et Leips., 1841 ; in German t >y G. G. Picker , Lpz., 1847. *Schlosser, Geschichte des 18 Jahrhunderts, vol. i. p. 447 ; ii. p. 443, ss. Hagenbach , Gesch. des 18 und 19 Jahrb. 2te Ausg., Lpz., 1848. Comp. § 238. [ Pusey , ubi supra. John Leland , Deistical Writers, 2, 1754, new ed. 1837. G. V. Leckler , Gesch. des englischen Deismus, Stuttg., 1851. W. Van Mil- dert , Rise and Progress of Infidelity (Boyle Lectures, 1802-4), 2 vols., Oxf., 1838. Mark Pattison, Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, in Essays and Reviews, 1860, pp. 279-362.] While natural religion and theology, in a strict and sometimes pedantic scientific form, was thus in Germany retained within its proper limits, and made honorably subservient to revelation, the principles of Deism and Naturalism, developed in the preceding period, gained numerous adherents in England and France,1 and soon threatened to make their appearance also in Germany.3 Dur¬ ing the second half of the eighteenth century, the most powerful attacks upon positive Christianity were made by the anonymous author of the Wolfenbuttelsche Fragmente (i. e. fragments of Wol- fenhiittel),3 which gave rise to fundamental controversies as to the § 275. Deism and Naturalism. 379 rights of reason in matters of faith.4 The spirit of the age, in¬ fluenced as it was by Frederic the Great , King of Prussia,6 also contributed to the spread of deistic tendencies, especially among the higher classes. Not only the heroes of literature, during the eigh¬ teenth century,0 but some ministers of the church, endeavored grad¬ ually to introduce such principles among the educated, and even among the people.7 [“ The more earnest character of English Deism at length passed over, even among the deists themselves, into the shallow frivolities of French naturalism, materialism, and atheism, and into the destructive tendencies of Voltaire and the Encyclope¬ dists, whose influence reached Germany. The Wolfenbtittel Frag¬ ments were the German product of the energetic character of English Deism ; and in these and kindred controversies, carried on by Lessing , with all the power of his soul, the German mind al¬ ready showed, that it was able to grapple with the boldest doubts, and that it could assume no other than a critical relation to the contents of revelation.” Baur} p. 347.] 1 Comp. § 238, and Lechleds Geschichte des Deismus. To the number of those English deists (some of whom, as Wools ton, Tindal , and Chubb , come over into the present period), whose names have been already men¬ tioned, may be added Viscount Bolingbroke and David Hume. [ Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbrolce, “the last of the deists,” b. 1678, Secretary of War, 1704-7, of State, 1710-15, impeached for becoming Secretary to Charles Stewart, d. 1751. Letters in the Use and Study of History, first publ. in The Craftsman, 1725. Life b y .Goldsmith, 1809; by G. W. Cooke , 2 vols., 1835. Warburton’s Letters to Hurd, and View of Bolingbroke’s Philos., 1754-5. LelanJ’s Deistical Writers, i. 371 to the end, and ii. to p. 350. Works, 5, 4to, 1754; 8, 8vo, 1809; Correspondence, 2, 4to, 1798, 4, 8vo. — David Hume, b. 1 71 1, d. 1787, Treatise of Human Nature, 1737 ; Essays, 1741 ; Philos. Essays, 1748 (a new edition of the Treatise) ; Princi¬ ples of Morals, 1751 ; Polit. Disc., 1752 ; Natural Hist, of Religion, 1755 ;' Hist, of England, 1754-62. Philosophical Works, Edinb., 4 vols., 1826, Boston, 1854. Posthumous, Dialogue concerning Natural Relig., 1779 ; Essays on Suicide, 1783. Comp. Mackintosh and Stewart, Diss. on Ethical Philos, prefixed to Encyc. Britan., and in their respective works ; Cousin’s Hist, of Mod. Philos., etc. Hume's Essays on Miracles were answered by Geo. Campbell , Leland in his Deistical Writer, Paley, Douglas, and many others. The Presb. General Assembly, 1775, condemned his writings and threatened excommunication. Life and Correspondence, edited by T. H. Hurton, 2, 8vo., Edinb., 1847.] Bolingbroke may be said to form the tran¬ sition to the frivolous naturalism and gross materialism of the French phil¬ osophers, whose principles were set forth in the Systemede la Nature (1740), in -the works of Condillac (died 1780), La Mettrie (died 1751), Helvetius (died 1771), Voltaire (died 1778), and in those of the so called Encyclope¬ dists (Encyclopedic, ou Dictionnaire Universel, etc., 1751), d? Alembert (died 1783), and Diderot (died 1784). Jean Jacques Bousseau (died 1778 : — 380 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Emile, ou Confessions d’un Yicaire Savoyen) differed from these as to his personal character and tendency, hut was also opposed to positive religion. — For a comparison instituted between the English and French deists, see Henke, 1. c. § 10. At all events, the more profound English philosophers exerted a far more considerable influence upon the learned men of Germany, than the Frenchmen, whose writings met with greater success among the laymen. Only the Protestant Rousseau awakened German sympathies. Comp. Tholuclc , ii. p. 33. 8 It is a remarkable circumstance, which, however, admits of a satisfac¬ tory explanation, that even some of the German mystics adopted deistic principles, e. g. John Conrad Dippel , sureiamed the Christian Democritus (died 1734), and J. Chr. Edelmann (born 1698, died 1767). The latter, after having been for a short time connected with the Illuminati, followed in the steps of Knutzen (comp. Henke, § 23, 6). Concerning the history of his life, and his work (Moses mit aufgedecktem Angesicht, Freib., 1740, ii. 8), see J. H. Pratje , Historische Nachricht von Edelmann, Hamb., 1785, and W. Elster , Erinnerungen an J. C. Edelmann, Clausth., 1839. — Chr. Tob. Damm (born 1699, died 1778), a philologist, wrote (1765) a work upon the ISTew Testament (under royal sanction), founded on deistic principles, and reduced the religion of Christ to mere natural religion in his works : Ueber den historischen Glauben, 1772, ii., and Ueber die Religion, 1773. — The works of the English deists were also translated into German, and welcomed with eagerness by numbers. See the Bekenntnisse of Laukhard , quoted by Lechler , p. 451 ; Tholuck , ii. p. 31. A catalogue of the most impor¬ tant deistic writings is given by Eaumgarten , Geschichte der Religionspar- teien, p. 129. 3 C. E. Lessing published a series of treatises, containing essays and no¬ tices, under the title : “ Beitrage zur Geschichte der Litteratur, aus den Schatzen der herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbuttel.” The third of these treatises appeared 1774, under the title : Fragment eines Ungenannten, von Duldung der Deisten. (A fragment concerning the toleration of the deists, composed by an anonymous writer.) The fourth treatise, which was pub¬ lished 1777, contained five “fragmente” — viz. 1. Yon der Yerschreiung der Vernunft auf den Kanzeln. (Concerning the denunciation of reason from the pulpit.) 2. Uninoglichkeit einer Offenbarung, die alle Menschen auf eine gegrtindete Art glauben konnten. (The impossibility of a revelation on which all men can found a reasonable belief.) 3. Durchgang der Israel- iten durchs rothe Meer. (The passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea.) 4. Dass die Bucher des Alten Testaments nicht geschrieben worden, eine Religion zu offenbaren. (A proof that the Old Test. Scriptures were not written in order to reveal a particular religion.) 5. Ueber die Aufer- stehungsgeschichte. (Concerning the history of Christ’s resurrection.) Last of all was published (1778) the boldest work: Yon dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jtinger, noch ein Fragment des Wolfenbuttler Ungenannten. (Con¬ cerning the object of Christ and his disciples, another fragment published by the anonymous Wolfenbtittel writer.) After Lessing’s death, C. A. E. Schmidt (who was said to be a layman) published other works by that anonymous writer (they referred for the most part to the Old Test.). It is § 275. Deism and Naturalism. 381 (now decided that Lessing was not the author of these works. They are generally ascribed to H. S. Beimarus (born 1694 in Hamburgh, died 1768, who wrote a system of natural religion.) For further particulars as to the authorship, see Illgen's historische Zeitschrift, 1839, part 4, p. 97, ss. In reply Lachmann , in vol. xii. of Lessing’s works : Guhrauer , Bodin’s Hepta- plomeres, Berlin, 1841, p. 257, sq. 4 Controversy between Lessing and Gotze, pastor primarius in Hamburg. * — Nathan der Weise (1679.) — He further published Erziehung des Men- schengeschlechts, 1780 : on the question, whether this was on the basis of a work by Thcer , see Illgen's Zeitschrift, 1839. — In the year 1784, appeared his : Theologischer Nachlass (Posthumous writings.) As regards the rela¬ tion in which Lessing stood to Christianity, see Twesten , Dogmatik, i p. 19. Bohr , kleine theologische Schriften, 1841, p. 158, ss. Karl Schwarz , Les¬ sing als Theologe, Halle, 1854. [His Education of the Human Pace is translated in part, in Hedge's Prose Writers of Germany, Phil., 1858, pp. 91-5. On Nathan the Wise, see Jeffrey , in Edinb. Review, vol. 8. Retro¬ spective Review, 10.] Wackernagel , Lessing’s Nathan der Weise, in Gelzer s Mon. Bl. vi. 4. [ A . W. JBohtz , Protestanti sinus und Nathan der Weise, Gotting., 1854.] 6 On the stay which Voltaire made at the Prussian court, and the literary labors of Frederic II., see A . F. Bits' king, Character Friedrich II., Halle, 1788. Breuss , Friedrich der Grosse. 5. voll. Berlin, 1833, 34. 6 “The ‘ Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothekj edited by Nicolai , which during the first period of its existence (it was founded 1765) enjoyed unlimited au~ thority in the literary world , combated the received faith of the church in an insidious , hypocritical manner , and denounced everything which was above its own prosaic views of religion and morals , as superstition or Jesuitism Hase , Church History, p. 539. Deistic tendencies were furthered and spread in families, as well as in schools, by the Philanthropinism of Basedow (born 1723, died 1790); Salzmann (born 1744, died 1811); and Campe (born 1746, died 1818). On Basedow’s work, Philalethie, Altona, 1764, see Heinrich , p. 467, ss. Among the people the interest for systematic theology had considerably diminished. A calculating system of expediency deprived life of all its poetry, and reduced religion to a mere code of morals, useful for our civil duties. Among the pious part of the people, C. F. Gillert (1715-69) continued to enjoy great authority; his views of Christianity, though didactic and prolix, were distinguished by depth of feeling. Nor had KlopstocBs Messiah (1748), which had once been received with eager¬ ness, fallen into oblivion. On the other hand, the works of Wieland con¬ tributed to the spread of a refined freethinking, as well as of French frivolity, among the German people. Baumgarten-Crusius , Compendium i. p. 445, note k, shows with great acuteness the connection existing between that sen¬ timentality, which was intended to serve as a substitute for true religious feelings, and deistic tendencies. (On Lessing, see above, note 4 ; on Herder, compare § 281.) — Some attempts were also made to form societies on the basis of deistic principles. Such were the “Illuminati” founded by Weis- haupt , in the year 1777 : the “Freunde der Aufklarung” (friends A en¬ lightenment) in Berlin, 1783 ; see TholucFs lilerarischer Anzeiger, 1830, 382 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. No. 8 ; and Bahrdt's Gessellschaft der XXII. (Bahrdt’s Society of the XXII.), comp. TholucJc's vermischte Schriften, ii. p. 115. 7 The most conspicuous among them was C. F. Bahrdt (born 1741, died 1792) ; comp, his Autobiography, Berlin, 1790, ss. In his work, Versuch eines biblischen Systems der Dogmatik. Gotha und Leipzig, 1769, 70, Frankf. und Leipz., 1771, 2 voll. (see Heinrich , p. 469, ss.), he appeared to side with the advocates of orthodoxy : but in his writings, composed in a later period of his life, such as his Glaubensbekenntniss (1770. — Confession of faith), his Briefe fiber die Bibel im Volkston (1782. — Popular letters on the Bible), his Plan und Zweck Jesu (1784. — The plan and object of Christ), and some others, he endeavored to undermine all positive religion. — Several other theological writers of the present age contributed to the spread of Deism, or, at least, of indifference in religious matters, and of a superficial rational¬ ism, e. g. J. A. Eberhard (formerly pastor in Charlottenburg, afterwards a professor, of theology in Halle, died 1809), who wrote the Neue Apologie des Socrates, ii. vol., Berlin, 1776, 78 ; G. S. Steinbart (professor of theology in Francfort on the Oder, died 1809), Eudamonistisches System der reinen Philosophic, oder Gliickseligkeitslehre des Christenthums, fur die Bedfirf- nisse seiner aufgeklarten Landsleute und Anderer, die nacli Weisheit fragen, eingerichtet, Ziill., 1778, 80, 86, comp. Heinrich, p. 488, ss.) ; W. A. Teller (prebendary in Berlin, died 1804), who in his Dictionary (first published in Berlin, 1772), tried to correct traditional notions, partly with good sense, but in part in a superficial vein. — Several diluted and tame translations of the Bible also helped forward this alleged illumination ; these had a worthy forerunner in the somewhat older Wertheim version of 1735. Sermons on nature, and morality, and agriculture, and the cow-pox, showing a total lack of under¬ standing about the object of Christian worship, and Christian festivals, helped on the matter ; as did also Dietrich’s and Teller’s so-called improve¬ ments in hymn-books, which only made them worse. And all this was to illustrate the utility of the office of the preacher ! § 276. EFFORTS OF APOLOGETICAL WRITERS. CHANGES IN THE MODE OF TREATING THEOLOGY. MODERN COMPENDIUMS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. # The attacks of the Deists gave rise to numerous refutations and Antideistica.1 But it soon became evident that the advocates of positive Christianity were not agreed as to the best mode of oper¬ ation ; in the general obscurity it was found increasingly difficult to distinguish friends from foes.2 Many of the best and ablest men willingly abandoned what they considered the mere outworks, in order to save the citadel itself ; nor was it without some reason that they expected to advance the cause of the u religion of Jesus, ” thus fallen into disrepute among the educated, by presenting its truths in a clearer and more tasteful form, and by adapting them • § 276. Apolegetical Writers. 383 to the wants of the age.8 It was generally admitted that the old state of things could not continue ; from the commencement of the eighteenth century theologians exerted themselves to give a new im¬ pulse to their science. The critical examination of the Bible was promoted by more correct information concerning the East, and more profound classical studies ; the history of the Scripture-text was cleared up by the critical investigations of Mill , Wett stein, Ben- gel, and others,4 and the history of the Canon made the subject of new researches. In this respect the labors of Michaelis ,5 Ernesti ,l and Semler ,7 may be said to introduce a new period. Chiefly in consequence of the labors of Mosheim , church history ceased to be merely the servant of party purposes ; he gave the example of a firm adherence to orthodoxy, united with impartiality in judging of heretical doctrines.8 Thus, the works on systematic theology composed by J. B. Michaelis ,p J. B. Heilmann ,10 G. T. Zaclia- r ice, 11 G. F. Seiler ,12 J. Oh. Doederlein ,13 S. F. N. Morus ,14 and others, bore the impression of such progress, while their authors still endeavoured to preserve, as far as possible, the purity of evangelical doctrine. As regards this last point, the principles of W. A. Teller ,15 E. J. Banov,™ J. F. Gruner ,17 J. G. R. Ecker - mann,18 and C. Pli. Henke,™ were less rigid : in their writings they manifested a growing desire to adopt neological tendencies. Among the theologians of the Reformed Church, Stosch,'20 continued a faith¬ ful advocate of the former system of orthodoxy, while Mursinna 26 gave in his adhesion with some caveats, to the modern illumina¬ tion. 1 Among the followers of Wolf, Stiehritz , professor of philosophy in Halle, in opposition to the deists, and in defence of the principles of his master, wrote his : “ Beweis fur die Wirklichkeit einer Offenbarung wider die Natu- ralisten, nebst einer Widerlegung derer, welche dem Wolfischen System eine Beforderung der Naturalisterei beimessen.” Halle, 1746. ( Thor - schmid , Freidenkerbibliothek, ii. p. 755 ss., Lechler , p. 449). After the example of Pfaff, chancellor in the university of Halle, (who published Aka- demische Reden liber den Entwurf der theologiae antideisticse, 1759) special lectures were delivered in order to refute the deists, (see Lechler , u. s., Tho~ luck , Yerraischte Schriften, ii. p. 25). On the apologetical writings of this period, see Tlioluck , i., 150 ss. Among the English apologists we may mention ; Lardner (The Credibility of the Gospel History, London, 1741-62 xii.), Addison , Newton , Berkeley , etc. [Joseph Addison, b. 1672, d. 1719 : On the Evidences of the Christian Religion, 1730 ; Complete Works, ed. G. W. Greene, New York, 6 vols., 1854. Thomas Newton , Bishop of Bristol,, b. 1704, d. 1782: works, 6 vols., 1787 ; Dissertation on Prophecies, 2 vols., 10th ed., Lond., 1804. — George Berkeley, b. 1684, d. 175S, Bishop of Cloyne ; Principles of Human Knowledge, 1710 ; Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, 1713; Proposal for converting Savage Americans to Eb ris.ti&n i ty, 384 Fif^h Period. The Age of Criticism. 1725; The Analyst, addressed to an Infidel Mathematician [Dr. Halley], 1735; Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher, 1732 ; Account of his Life, and Strictures on^his Works, 1776 ; Whole Works, 2, 4to., 1784 ; by G. N. Wright , 2 vols., 1843. His defence of Christianity against the atheist was on the basis of his idealistic philosophic theory. On him see, further, North Am. Rev., Jan., 1855; Brownson’s Quarterly, i. ; Christ. Exam. (Bowen), xxiv. ; Brit. Qu. Rev., July, 1857 ; Christian Review, April, 1861. Joseph Butler , Bishop of Durham, b. 1692, d. 1752. When nineteen years of age he corresponded with Dr. Samuel Clarke on the Principles of his Demonstration of the Being of God. Fifteen Sermons preached at the Rolls Chapel, 1726 ; his great work, The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Re¬ vealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, was published in 1736, and has ever since been esteemed the chief work in the deistic controversy, unanswerable on the grounds then assumed in common. His works, best ed. by Bishop Halifax, 2 vols., 1849, reprinted New York. On the numerous editions of the Analogy see, Allibone , Diet, of Authors, i. 314. — In England and America, the vulgar infidelity was represented by Thos. Paine , b. 1737, d. 1809 : Common Sense, 1791; Rights of Man, 1792; Age of Reason, 1792-5. Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, (b. 1737, d. 1816), An Apol¬ ogy for the Bible in a Series of Letters addressed to Thos. Paine, 2d ed., Lond., 1796. Chs. Leslie, (nonjuror, d. 1722), Short and Easy Method with Deists: Works, 7, 8vo., Oxf., 1832. William Paley, b. 1743, d. 1805: Natural Theology ; View of the Evidences ; Horse Paulinse ; Moral and Polit¬ ical Philosoph}7, etc. Complete Works, 4, 8vo., Lond., 1838, and often. Philip Skelton , b. 1707, d. 1787 ; Complete Works, Lond., 6 vols., 1624 (vol. 4, Opliiomaclies, or Deism Revealed, in Eight Dialogues ; vol. 5, Letter to the Author of the Divine Analogy, and the Minute Philosopher). William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, b. 1698, d. 1 7 79. Works, 12 vols., Lond., 1811; The Divine Legation of Moses (vol. 1 and 2, 5th ed., 1766; 3, 4 and 5, 4th ed., 1765 ; vol. 6, supplement, 1768 (the 7th and 8th Books have never been published); the tenth ed., 3 vols., 1846. On the Warburtonian controversy, see Quart. Review, vol. 2, p. 401. Julian, a Disc, on the Earth¬ quake, etc., Lond., 1750 ; Principles of Nat. and Rev. Religion (Werke, vol. 9). Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian [Bp. Hurd], Lond., 178'9. Letter from a late eminent Prelate [Warburton] and one of his Friends [Hurd], 3d ed., 1809. Richard Hurd , Bishop of Worcester, b. 1720, d. 1808 ; works, 8 vols., 8vo., Lond., 1811. Introduction to the Study of Pro¬ phecies — the Warburtonian Lectures for 1772. (In the same series are pub¬ lished works, chiefly on the Prophecies, by Samuel Halifax, 1776; Lewis Bagot , 1780 ; Robert Hares , 1805 ; Ed. Pearson , 1807—11 ; John Davison , 1825, etc.) Other earlier works in this controversy, were Bp. Conybeare' s Defence of Revealed Religion, 1732 ; Delaney's Revelation Examined, 3 vols., 1735 ; Ellis's Knowledge of Divine Things, 1743 ; Smith’s (Elisha), Cure of Deism, 2 vols., 1736, etc.] Among the German apologists wefe, Haller, (Briefe tlber die wichtigsten Wahrheiten der Offenbarung, Bern, 1772) ; Lilienthal (gute Sache der Offenbarung, Konigsb. 1750-82) ; Less, [Authen¬ ticity of the New Test., from the German, by Robert Kingdon , Lond., 1804] ; Hosselt , etc. The “ Wolfenbuttel Fragments” also gave rise to numerous § 276. Apologetical Writers. 385 controversial writings (comp, the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, voll. 30 ano 40), the best of which were composed by Doderlein , Less, Mlchaelis , Barthels and Sender . 2 See Skelton [Philip, see previous note] offenbare Deisterei, 1756, ii. pref., quoted by Tholuck, i., p. 21 : “ Our modern apologists too frequently defend Christianity on deistic principles, and too readily represent their own articles of faith in a new dress ; they expect that such a course of proceed¬ ing will be advantageous to their cause.” In proof of this the example of John Taylor might be adduced [referring to Taylor of Norwich, b. 1694, d. 1762, author of the work on Original Sin, 1738, etc]. Comp. Ernesti, Neue theologische Bibliothek, i., p. 115. Tholuck, p. 30. 8 Thus Jerusalem, Spalding , Zollikoffer, and others, whose honest inten¬ tions none can reasonably doubt. See Jerusalem, Betrachtungen liber die vornehmsten Wahrheiten der Religion, 1768, ii., 5th edit., 1773-92. Second series, 2 vols., 1793. Spalding, J. J. (died 1804), Gedanken liber den Werth der Geftihle im Christenthum, 1761 (1784) ; Ueber die Nutzbarkeit des Predigtamtes, 1775; Yertraute Briefe, die Religion betreffend, 1788. G. J. Zollikoffer wrote works of a homiletic and devotional character. A. W. Sack belonged to the same class of writers. The theory of accom¬ modation adopted by these men is fairly estimated by Steffens : Was ich er- lebte, i., p. 258 ss. 4 Compare the Introductions to the New Testament. How much sacred criticism was brought into connection with neological tendencies, may be seen in the case of Wettstein ; see Hagenbach, in Illgens Zeitschrift, 1839, part 1. But the necessity of a critical study of Scripture was no less felt by the advocates of the opposite principle, e. g. Hengel, who strenuously applied himself to it in the service of the Lord. 6 John David Michaelis was born 1 7 1 6, and died 1791. Comp. Tholuck i. p. 130. Of his disciples, Eichhorn is best known as the most eminent of the rationalistic theologians of the present period. Though Michaelis seemed for a time to have adopted the principles of unbiassed criticism and exegesis, he soon after began to adapt his views to the spirit of the age. He aiso endeavoured to explain the miracles of Christ in a natural manner. (Introduction to New Test., transl. from the 4th ed., by Herbert Marsh [Bp. Peterborough], 4 vols., in 6, Lond., 1802. Bp. Marsh was attacked in the British Critic, first series, iii. 601-4, iv. 46 sq., 170 sq. ; also by Dr. Ran¬ dolph, Remarks, etc., to which he replied in Letters. Michaelis' s Comment¬ aries on Laws of Moses, transl. by Alex . Smith, 4 vols., Lond., 1814 : his Introd. Lectures to Sacred Books of New Test, were translated as early as 1780.] 8 John August Ernesti was born 1707, and died 1781. He wrote: In- stitutio interprets N. Test., Lips., 1761, ed. Ammon., 1792, 1809, 8. “ With the name of this theologian is connected the transition to more liberal princi¬ ples in the interpretation of Holy Writ Klausen, Hermeneutik, p. 291. On the merits of his work (which were not very great) see Klausen, 1. c., p. 294, [Principles of Bibl. Interpretation, transl. by O. A. Terrot, Bp. of Scot¬ tish Episc. Chh., new ed., 1845 ; Elements of Interp., by Moses Stuart , Andov., 3d. ed., 1827.] 386 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 7 John Solomon Semler was born 1725, and died 1791, as professor of theology in the university of Halle. Compare his Autobiography (which takes in also the history of his times), Halle, 1781, 82, ii. voll. It was espe¬ cially Semler who, “ without forming a school of his own , may be said to have carried the torch which kindled the conflagration , the effects of which have not yet disappeared F Tholuck , ii., p. 39. Of his numerous (1 7l) writings we mention only those which have reference to our present subject: Yon freier TJntersuchung des Kanons, Halle, 1771-75. Institutio ad Doctrinam Chris^ tianam liberaliter discendam, Hall., 1774. Versuch einer freien theologi- schen Lehrart, Hall., 1777 ss. The principal points of Semler’ s theology are the distinction which he made between theology and religion (ethics), and his endeavours to represent the sacred Scriptures as having a merely local and temporary character. An account of his life and writings is given by Tholuck , ii., p. 39-83. The history of doctrines owes its origin to Semler’s introduction to Baumgarten’s Compendium of systematic theology (vol. i., § 160 8 See F. Lucke , Narratio de Joanne Laurentio Moshemio, Gott., 1837, 4. Soon after his death ecclesiastical history was, like exegesis, made subser¬ vient to the spirit of the times ( Spittler and Henke ; the pragmatic method adopted by Planck .) The history of doctrines was made use of to show the changeableness of the doctrines of Christianity. 9 Comp Theol. Dogm., Gott., 1760, ed. 2, 1784. 10 Heilmann was born 1729, and died 1764, as professor in Gottingen. He wrote : Comp. Theol. Dogm., Gott., 1761, ed. 3, 80. 11 Zachariae , was born, 1729, and died 1777, as professor of theology in the university of Kiel. He wrote : Biblische Theologie, oder TJntersuchung des biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren, Gott. u. Kiel, 1771-75. The last part was edited by Vollborth , 1786. Zachariae under¬ stood by biblical theology : “ not that theology , the substance of which is taken from Scripture, for in this sense every theological system must be biblical , but more generally a precise definition of all the doctrines treated of in sys¬ tematic theology , the correct understanding of these doctrines , in accordance with Scriptural notions , and the best proofs Heinrich, p. 515, ss. This was, accordingly, the first attempt to treat Biblical Theology, as a separate branch of theological science, independently of systematic theology. His example was followed by W. F. Hufnagel, who wrote Handbuch der biblis¬ chen Theologie, Erlangen, 1785-91, Ammon, De Wette, Baumgarten-Cru- sius and others. 12 Seiler was born 1733, and died 1807, as professor of theology in the university of Erlangen. He wrote : Theol. Dogm. Polem. c. comp, dogmat. Erl., 1774, ed. 3, 1789. 13 Doderlein was born 1714, taught at Altorf and Jena, and died 1789, as a professor in Btitzow. He wrote Institutio Theologi Christiani in capitibus religionis theoreticis nostris temporibus accommodata, ii., Alt. 1780, ’82, ’84, ’87. In the preface to this work he expressed himself as follows (quoted by Heinrich, p. 493) : “ Theologians must not now invent new doctrines, and go beyond Scripture.; neither should they rest satisfied with the labors of their predecessors, but define more precisely what they have said, make usa § 276. Apologetical Writers. 887 of modern explanations and new modes of representing certain doctrines, and have a special regard to the wants of the age. Hence they must examine tliose doctrines which are now most of all disputed, and define them the more carefully and deliberately. As regards their mode of argumentation, they must also adapt themselves to the circumstances of the times , and avoid approving of and retaining all arguments brought forward by earlier writers, which are in themselves doubtful and uncertain ; they must rather avail themselves of the great advances recently made in biblical exegesis, so as to be more prudent in the selection of the arguments by which to prove par¬ ticular doctrines ; they must not consider their number, but their internal merit, and only choose such as are clear and conclusive,” etc. 14 Morus was born 1736, and died 1792, as professor of theology in the university of Leipsic. He wrote : Epitome Theologiae Christianae, Lips., 1789, Heinrich , p. 498 ss. 15 Teller was born 1734, and died 1804 (compare § 275, note 7.) He wrote Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, 1763 ; Religion der Volkommnern, 1792. 19 E. Jacob Danov was born 1741, and died 1782, as professor of theology in the university of Jena. He wrote : Theologize dogmaticas Institut., Lib. ii., Jen., 1772, 6. The Ketzeralmanach of 1781 (Bahrdt’s) says of him : “ He wears an outside coat like a regular divine, but under it is the uniform of a free partisan.” 17 John Frederic Gruner was born 1723, and died 1778, as professor of theology in the university of Halle. Lie wrote : Institutionum Theologiae dogmaticae lib. iii., Halle, 1777, 8. “ He was a man of much originality , and historical knowledge. Ilis principal endeavour was to prove , like S 'em- ler , the later origin of the orthodox doctrines , and the many changes through which they have gone , with this difference , that Gruner , in support of his theory , had recourse to the Platonizantes , Semler to the Judaizantes .” Tlioluck , 1. c., p. 106. Comp. Heinrich , p. 482. The main idea pervading the whole book is, that the principal doctrines of Christianity had been cor¬ rupted as early as the close of the first century, by the influence of the Pla¬ tonic and Oriental philosophy of the Alexandrian school. 18 J. Caspar Rudolph Eckermann was born 1754, and died 1836, as pro¬ fessor of theology in the university of Kiel. Among his works were : Com¬ pendium Theologiae Christianae theoret. bibl. histor., 1791; Handbuch fur das systematische Studium der christlichen Glaubenslehre, 1801, 3, iv. voll. 19 Conrad Philip Henke was born 1752, and died 1809, as professor of theology in the university of Helmstadt, and abbot of Michaelstein. He wrote: Lineamenta Institutt. Fidei Christ, histor. critic., Helmst., 1793, ed. 2, 95. In the preface to this work he enumerates three kinds of superstition which he must combat : 1. Christolatry ; 2. Bibliolatry ; 3. Onomatolatry ; at the same time he speaks of Morus and Doederlein in terms expressive of high esteem. 20 Eberhard Henry Daniel Stosch was born 1716, and died 1781, as professor of theology in the university of Frankfort on Oder. He wrote : Introductio in 388 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Theologiam dogmaticam., Franc, ad Viadr. 1788; Institut. Theologiae Dog- maticse, ibid., 1779, 8. Comp. Heinrich , p. 551. 21 Samuel Mursinna was born 1717, and died 1795, as professor of theol¬ ogy in the university of Halle. He wrote : Compendium Theologise Dog¬ matics, Halle, 1777, 8. Comp. Heinrich , p. 549 : “ He made diligent use of the labors of modern theologians, as far as they have respect to a more correct definition of doctrines ; nor did he overlook the opinions of earlier divines, but made mention of them, as well as stated the arguments commonly adduced in their support ; nevertheless he did not always pronounce his own judgment concerning their merit, but left it to his readers to choose between the old and the new? Barhdt, in his Ketzeralmanach, calls him the “ staff- quartermaster of the reformed partisan-corps.” Compendiums of systematic theology, written in a popular style, were published by Less (1779, 89), and Griesbach (1786, 89), who also endeavored to combine the old with the new. § 277. «■* REACTION, edict of religion, orthodox pietism. To oppose a barrier to the further spread of this fast-growing scepticism, was a bold enterprise, as was clearly proved by the fail¬ ure of the two measures resorted to by the King of Prussia — viz., the publication of an Edict of Religion in the year 1788, and the institution of an ecclesiastical tribunal.1 It was necessary that the opposing elements should develop their results through an internal process. The pietistic tendency of the school of Halle (originally founded by Spener, Francke, and others), had indeed in its second stadium lost much of its earlier vigor, and degenerated into a dead formalism.2 But in opposition to the demonstrative as well as negative tendency of Rationalism, two theologians of Wirtemberg, J. A. Bengelf and F. Ch. Oetingerf gave a new direction to theology, by introducing into it not only positive, but also pietistic and mys¬ tical elements ; Ch. A. Crusiusf followed their example. Societies for practical as well as philosophical purposes were founded,6 in order to keep alive positive religion among the people. Thus, in the minds of many, the faith of their forefathers was preserved not only as a dead legacy, but assumed here and there, for the most part in the form of Pietism, depth and independence, in contrast with the superficial tendencies of the age.7 [“ Pietism let dogmas stand in their external form, believing that it could have religion and Christianity, if not without dogmas, yet without a system of dogmas in this particular form. By emphasizing the internal expe¬ rience of religion, its subjective worth .... pietism itself made the transition to another standpoint, in which the individual (subject), not only lays claims to his own subjective rights, but is also under § 277. Orthodox Pietism. 389 the power of a principle which must carry him still further onward Baur , p. 345.] 1 This edict was issued (July 9th) by Frederic William II., at the instiga' tion of Wollner , one of the king’s counsellors ; see Acten, Urkunden und Nachrichten zur neuesten Kirchengeschiclite, vol. i. p. 461, ss. By another edict theological works were subjected to the censorship of persons appointed by the king. In addition, a committee (consisting of Hermes , Hillmer , and Woltersdorf ), were appointed to visit and examine the clergy. The pro¬ ceedings of this committee, the trial of pastor Schulz, in Gielsdorf (1791), and the titles of all the works published for and against the edict, are given in HenJce , Beurtheilung aller Schriften, welche durch das preussische Re- ligions-Edict veranlasst sind, Kiel, 1793. Respecting the ill success of those measures Hermes (in Halle) expressed himself as follows : “ We are looked upon as persons of consequence, nevertheless we have not yet succeeded in re¬ moving one single neological village pastor from office ; so all works against us.” See Tlioluck , ii. p. 126, ss. 3 See Sender’s Biography, i. p. 48, ss. — “ Many pious and otherwise re¬ spectable men who belonged to the school of Halle in the second generation, displayed a weak-minded and painful timidity .” Tholuck, ii. p. 8. The conduct of the Halle pietists in the Wolfian controversy also brought the whole tendency into disrepute. 3 Bengel was born 1687, was at first tutor in a monastery, then pastor, and died 1752 as a prelate and doctor of theology in Stuttgart. See J. Ch. F. Burk, Dr. J. A. Bengel’s Leben und "Wirken, Stuttgart, 1832. — His labors for the promotion of the critical knowledge of the Bible are deserv¬ ing of special notice. He is well known as an advocate of Millennarianism. Concerning his doctrinal opinions, which were founded on his exegetical studies, see Burk , p. 353, ss. Comp, the article by Hartmann, in Herzog’s Realencyclopadie. [Burk's Life of Bengel, transl. by B. F. Walker, Bond., 1837. His Gnomon of New Test., transl. by A. R. Fausset, and others, 8 vols., Edinb., 4th ed., 1860 ; by C. T. Lewis and M. R. Vincent, vol. i. Phil., 1860. In his work on the Apocalypse, his Ordo Temporum (1741), and his Age of the World, 1746, he assigned a. d. 1837 as the probable date of Christ’s second coming.] 4 Oetinger was born 1702, and died 1782, as prelate of the monastery Murrhard. He wrote : Theologia ex Idea Vitae deducta, in 6 locos redacta, quorum quilibet 1. secundum sensum communem, 2. sec. mysteria scripturae, 3. sec. formulas theticas nova et experimentali methodo pertractatur. Francof. et Lips., 1765, 8. In this work he endeavored to develop the entire system of faith in a dynamic and genetic method from the idea of life. In opposition to the mathematical method of Wolf he observes in the preface, p. 3 : Ordo geometricus incipit ab una aliqua idea abstracta ; ordo generativus, ut in seminibus patet, incipit a toto idque per minima explicat sequabiliter, quod nos nonnisi simulacris imperfectis imitari possumus. He therefore advises theologians to ascertain first of all the sensus communis, cujus pre¬ ceptor est ipse Deus (Ps. xciv. 10) ; then to examine the doctrine of Scrip¬ ture, and to rest on it the doctrine of the church. He finds fault with the 390 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. philosophy of Wolf principally because it has converted the terms,’ life, kingdom, spirit, etc., to which Scripture attaches a definite meaning, into mere abstract ideas, and thus originated a system of false idealism which re¬ solves everything into mere symbolical phraseology. But at the same time he introduces much that is cabalistic, and refers to his work : Oeffentliches Denkmahl der Lehrtafel der Princessin Antonia, etc., Tub., 1763, which is of an entirely cabalistic character. There is in his writings a mixture of the mystical and speculative tendency of J. Bohme with the pietistic and practi¬ cal of Spener. As regards the relation in which he stood to Swedenborg, compare the following §. Comp, the translation of his Theologia ex Idea Vitae into German (Theologie aus der Idee des Lebens, etc.), by Jul. Ham- berger , Stuttg., 1852 ; and *C. A. Auberlen , Die Theosophie Fr. Chr. Oetin- ger’s nach ihren Grundlagen, ein Beitrag zur Dogmengesch. und zur Gesch. der Philos., mit Vorwort von Richard Rothe , Tubing., 1848 [1859. Oetin- ger’s Leben und Briefe, von K '. C. E. Ehmann , 1859, who also published the first complete edition of O.’s Sermons, 1852. His Biblisches Worterbuch was reviewed by Auberlen in the Studien und Kritiken, 1850. Oetinger’s Sammtliche Schriften, ed. Ehmann, 3 Bde. to I860.] 5 Crusius was a disciple of Bengel, and opposed to the philosophy of Wolf; he was born 1715, and died 1775 as professor of theology and philosophy in the university of Leipsic. He wrote : Opuscula philosophico- theologica, Lips., 1750. Die wahre Gestalt der Religion, 1754. Hypom- nemoneumata ad Theol. propheticam, Lips., 1764-71, ii. 8. Vorstellung von dem eigentlichen schriftmafsigen Plan des Reichs Gottes, Lpz., 1768, 8. Moral-th eol., Lpz., 1772, 73. Comp. Schrockh , vi. p. 106, ss., vii. p. 647, viii. p. 41, and p. 108. Ruble , vol. v. p. 589, ss. Reinhard , Gestandnisse, p. 68, ss. Wurtemann , Einleitung in das Lehrbande des Herrn Dr. Crusius, Wbg., 1757. Herzog's Realencyclopadie, iii. 192, sq. 6 Such societies were formed in Stockholm (1771), and the Hague (1785.) The Deutsche Christenthumsgesellschaft, ohne RucJcsicht auf Confession- sunterschied ( i . e. irrespective of denominational differences) was founded (1779) by J. A. Urlsperger, a Lutheran theologian. As its chief seats are named Basle, London, and Berlin ; see J. A. Urlsperger , Beschaffenheit und Zweck einer zu errichtenden deutschen Gesellschaft thatiger Beforderer reiner Lehre und wahrer Gottseligkeit, Basle, 1781. 7 See Rretschneider , die Grundlage des evangelischen Pietismus, Lpz., 1833. Binder , der Pietismus und die moderne Bildung, Stuttg., 1839. Mdr/clin , Darstellung und Kritik des modernen Pietismus, Stuttg., 1839. Comp. Dorner , in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, part i. § 278. ZINZENDORF AND THE UNITED BRETHERN. 'WESLEY AND THE METH¬ ODISTS. SWEDENBORG. In the course of the eighteenth century a new sect took its rise, which exerted a considerable influence upon the mind of the age, § 278. ZlNZENDOltF. 391 and the development of Christian life in general. It was founded in Herrnhut by Count Zinzendorf \l and is known with its branches by the name of the Society of the United Brethren .2 Though owing its origin for the most part to Pietism,3 it differed from it on several points, its object being, not so much a general reform of the church and its doctrines, as the organization of a particular Christian com¬ munity. Count Zinzendorf for himself adopted the Confessio Au- gustana as his creed, but without excluding the members of other Christian denominations.4 Nevertheless, by attaching great import¬ ance to certain doctrines, and by his mode of treating them, he imparted a novel and somewhat sentimental aspect to the old Lu¬ theran theology. The theology of Herrnhut is characterized by a spirit of ardent love to the person of the Saviour, and a hearty reli¬ ance upon his merits, but it is at the same time deeply tinged with a sensuous tendency.5 The theologians of his school, conscious of a higher vocation, endured with calmness the scorn of the world, and the censures passed upon them by learned and pious divines.6 John Wesley , the founder of Methodism , in his strict preaching of repent¬ ance was animated by a practical rather than a strict theological spirit, and exerted in his time a far greater influence upon England than upon Germany.7 More sympathy was there felt (in addition to the pietist and mystic tendencies) with the theosophic doctrines of Immanuel Swedenborg , the founder of the Church of the New J erusalem* These consisted chiefly in a peculiar mixture of ration¬ alistic and mystical ideas, and made progress in wide circles, 1 Zinzendorf was horn 1700, and died 1760. See the accounts of his life given by Spangenberg , Schrautenbach , Varnhagen von Ense (Biograph- ische Denkmale, vol. v.), and Tholuck , vermischte Schriften, i. p. 433. G. Muller , Selbstbekenntnisse merkwtirdiger Manner, vol. iii. Herder's Adrastea (Werke zur Philosophic, x. p. 61). Knapp in the Preface to his ed. of Z.’s hymns [1845.] [ Schrautenbach , Graf, von Zinz. herausg. von F. W. Kol - bing, 1851. 0. Glaubrecht , Z. in der Wetterau, 1852-3. J. F. Schroder , Z. und Herrnhut, Nordhausen, 1857. L. Bovet , Le Comte de Zinzendorf, 2 Tom. Par. 1857.] 2 The first congregation was founded a. d. 1722. Concerning the history of the society of the United Brethren, see Cranz , alte und neue Brtiderhis- torie, Barby, 1772, continued by Hegner , 1794 — 1804. Schaaf die evan- gelischen Brtidergemeinden Leipz., 1825. See the literature in Niedner’s Kirchengesch. p. 763. \John Holmes , Hist, of Unit. Brethren, 2, Lond., 1825. B. Latrobe , Hist. Account of the Moravians, transl. from the Ger¬ man, 1775 ; transl. by Crantz, 1780. E. W. Croger , Gesch. d. erneuerten Briidergemeinde, iii. Bde., 1852-4. A. Bost, Histoire ancienne et modern© de Peglise des Freres de Boheme et Moravie, 2, Paris, 1844. Benham, Menu of Jas. Hutton , (founder of English branch), 8vo., Bond., 1857.- Against them, see J. A. Bengel , Abriss der Briidergemeinde, 1751, reprinted, 1.859* 392 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. — James Henry , Sketches of Moravian Life and Character, Phil., 1855. E. de Schweinetz , Moravian Manual, Phil., 1859. — Articles in Meth. Quar¬ terly (N. Y.), 1859; Christ. Examiner (Bost.), 1859; Qu. Church Pveview, I860.] 3 Pietism at the beginning of the eighteenth century, had either degenerated into a dead formalism, or it was in part corrupted by all sorts of fanatical tendencies which attached themselves to it. It belongs to the History of the Church, rather than the History of Doctrines to give an estimate of these. See F. W. Krug , Kritische Geschichte der protest. Schwarmerei, Secterei, und der gesammten un-und widerkirchlichen Neuerungen im Grossherzog- thum Berg, Elberfeld, 1851. W. Barthold , Die Erweckten im protest. Deutschland wahrend des Ausgangs des I7n. und der ersten Halfte des 18n. Jahrhunderte (in Raumeds Taschenbuch, 1852). Gobel , Geschichte des christl. Lebens, etc., 3 Bde., 1860. 4 This (relative) indifference as regards denominational differences gave offence to many. Zinzendorf himself adopted the Confessio Augustana ; his church was also recognised (1748) by the ecclesiastical authorities of Saxony as one whose creed was allied to that of the Augsburg Confession. But some Cal- vinistic congregations, in the Siaarropa (e. g. that of Basle) did not hesitate to join the Society of the United Brethren. 5 Terms such as Bluttheologie (i. e. the theology of Christ’s Blood), W unden- Lit anei (i. e. the litany of Christ’s wounds), Wunden-Homilien (t. e. the homilies on Christ’s wounds), etc., were introduced by Zinzendorf and his followers. In their sacred hymns reference was frequently made to Christ’s blood, wounds, his pierced side, etc. ; compare the work entitled : Die altlutherische Bluttheologie in einem Auszuge aus des sel. Dr. Ahasveri Fritzschens sogenannten Himmelslust und Weltunlust, with the motto: Pasce me vulneribus, mens dulcescet. Leipzig und Gorlitz, 1750 ; from which it is evident, that similar phraseology had been employed by others previous to the time of Zinzendorf. (Ahasv. Fritzsche died a. d., 1701.) — More moderate expressions were used by Bishop A. G. Spangenberg (born 1704, died 1792) ; see his Idea Fidei Fratrum, oder kurzer Begriff der christlichen Lehre, Barby, 1779-83. [An Exposition of Christian Doctrine, etc., written by Spangenberg, with Preface by Benj. La Trobe , Lond., 1784.] With the exception of that part of his work in which he treats of their ecclesiastical constitution, there is nothing in it which had not been propounded by other evangelical theologians. 6 Among these we may mention Carpzov, in Dresden, Siegmund Jacob Baumgarten , in Halle, John Philip Fresenius, in Frankfort on the Main (1747-49), J. A. Bengel (1751), Steinmetz , abbot in the monastery of Ber¬ gen, J. G. Walch , and others. T John Wesley was born 1703, and died 1791. Comp. Southey, the life of John W., and the rise and progress of Methodism, ed. 2, Lond., 1820, ii. ; translated into German, by F. A. Krummacher , Hamb., 1828. H. Moore, the life of J. W., Lond., 1824, ii. vol. Watson , the life of John Wesley; translated into German, with a preface by Bonnet. Frankf., 1839. Bruch - hardt , vollstandige Geschichte der Methodisten in England, Nilrnb., 1795, 2 voll. Baum, Der Methodismus, Ziir., 1838. Jakoby (a preacher of § 278. ZlNZENDORF. 393 Method. Episc. church), Handbuch des Methodismus, Bremen, 1853, 2te., Aufh, 1855. [Works of Wesley, Bristol, 1771, sq ., and New York (Book Concern). T. Jackson , Hist, of Method., Bond., 1838. Isaac Taylor , Wesley and Meth., Lond. (N. Y.), 1851. J. Whitehead , Lives of J. and C. Wesley, Lond., 2 vols., 1793. J. Hampson , Mem. of Wesley, and Hist, of Meth. 3 vols., Lond., 1791. Southey's Life of Wesley, ed. by Rev. C. 0. Southey , Am. ed. by Rev. D. Curry, 2 vols., 1847 ; Life by Richard Watson ; by W. Nast (Leben und Wirken der J. W.), Cincin., 1852. Jackson’s Cen¬ tenary of Methodism. Larrabee , Wesley and his Coadjutors. Bangs' Hist, of Meth., 4 vols. Geo. Smith , Hist, of Wesleyan Methodism, 1857. Jas. Porter , Companion of Methodism, 15th thousand, 1858. * Abel Stevens , Hist, of Religious Movement of Eighteenth Century, called Methodism ; vols. 1 and 2, New York, 1858-9. — Articles in British Quarterly, 1852, 1853 ; North British, 1852 ; Kitto’s Journal, 3 ; Christ. Remembrancer, July, 1854 ; Meth. Quarterly Review in reply to Isaac Taylor’s work (by Perry), 1855, and on Wesley, April, 1858, ’59, ’60. — The theological system of Wesley- anism is represented in the works of John Fletcher and Richard Watson. John Fletcher (Flechiere) born at Nym, Switzerland, 1729, vicar of Madely, died 1785. Works, 8 vols., 1803 : (Bible Arminianism and Bible Calvinism ; Checks to Antinomianism ; Answer to Toplady, etc.) Richard Watson , Theological Institutes, 2d ed., 3 vols., Lond., 1824 ; frequently reprinted in the United States. Comp, also Wilbur Fisk (Prest. of Wesleyan Unio.) Calvinistic Controversy, new ed. New York, 1853. Meth. Qu. Rev., 1859, I860.] His fellow laborer was J. G. Whitejield (died 1770). [Works of Whitefield , 6 vols., Lond., 1771 ; comp. Lit. and Theol. Review, 6; Christ. Review, 3 ; New Englander, 3 ; North American for 1848; Tracy's Great Awakening, 1845; Abel Stevens, ubi supra.] Afterwards they separated on account of their different views concerning grace; Wesley adopted the Arminian, Whitefield retained the strict Calvinistic principles. Nor did they in all points agree with the Pietists and the United Brethren. These differences may be said to be, that the United Brethren, by a onesided presentation of the reconciliation already achieved, and of the experience of grace already attained, worked in a more quiet manner, but exposed to the danger of inactivity ; while Methodism, by constantly urging repentance, had a wholesome moral influence, though it was exposed to the peril of awakening undue terrors in its subjects, and of condemning those that were without. Both tendencies have their common root in pietism, which also reconciles these extreme tendencies. 7 Immanuel, von Swedenborg was born 1688, and died 1777 ; from the year 1743, he considered himself divinely inspired. Comp. Herder , Adrastea (vol. ix. p. 502.) His principal works are: Arcana ccelestia, Lond., 1749, ss., 8, Tom. iv, ed. Tafel , Tub., 1833. Yera Chr. Rel. complect, univ. Theol. Novae Eccles. Amst., 1771, ii. 4. In Germany (and especially in Wiirtem- berg) the cause of Swedenborg was espoused first by Oetinger (1765), and afterwards by Tafel (1838.) In modern times the doctrine of Swedenborg has been revived, and has gained adherents in France ( Oegger ) [the United States, England, etc.] For the literature compare Rheinwald, Repertorium, 1834, vol. ix. p. 217, ss. Respecting his doctrines, see Hauber , in the 394 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Tfibinger Zeitschrift, 1840, part 4 : in reply, Swedenborg’s Lebre, mit Rtick- sicht auf die Einwurfe gegen sie (in Swedenborg und seine Gegner, 3 Thl.) Stuttg., 1844. For the Literature, see Niedner , Kirch engeschichte, p. YOG. \Tofel, Leben Swedenborgs, and Urkunden, 3 Tble., 1839-’42. Ibid., Yergleicbende Darstellung der Lebrgegensatze d. Katboliken und Protest., mit den Unterscbeidungslebren Swedenborgs, Tubing., 1845, in reply to Mohler (transl. by I. H. Smithson, Lond., 1841.) Ed. Pcixten Hood, Swed., a Biography and Exposition, 1854. Aug. Clissold, Practical Nature of the Tbeol. writings of S., a Letter to the Abp. of Dublin, 1859 (be has also written many other works). Robert Hindmarsh , Rise and Progress of New Jerusalem Church, ed. by E. Madely , Lond., 1861. Hobart , Life of S., Boston, 1831. J. J. G. Wilkinson4 Biog. of S., 1849 : Popular Sketch of S.’s Phil. Works, 1847. Swedendorg’s Arcana Apocalypse, Doctrine of N. T. Church, Divine Law and Wisdom, Christian Religion, etc., transl. and published in Boston. Minutes of General Conference, 1789, sq. Geo. Bush , New Church Repository, New York, 1847, sqif and numerous works on Swedenborg.] One aspect of Swedenborgianism (the spirit-seeing), was advocated by Jung Stilling (1740-1817), who, together with J. Gasper Lavater (1741-1801) exerted himself for the preservation and promotion of the higher interests of religion among many of his contem¬ poraries, even the educated classes of society. But this mystico-theosophic tendency is not to be confounded with the mysticism of Tauler and others ; the former, floating in the * prose of the 18th century, and having passed through all its reflective processes, is very different from the mediaeval theosophic mysticism, nurtured by the poetry of the earlier periods. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius , Compendium,!. § 185. § 279. THE PHILOSOPHY OF KANT. RATIONALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM. Jiosenkranz, Gesch. der Kantischen Philosophie, Lpz., 1840. Erdmann , Die Entwick- lung der deutschen Speculation seit Kant., i., Lpz., 1848 ; comp, the next section. [Kuno Fischer , Gesch. d. neueren Phil., Bde., iii., iv., 1860, and Kant’s Leben und Lehre, 1860. J. Willm , Histoire de la Philos, allemande, 4 vols., Paris, 1847. Ar¬ ticle Kant, in New American Cyclopedia; by Wirgman in Encyclop. Londinensis ; Stapfer in Princeton Rev., iv. Cousin , Lectures on Kant, 1882, in English by Hen¬ derson, 1854. H. L. Mansel, Lecture on the Philosophy of Kant, 1860. Amand Saintes , La Yie et la Philos, de Kant, Paris, 1844.] After the indefinite philosophy of the eighteenth century had, for a long time, attempted to reduce religion to mere ethics, or at least to resolve all that is specifically Christian into general and abstract ideas of God, liberty, and immortality, with occasional reference to the current biblical doctrines, a new state of things was brought about by the rise of Kantianism , or the critical philoso¬ phy. This system gave a more definite expression to the previous desultory efforts, and, at the same time, circumscribed them in a wholesome way within the limits of a strictly scientific form. Im - § 279. Rationalism and Supernaturalism. 395 manuel Kant / after the example of Hume, subjected the human intellect to a more searching examination, and found that this fac¬ ulty, hound to time and space, is unable to fathom the depths of the Deity, can only apprehend the finite, and is therefore competent to supply an adequate rule only for our moral life. While Kant, on the one hand, thus denied to pure reason the power of making any cer¬ tain statements concerning what is divine,1 2 on the other he vindicated belief in the existence of God, liberty and immortality, by represent¬ ing them as postulates of the practical reason.3 That serious and wise man spoke of the Bible and Christianity in terms indicative of the highest reverence, and admitted that they were designed to be the medium by which the knowledge of these practical ideas was to be generally diffused among the people. Though the number of theologians was small who embraced the results of this new philoso¬ phy in a strictly scientific form,4 * such as Tieftrunk / Stdudlin ,6 (at least for a time), and Ammon ,7 it may nevertheless be said, that what is now called nationalism ,6 * as opposed to Super naturalism* had its origin in the results of the critical philosophy of Kant. The representatives of that formal belief in revelation, termed Su¬ pernaturalism, which differs from the earlier forms of orthodoxy, were chiefly Storr ,10 * and Reinhard ;17 the representatives of Ration¬ alism, were Wegscheider ,12 Paulus ,13 and Rohr .14 And lastly, there were some, such as Schott ,15 Bretschneider ,16 and Tzschirner,17 who, by propounding what is called rational Supernaturalism , endeavored to reconcile these two extremes with each other, or, at least, to fac¬ ilitate such a reconciliation. 1 Immanuel Kant was born 1724, and died 1804 (in the year 1740 he studied theology). His complete works were edited by Rosenkranz and Schubert, Lpz., 1837 ss., xii. vols. [ Hartenstein , x. vols., 1838-9.] 2 In his work: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Riga, 1781 ; 2nd ed., 1787. All later editions were merely reprinted from the second. [The variations in Schubert’s and Hartenstein’s edition. The Pure Reason was translated into English, Lond., 1841 ; Analysis of it, 1844 ; a new version by Meikle- john, 1855 ; French, by Tissot, 2d ed., 1845.] 3 See his works: Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, Riga, 1788 : Kritik der Urtheilskraft, 1790. Of special importance for theology is his work Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, Konigsb., 1793. 2nd improved edit., 1794. [Kant’s Criticism of the Practical Reason was translated into French, by Barni, 1848; his Religion within the Bounds, etc., by Trullard, 1841 ; Criticism of Judgment, by Barni, 1846 ; other works by Tissot , etc. The first English work on Kant was a general and Introductory view, by Nitzsc\ Lond., 1796 : J. S. Reek, Principles of Crit¬ ical Philos., 1798 : Willich’s Elements of Critical Philos., 1798: Kant’s Essays and Treatises, 2 vols. 1798 : Wirgman's Principles of the Kantesian Philosophy, 1824: Semple , Kent’s Metaphysics of Ethics, 1837 : John Rich* ardson , Metaphysical works of Kant, 1836. Koack , Kant’s Auferstehung aus 396 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. dcm Grabe, 186. Comp. E. A. Thilo on Kant in Zeitsclirift f. exacte Philo¬ sophic, 1860, s. 7-25, 298-321.] 3 Comp. Flugge, Versuch einer historisch-kritischen Darstellung des bis- herigen Einflusses der Kantischen Philosophic auf alleZweigeder wissenschaftl. und praktischcn Theologie, Hanover, 1796, 1800, ii. 8. Reinhard , the preface to the third edition of his System der christlichen Moral, 1797. J. F. Flatt , Obss. ad comparandam doctr. Kant cum Christiana, 1792. (Opusc. Nr. 7.) Kessler , Darstellung und Priifung des Kantischen Rationalismus in der Religion, besonders in der Exegese, Wtirzb., 1818. Ulrici on Kant (and Jacobi, Fries and Fichte') in Herzog’s Realencyclop. [Also his article on Religions-Philosophie.] 4 John Henry Teif trunk lived towards the close of the eighteenth century, and was private lecturer on philosophy in the university of Halle. He wrote : Versuch einer Kritik der Religion, 1790. — Censur des christlich-pro- testantischen Lehrbegriffs, mit besonderer Hinsicht auft die Lehrbticher von Doderlein und Morus, Berlin, 1791—95, 2nd edit., 1796. Dilucidationes ad Theoret. Christ. Rel., part 1793, ii. — Religion der Mundigen, 1800. 9 4 K. F. Staudlin was born 1761, and died 1826, as professor of theology in the university of Gottingen. He wrote Ideen zur Kritik der christlichen Religion, Gott., 1791. Lehrb. der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte, ibid., 1800. 3d edit., 1809: 4th edit., 1822. 6 C. F. Ammon , born 1766, died 1850, was formerly professor of theology in the university of Erlangen, and first chaplain to the King of Saxony. He wrote : Entwurf einer wissenschaftlich praktischen Theologie, nach Grund- satzen der Vernunft und des Christenthums, 1797. — Abhandlungen zur Er- lauterung einer wissenschaftlich-praktischen Theologie, 1798. Summa Theol. Christ., 1803, translated into German, 1805, ed. 4, 1830. Aufstlhr- licher Unterricht in der christlichen Glaubenslehre, ftir Freunde der evange- lischen Wahrheit, 1807, 8. 8 The term Rationalism was employed previous to the rise of the Kant¬ ian philosophy, and frequently used in the same sense as Naturalism and Deism. Comp, the sect of the Rationalists in England, § 238, note 2, and Sucro, Disputatio de Estimatione Rationis humanae theologica, praeside Paulo Antinio, 1706, p. 8 : Hinc tantus undique numerus Rationalistarum, Natur- - alistarum, Libertinorum, Scepticorum, quinimo Atheorum ; and p. 32 : His Rationalistio totus mundus refertus est (quoted by Tholuck , ii. 25, 26). Nevertheless many still confound these terms, some intentionally, others unin¬ tentionally. They were separated by Kant himself (Religion innerlialb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, pp. 216, 217). It may also be said that we have a historical right to make a distinction between that Rationalism, which has been systematically developed in Germany, and for more than half a century has exerted, and still exerts, upon the church an influence more or less considerable, though not always for good, and between that daring and frivolous Naturalism, which has its advocates not so much in the church as in the world. German Rationalism has, at least, retained an historical and Scriptural Christianity, and by making use of ecclesiastical institutions, e . g. by preaching, endeavored to promote the spread of moral and religious principles, especially in opposition to pantheistic tendencies, which threaten § 279. Rationalism and Supernaturalism. 397 to destroy the sense of true morality. Thus we may he permitted, in due acknowledgment of its merits, to speak of a Christian Rationalism. Some writers have employed the phrase rationalismus vulgaris , to distinguish it from its modern forms of development, which have not been recognized by its adherents. Comp. Bretschneider, Historische Bemerkungen tiber den Gebrauch der Ausdrticke Rationalismus und Snpernaturalismus (Oppositions- schriften, vii. 1, 1829). A. Hahn , Be Rationalismi qui dicitur vera Indole, Lips., 1827. K. Hase , Die Leipzigerdisputation, Lips., 182. — By the same : Streitschriften, i., p. 28; Dogmatik, p. 16, 36. — Some very appropriate re¬ marks may also be found in Baumgarten-Crusius Compendium, i., p. 476. \L. J. Ruckert , Der Rationalismus, Leipz., 1859.] 9 Iu one aspect the supernaturalistic theologians themselves might adopt the principles of Kant, inasmuch as be had demonstrated the insufficiency or reason to fathom what is Divine. This was done by Storr in his Bemer¬ kungen tiber Kant’s philosophische Religionslehre, translated from the Latin by Susskind , Tub., 1794 ; see Baumgarten-Crusius , i., p. 466. But Kant did not draw the inference that a revelation is necessary on account of the insufficiency of reason ; on the contrary, he set it aside by denying to reason the power of setting up any other than a moral criterion by which to ascer¬ tain whether anything has been revealed. Revelation was to him problem¬ atical, and positive religion was merely the medium by which the practical truths of reason are communicated. Compare the special history of doc¬ trines. 10 Gotti. Chr. Storr was born 1746, and died 1805, as professor in the university of Tubingen. Among his works were : Doctrinse Christianse Pars Theoretica, 1793. Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmatik, ins Deutsche fiber- setzt mit Erlauterungen von C. Ch. Flatt , 1803. On the conservative ten¬ dency of the school of Tubingen, see Tholuck , ii., p. 145-47. [Storr and Flatt, Bibl. Theology, by S. S. Schmucker , Andov., 2d ed., 1836.] 11 Francis Volkmar Reinhard, was born 1753, and lied 1812, as first chaplain to the King of Saxony. See his: — Gestandnisee, Sulzb., 1810. Epitome Theol. Christ, e S. Y. Reinhardi acroasibus academ. descript, atque observat. auct. (ed. Hoepfner) 1805. Yorlesungen tiber Dogmatik, mit lit- terarischen Zusatzen herausgegeben von F. B. Berger , 1801, and H. A. Schott , Sulzb., 1811. The supernaturalism of Reinhard is ethical and intel¬ lectual, and had its origin partly in a fine conscientiousness, partly in strictly logical inferences which he drew from certain philosophical premises. Its fundamental principle was not very different from that of Rationalism ; and the sermons of Reinhard, which are distinguished by a prevailing moralising treatment of Scripture, have served as models for many rationalistic dis courses. Pure biblical Supernaturalism unmixed with ecclesiastical tradition, or philosophical principles, is represented in the following works : A. Hahn , Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, Leipz., 1828 [new edition, improved, 2 vols., Leipz., 1857-8]; G. Ch. Knapp , Yorlesungen fiber die christliche Glaubenslehre, nach dem Lehrbegriff der evangelischen Kirche, herausgegeben von G. Thilo , Halle, 1827 [translated by Leonard Woods, Andover, 2 vols. 1831, and frequently republished], (see vol. i., p. 30.) ; and Biblische Glau 398 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. benslehre, vornehmlich fur den praktischen Gebrauch, berausgegeben von Guericke , Halle, 1840. 13 J. A. L. Wegscheider , born 1771, d. 1848, from the year 1810 profes¬ sor of theology in the university of Halle. He wrote : Institutions Theolo- giae Christianas dogmatic®, 1813, edit. 8, 1844. He was opposed by W. Steiger , Kritik des Rationalismus in Wegscheiders Dogmatik, Berlin, 1844. 13 E. E. G. Paulus , born 1761, d. 1851, in Heidelberg (formerly in Jena), as a professor and ecclesiastical counsellor. He endeavored to promote Ra¬ tionalism by exegetical works ( e . g. Commentar liber das Neue Testament.— Leben Jesu), and by advocating liberal principles in some of his writings e. g. Sophronizon, 1818, ss. Der Denkglaubige, 1825, ’29. 14 J. F. Bohr, born 1777, died 1848 as General Superintendent in Wei¬ mar. He wrote: Briefe liber den Rationalismus, zur Berichtigung der schwankenden und zweideutigen Urtheile, die in den neuesten dogmatischen Consequenzstreitigkeiten uber denselben gefallt worden sind, Sondershausem 1813. — From the year 1820 he edited the “ Kritische Predigerbibliothek” (Critical Journal for Ministers). He further published : Grand- und Glau- benssatze der evangelisch-protestantischen Kirche, Neust., 1732, ’34, and Sermons. 16 E. A. Schott , born 1780, died 1835, as professor of theology in the university of Jena. He wrote : Epitome Theol. Dogmatic®, Lipz., 1811, ’22. 18 K. G. Bretschneider , born 1776, died 1848, as General Superintendent in Gotha. He wrote : Handbuch der Dogmatik der lutherisch-evangelischen Kirche, Leipz., 1814, 18, ii., edit. 4th, 1838. Systematische Entwicklung aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffe, nach den symb. Buchern der prot. luth. Kirche, ibid., 1805, latest edit., 1841. (His tendency is chiefly historical.) 17 H. G. Tzschirner , born 1778, died 1828 as professor of theology and superintendent in Leipsic. He wrote : Yorlesungen uber die christl. Glau- benslehre, nach dera LehrbegrifFe der evang. protest. Kirche, edited by K. Ease , Leipz., 1829. (In this work the two systems of Rationalism and Supernaturalism are coordinately developed.) A striking parallel may be drawn between the rationalistic system of Kant (as well as the earlier system of Wolf) on the one hand, and the development of literature on the other. The period of Schiller (his poem: Worte des Glaubens), compared with the poem of Urania by Tiedge (1801). The same tendency manifested itself in works of a popular character (in homiletical writings, in religious books, and in works designed for the young), e. g. in the works entitled : Stunden der Andacht [i. e. Hours of Devotion), and its effect in Dinters Schullehrerbibel (i. e. the Schoolmaster’s Bible, edit, by Dinter.) § 280. MODERN SPECULATIYE PHILOSOPHY. FICHTE. SCHELLING. G. M. Michelet , Geschichte der Philosophic von Kant bis Hegel. Berlin, 1837, 2 vols. Chalybceics, H. M., historische Entwicklung der speculativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel. Dresd., 1837, 3d edit. 1843, [5th ed. 1860. Translated and published in § 280. Modern Speculative Philosophy. 399 Edinb. and Andover, 1857]. 0. Fortlage , Genetische Geschichte der Philosophie seit Kant. Leipz., 1852. \J. D. Morell, Historical and Critical View of the Speculative Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century, 2 vols., repr., New York, 1856. Amand Saintes , Histoire critique du Rationalisme en Allemagne, 2me. ed., Paris, 1843. \ Oischin- ger , Speculative Entwicklung d. Philos, von Descartes bis Hegel, 2 Bde., 1854. Bartholmess, Les Doctrines religieuses de la Philosophie Allemande, 2 Tom., 1856. Hermann Ulrici, Geschichte und Kritik der Principien der neueren Philosophie. 2 Thle., Leipz., 1845.] During the period in which the philosophy of Kant prevailed, both Rationalism and Supernaturalism occupied common ground in this, that the mode of thinking adopted by their adherents was ab¬ stract, and circumscribed by the categories of the understanding. It was not until the rise of the modern system of speculative philos¬ ophy, in the Idealism of Fichte,1 and afterwards in the more devel¬ oped form of Schelling’s Philosophy of the Absolute, 2 that attention was again directed to that which was most profound and significant in the doctrines of Christianity, i. e. in the first place, to their specu¬ lative import ; thus leading thinking minds from the mere periphery of religious life back to its centre. The Rationalists and Super¬ naturalists, attaching too much importance to the empirical and practical aspect of religion, had lost sight of its more profound and speculative aspect. The opposite tendency now showed itself. The founders of this new esoteric Gnosis introduced an enigmatic phraseology, which appeared to their contemporaries as a sort of hieroglyphic language. To formulas, orthodox in sound, they attached a sense different from that contained in the doctrines of the church, and sometimes even incompatible with practical reli¬ gious truth. Not only was history converted into a mere mythical garb for speculative ideas, but Kant’s Trias of God, Liberty, and Immortality, in which the Rationalists had hitherto believed with a certain honest sobriety, must needs vanish in the presence of that Pantheism, which annuls the personality of God and of man, and confounds the Divine Being with the world. So that while some were rejoicing at the return of what they considered a Christian philosophy, others questioned the advantage of this exchange of Ra¬ tionalism for the speculative philosophy.3 1 J. C. Fichte , born 1762, died 1814, as professor of philosophy in the university of Berlin. In the development of his system, different periods may he pointed out. In his Versuch einer Kritik aller Offenbarung, 1792, which was published anonymously, and for a time ascribed to Kant, he took the same ground which had long been occupied by the latter. But his Wis- senschaftslehre, 1794, ss., is altogether speculative-idealistic ; it is a question, whether the principles set forth in it are only apparently or really atheistic. On account of its purely speculative shape, it was unfitted to be directly ap¬ plied to theology. In his later writings (composed in a more popular style) 400 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Fichte endeavored to express himself in a more Christian manner, and to show the agreement existing between his own principles and those of Chris¬ tianity. This is the case especially in his Anweisung zum seligen Leben, oder die Religionslehre, Berlin, 1806. In this work he attaches, in opposi¬ tion to a moralising Rationalism, the greatest importance to the Gospel of John, and founds his system on the unity of the Father with the Son (whom he regards as God attaining unto a consciousness of himself in man). — Compare John Bapt. Schad (a Benedictine monk), Gemeinfassliche Darstel- lung des Fichte’schen Systems und der daraus hervorgehenden Religions- theorie, Erf., 1800-1802, iii. voll. ; and Haumgarten-Crusius , i. p. 455-457. K. Hase , Jenaisches Fichtebiichlein, Lpz., 1856. [ Fichte's Characteristics of the Present Age, Nature of the Scholar, Vocation of Men, and Vocation of the Scholar, with other works, transl. into English by Smith, with a Memoir, London. His son, I. H., published his father’s memoir and remains. Works, 8 vols. : Remains, 3 vols.] a F. W. Jos. von Schelling , born 1775, in 1841 called from Munich to be professor of philosophy in the university of Berlin, d. 1854. He endeavored to bring about a reconciliation between the Idealism of Fichte and the theory^ of Realism (subject and object) by the philosophy of identity (like Spinoza). Comp, his Vorlesungen iiber die Methode des akademischen Studiums, Stuttg. und Tub., 1803, 13, especially Lecture 8th (Concerning the historical construction of Christianity), and Lecture 9th (On the study of theology). He there states, in opposition to the Rationalism of Kant (p. 180), that the doctrines “ of the incarnate God” and (p. 184) of “ the reconciliation of the finite ( beings ) which had fallen from God,” are the first elements of Christianity, completed and perfected in the doctrine of the Trinity ; this doctrine, however, “ is absurd , unless it be considered in its speculative aspect” (p. 192). In Lecture 9th he combats empirical Supernaturalism, the Rationalism of Kant, and lastly the historical reception of Christianity. — He further wrote Philosophie und Religion, Tub., 1804. Denkmal der Schrift von den gottlichen Dingen des Herrn F. J. Jacobi (comp. § 281), Ttlb., 1812. — In the later period of his life, Schelling manifested a stronger lean ing towards positive Christianity and theistic views ; see his preface to Victor Cousin, translated from the French by Peckers , Stutt., 1834. Comp. A. PlancJc, Schel-ling’s Nachgelassene Werke und ihre Bedentung fiir die Theologie (in the Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Christliche Wissenschaft, viii., Marz., 1857). — The disciples of Schelling at first cultivated the science of natural philosophy, rather than the philosophy of religion and of theology. His philosophy was applied to theology by Heinrich Blasche (died 1832) : Das Bose, im Einklange mit der Weltordnung dargestellt, Leipz., 1827, and Philosophie der Offenbarung, Gotha, 1829. As regards the relation in which Fschenmayer stands to the philosophy of Schelling, see Beinhold , Geschichte der Philosophie, ii. 2, p. 388. It must also be admitted that the philosophical tendencies of Schleiermacher were connected with those of Schelling, though he applied them to religion and theology in a very dif¬ ferent manner, more like to Jacobi (see § 281). [Schelling’s Sammtliche Werke; the second division, 4 vols., contains his Lectures, viz., vol. i., In¬ troduction to Mythology; ii., Philosophy of Mythology ; iii. iv., Philosophy § 281. Modern Speculative Philosophy. 401 of Revelation. Comp. Schelling nnd Theologie, Berk, 1846. Domer , Schelling’s Potenzlehre, in Jalirb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1860, s. 101-156 ; Ehrenfeuchter on Schelling’s Philosophie d. Mythologie nnd Offenbarung, ibid., 1859. E. A. Weber , Examen critique de la Philos, religieuse de Schelling, Strasb., 1860. Southern Quarterly Review, Feb., 1857.] 3 Comp, his controversy with Jacobi. F. Koppen , Schellings Lehre, oder das Ganze der Lehre vom absoluten Nichts, Hamb., 1803. — G. F. Susskind , Prtlfung der Schellingschen Lehre von Gott, Weltschopfung, moralischer Freiheit, etc., Tub., 1812. [LL E. G. Paalus , Die endlich offenbar gewor- dene positive Philosophie der Offenbarung, Darmstadt, 1843. \Kapp^\ Friedrich Wilhelm Jos. von Schelling, von einem vieljahrigen Beobachter, Lpz., 1843. Alexis Schmidt, Belenchtung der neuen Schellingschen Lehre, Berl., 1843. Rosenkrans, on Schelling, 1844. Noack, Schelling und die Philos, der Romantik, 2 Tide., I860.] Here again is a parallel in literature and art, viz., the Romantic tendency (the brothers Schlegel , Tieck , Novalis), Gothe (viewed in contrast with Schiller) ; Creuzer and Foss, Sym- bolik und Antisymbolik. § 281. HERDER AND JACOBI. DE WETTE AND SCHLEIERMACHER. Though the speculative philosophy of Fichte and Schelling seemed to have brought about a certain reconciliation between the two ex¬ tremes above mentioned, it was still to be seen whether that recon¬ ciliation was a real one. Herder , in the spirit of a poet/ pointed out the historical nature of the Christian doctrines, as well as the distinction between religion and doctrinal opinions, and opened the way, in connection with modern culture, to a new and living treat- ment of Scriptural subjects, founded on more accurate views of ori- / ental and biblical modes of thought. On the other hand, the ^philosophy of the Absolute was combated by Frederic Jacobi / with pious wisdom. In opposition to this philosophy, he endeavoured to show that faith, which he distinguished from knowledge, must have its quiet home in the human heart. Though he did not mean by faith either the orthodox faith of the church, or strict Scriptural faith (in the supernaturalistic sense), his more profound and pro¬ phetic theory was welcomed, even by those who felt the necessity of a more positive system. The philosophical system of J acobi, designed to meet the religious feelings of men, served as the basis of a new school, the adherents of which are also disposed to adopt the princi¬ ples of modern philosophy in general.3 They endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation between the extremes, by historico-critical, as well as philosophical researches, by psych ologico-anthropological rather than by speculative investigations. As its founders, we may regard De Wette * and Schleiermacherf though each in a different aspect. 402 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. The former labored to show, in a psychological and synthetic way, the symbolical religious value of the doctrines of Christianity, in their re¬ lation to the souls of believers; the latter endeavoured, in an analytical and dialectic manner, to apprehend, in Christianity, that which is peculiar to itself, and to represent the doctrines of the church as the perpetual expression of the feelings common to all believers. 1 Johann Gottfried von Herder , born 1744, died 1803, as General Super¬ intendent in Weimar. Among his numerous works are: Werke zur Relig¬ ion und Tkeologie, Stuttg. and Tub., 1827-30, 18 vols. Though Herder did not publish a system of theology, he exerted by his enlightened views (misunderstood by many) the highest influence upon theology. Among his theological works, the following have a special reference to the subject in question : Briefe liber das Studium der Theologie, Brief 29 ss. ; Christlich'e Schriften (vom Erloser der Menschen ; von Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland ; vom Geist des Christhenthums ; von Religion, Lehrmeinungen und Gebrau- chen). — The theological views of Herder are given in a collective form in J. G. von Herder’s Dogmatik, aus dessen Schriften dargestellt und mit litteris- chen und kritischen Anmerkungen versehn von einem Freunde der Herder’s- chen Gnosis (Augusti?), Jena, 1805,8. Comp, the Herder- Album, Jena, 1845 : Herder’s Lebensbild, von seinem Sohne, Erlangen, 1846, ii. ; and Hagenbach in Herzog’s Realencyclopadie. [On Herder, see George Ban¬ croft, , in North Am. Rev., vol. xx. ; For. Rev. xxxvii.; Christian Disciple (H’s Letters on Study of Divinity, vols. ii. iii.) His Spirit of Heb. Poetry, transl. by Jas. Marsh, 2 vols., Burlington, Yt., 1833. Comm, on Revel., transl. by Sir George Duckett, Lond., 1821. Outlines and Philosophy of History, transl. by T. Churchill , Lond., 1800, 4to., 2d. ed., 2 vols. 1803. Oriental Dialogues, Lond., 1801.] a Friedrich Jacobi , born 1743, was, from the year 1804, President of the Academy of Sciences in Munich, died 1819. His entire works were pub¬ lished, Leipz., 1812, 6 voll., his correspondence, Leipz., 1825-27, 2 voll. Compare his Yon den gottlichen Dingen und ihrer Oflenbarung, Leipz., 1811, and J. Kuhn, Jacobi und die Philosophic seiner Zeit, Mainz, 1824. Fricker, Philos. Jacobi, Augsb., 1854. 3 Schleiermaclier acknowledged that he derived his first impulse from Jacobi ( Haumgarten-Crusius , i. p. 468); Schelling also exerted some influ¬ ence upon him. On the other hand, De Wette adhered to the principles of Fries, who endeavored to complete the philosophy of Kant on the princi- ciples of Jacobi; the three terms he uses are, knowledge, faith, longing (Ahnung). 4 W. M. Leberecht de Wette, born 1780, professor of theology in the uni¬ versity of Berlin from the year 1810 to 1819, from 1821 professor of theol¬ ogy in the university of Basle, d. 1849. His theological opinions are de¬ veloped in his : Erlauterungen zum Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, fiber Religion und Theologie, Berlin, 1821. — Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmatik in ihrer historischen Entwicklung, Berk, 1821, 2 voll., Edit. 3d, 1820. — Christliche Sittenlehre, ibid., 1819-24, 3 voll., 8vo. The following are written in a popular style : Ueber >die religion, ihr Wesen, ihre Erscheinungsformen § 281. Modern Speculative Philosophy. 403 and ihren Einfluss auf das Leben (a course of public lectures), Berl., 182V, 8. - — Theodor oder des Zweiflers Weihe, 1821-28, 2 voll. — Sermons. *Das Wesen des christl. Glaubens, vom Standpunlde des Glaubens dargestallt, Berlin, 1846. Comp. Schenkel, De Wette und die Bedentung seiner Theol- ogie fiir unsere Zeit; Hagenbach, W. M. L. de Wette, eine akademische Gedachtnissrede, 1850; Lucke , W. M. L. De Wette, Hamb., 1850. [De Wette’s Introd. to 0. Test., transl. and enlarged by Theodore Parker, 2 vols. 1850; Human Life, or Practical Ethics, by S. Osgood , 2 vols.; Theodore, or Sceptic’s Conversion, by J. F. Clarke , 2 vols., Boston.] 6 Friedrich. Schleiermacher , born 1768, died 1834, as professor of theology in the university of Berlin. Among his works are : TJeber Religion. Reden au die Gebildeten unter ihren Yerachtern, Berlin, 1799. (This work in its first form has but slight reference to positive Christianity : it rather favors the suspicion of pantheism ; but he already views religion as essentially a feeling, in contrast with its being either knowledge or action ; the later edi¬ tions (4th, 1829) in the notes indicate the transition from these Orations tct.rines they have only a negative importance, and § 284. Latest Eationalistic Reaction. 411 tlieir place is rather in the transient story of the day than in the ear¬ nest history of religious truth. Of far greater moment is the strug¬ gle on fundamental principles, which has again sprung up between the conservative ecclesiastical party and the party of progress, as represented by Stahl and Bunsen .4 1 Ludwig Feuerbach , Das Wesen des Christenthums, Lpz., 1841 (in the service of a pneumatic water-cure !) ; Das Wesen der Religion, 2te. Aufl., 1850. [Essence of Christianity, transl. by Marian Evans. Lond., New York, 1855. “Religion is a dream of the human mind;” “all theology is an¬ thropology,” etc. Feuerbach has also written Charakteristiken des modernen Afterchristenthums ; P. Bayle , 1838; Philos, und Christenthums, 1839*; Leibnitzsche Philosophic, 1837, etc.] 3 Uhlich and Wislicenus. — A meeting was held in Kothen, May 29, 1844. Wislicenus work, Ob Schrift, ob Geist, 1845.— Thirteen Articles. — Uhlich'1 s Reformation Theses. — See Niedner , Kirchengesch., p. 890, who gives the titles of the works. — Another controversy was that of Dulon in Bremen ; compare the Votum of the Heidelberg faculty, drawn up by Schenkel , 1852. 8 Societies in Breslau and Konigsberg. Pupp , after his exclusion from the Free Church was a preacher of the Free Evangelical Church in Konigs¬ berg. See Niedner , as above. [. Base , p. 589.] 4 Bunsen , Zeichen der Zeit, Leipz., 1855 ; Gott in der Geschichte, 3 Bde., Leipz., 1857. These works gave rise to a controversy. — The Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, edited by H. Krause, may be considered as the organ of the freer Protestant tendency, introduced by Schleiermacher. [ Christian Charles Josias Bunsen , d. 1791, ambassador in England, 1841-53, died Nov. 28, 1860. Among his works are, history of the Passion and Still Week, 1841 ; Church of the Future, 1845, translated, 1847 ; Eygpt’s Place in Universal Hist., 4 vols., English by Cottrel , 1848-60 ; Ignatius, 1847 ; Hippolytus and his Age, 4 vols., 1855, and then 6 vols., 1854, sq. (in English, 2 in German, 1852, sq.) ; Signs of the Times, transl.; Bible Work, not completed, 8 parts, 1858-60. Comp. B. Baehring, Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, und seine Bedentung ftir die Gegenwart, Lpz., 1861. H. Gelzer , Bunsen als Staatsman und Schriftsteller, Gotha, 1861. — Frederick Julius Stahl , Prof, in Erlangen, called to Berlin, 1841. Works : Protestantische Kirchenverfassung; Rechts- philosophie. Leading the party of the reaction, he has been involved in controversies on Protestantism and Catholicism, on the Union (advocating the claims of High Lutheranism), and against the Evangelical Alliance: Was ist die Revolution, 3te, Aufl., 1852 : Der Protestantismus als politisches Princip., 4te., Aufl., 1853 ; Die katholischen Widerlegungen, 1854 ; Christl. Toleranz, 1855 ; Wider Bunsen, 1856 (Schenkel, Ftir Bunsen, Wider Stahl) ; Der Christl. Staat, 1858 ; Die Lutherische Kircheund die Union, 1859, 2te. Aufl., I860.] 412 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. • § 285. THE PROTESTANT CHURCH AND DOCTRINE OUTSIDE OP GERMANY. The doctrinal controversies related in the preceding sections (§ 279-284), were almost entirely confined to Protestant Germany, and partially affected Denmark and those parts of Reformed Switz¬ erland, in which the German language is spoken.1 Nearly all the other Protestant countries either took no notice of these conflicts, or formed erroneous and onesided opinions concerning them.2 Lu¬ theran orthodoxy maintained on the whole its ground in Sweden.3 In the Netherlands, the advocates of a more moderate (Arminian) tendency opposed the rigid system of the orthodoxy, established in the canons of the Synod of Dort.4 In England there were some partial deviations from the 39 Articles ;5 and some new sects sprung up.6 The theology called Puseyism , nurtured in the university of Oxford, tended in both worship and dogma towards the Catholic Church ; distinguishing however between the genuine Catholic and the Roman Catholic.7 — The Evangelical Alliance, started in London in 1846, is a grand attempt to do away with the ecclesiastical and dogmatic dissensions ; but German theology can hardly be satisfied with its formal articles.8 — Nor did Protestant theology in France keep pace with the German culture (with the exception of Stras- burg) ;9 the laity were here the first to display a spirit of more pro¬ found inquiry into religious truths.10 The commotions in the Church of Geneva and the Canton de Yaud cannot be compared (either as to matter, or to form) with the contests between Rationalism and Su¬ pernaturalism in Germany.11 But the barriers which have hitherto prevented foreign churches from appropriating the results of German learning seem gradually disappearing, and a growing desire manL fests itself to become acquainted with the religious conflicts of the birth-place of the Reformation. 1 In Denmark the controversy between Rationalism and Supernaturalism was carried on by Clausen and Grundtvig (see the Evangelische Kirchenzei- tung, 1827, etc. Studien und Kritiken, 1834, part 4; ITase, Church His¬ tory, pp. 525, 526, 561-2.) [ Rudelbach , in Zeitschrift f. lutherische Theologie, 1841 ; and, more fully, 1859-60, in opposition to the later high church Lutheranism of Grundtvig. Among the Reformed Churches of Switzerland in the last century, Zurich was especially affected by the theological tenden¬ cies then prevailing in Germany. (Afm and Lavater were the representa¬ tives of Supernaturalism, though each in a different way — Hiifeli , Stols , and Schulthess , of Rationalism.) The theology of Schleiermacher in the course of this century was here represented by L. Usteri , the author of the § 285. History of Doctrines in other Lands. 413 t “ Paulinischer Lehrbegriff,” which in the later editions inclines to the views of Hegel and Rosenkranz ; and Alexander Schweizer , [author of the Glau- benslehre der Reform. Kirche, 2 Bde., 1844, and Central-Dogmen der Re¬ form, Kirche, 2 Bde., 1854-6 ; an advocate of strict necessity as the inmost sense of the Reformed theology. The call of Strauss to Zurich, 1839, led to a violent controversy, and the call was revoked. See Gelzer, Die Straussis- chen Zerwiirfuisse in Zurich, 1843; Aug. Roden , Geschichte der Bernfung des Dr. Strauss, 1840.] — In Schaffhausen, Georg Muller , (died 1819; he wrote : Vom Glauben der Christen, Wintherthur, 1815, 2 vols.) endeavoured to propagate principles akin to those £>f Herder, but in a more orthodox sense. In Berne, orthodoxy long maintained its ground in alliance with the aristocratic government. — Since the expulsion of the first representative of Rationalism ( Wettstein , 1730) from Basle, its advocates have always been excluded from that town. For a long time it was (unjustly) considered the seat of pietism. — By the renovation and foundation of the Swiss universities (Basle, 1817-35, Zurich, 1833, Berne, 1834), and the vocation of German professors {Be Wette received a call from the university of Basle, 1821), the theology of Switzerland was brought into a closer connection with that of Germany. 3 J. H. Rose , der Zustand der protestantischen Religion in Deutschland, 4 Reden an der Univ. Cambridge, 1825, translated from the English, Leipz., 1826. \Hugh James Rose , b. 1795, d. 1838, State of Protestantism in Ger¬ many, 2d ed., 1829 ; comp. Edinb. Rev., vol. 54, and E. B. Pusey's Histor¬ ical Inquiry, 2 vols., 1828-30.] 8 See Guericke , Kirchengeschichte, ii., p. 1084, 1087. 4 Concerning the latest events, see Die Unruhen in der niederlandisch- reformirten Kirche wahrend der Jahre, 1833-39, von X. herausg. von Giese- ler , Hamb., 1840. Among the Dutch theologians Heringa , Clarisse , Roy a - ards, and others have followed the development of German theology. \J. Clarisse , Encyclop. Theol., 1835. J. Ez. Heringa , Opera Exeg., new ed., 1845 ; Het gebruiken misbruik der Kritik, 1793. H. J. Royaards , Chrest. Patrist., 1831, 7 ; Comp. Hist. Eccles., 1840; Geschiedenis van het Christ¬ endom Nederland, 1853. B. Van Wijnpersse, on Div. of Christ, 1793. H. Muntinghe , d. 1824, Theologia Theoret. ; Brevis Expos. Vet. Foederis, 1827. — The present divisions of the schools in Holland are, 1. Strict orthodox, at the Hague, represented by Groen van Prinsterer , Capadose, the poet Bil- derjik , (d. 1831). 2. Moderate orthodox, under the motto, Earnestness and Peace. Chantepie de la Saussaye , has written on the Religious Crisis in Holland, in defence of their views (Paris, 1860) against Prinsterer: Domine Beets , Helldring , Hasenbroek , Van Rhyn , Van Osterzeey Boedes and Trottet , (see his article on Dutch theology, in the Rev. Christ., 1860) also belong here. 3. The school of Groningen (moderate liberal) ; Van Heusde (the Platonist, d. 1845), Hofstede de Groot , etc. 4. Rationalists, chiefly at Ley¬ den. Prof. Scholten , of Leyden in his “ Doctrine of Ref. Church” and a His¬ tory of Philos, of Religion” is “ deistico-pantheistic.” Opzoomer of Utrecht would reconcile man with himself by means of philosophy. See Von Prin¬ sterer , The Anti-Revolutionary Party, Arnst., 1860 ; Chantepie , La Crise Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 414 Relig., 1860. Reville , Les Controverses en Hollande, in Rev. des denx Mondes, 1860, translated in Christ. Exam., Boston, 1861.] 6 Thus the principles of Arianism propounded by Samuel Clarice , (died 1729) at the commencement of the present period, were adopted by some. [See above § 234, p. 213, and § 262, p. 332.] Howe [Sherlock ?] was accused of tritheism. — Among the English divines in North America, Edwards is the most distinguished. His chief works are on the Freedom of the Will, and on Original sin. [Comp. § 285, 5.] 6 The rise of new sects both in England and the United States of America is of no importance for the history of doctrines [!]. The greatest sensation wTas made by Irving (1 792-1 834^, whose views gained some adherents even on the continent. See Hohl , Bruchstucke aus dem Leben und den Schriften Ed. Irvings, St. Gallen, 1839. \Edward Irving , b. 1792, d. 1834. Works: Oracles of God, 3d ed., 1834 ; Coming of Messiah, 2 vols., 1827 ; Babylon and Infidelity foredoomed, 1826 ; The Last Bays, 1850 ; Sermons, 3 vols., 1828; Homilies on Sacraments,!, 1828; Exposition of Book of Revelation, 4 vol., 1831 ; Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine of our Lord’s Human Nature, 1831. Proceedings of London Presb. in his Case, 1831. Irving and his adversaries in Fraser's Magaz., 14 ; Death of Irving, by Thos. Carlyle , ibid., vol. 11 ; Trial of Irving, Niles’s Register, vol. 44. See also Eel. Mag., 14 ; Meth. Quar., 9 ; Christ. Exam, (by Lamson), 3 ; Christ. Month. Spec., 6; English Review, 1848; Studien und Kritiken, 1849; Schaff ’s Kirchenfreund, 1850. Jacobi, Lehre d. Irvingiten, 1853, Geo. PH kington , The Tongues proved to be English, Spanish, Latin, 1831. The First and Last Days of the Church of Christ, from the French of C. M. Carre , by M. N. M. Hume , Lond. — Liturgy and Litany, Lond. and New York, 1856. On the revival of the apostolate in the United States, and the church as it is here, compare : W. W. Andrews , True Constitution of Church, 1854. Apostles Given, Lost and Restored, 1855. \J. S. Davenport\ The Perma¬ nency of the Apostolic Office, 1853. See also Chronicle of Certain Events, 1826-52. Lond., 1852.] T The first traces of this tendency date from about 1820; the British Magazine, 1832 ; the Tracts for the Times, 1833 sq. The Catholic ten-, dency advanced till 1841. Chief representatives, Dr. Pusey in Oxford, (b. 1800), T. Keble , J. H. Newman , who went over to the Catholic church. Comp. Weaver , Der Puseyismus in seinen Lehren und Tendenzen, from the English, by Amthor , Leipz., 1845. Fock in Schwegler’s Jahrbucher der Gegenwart, Aug., 1841. Bruns and HafneJs Repertorium, May and July, 1846. Allg. Berlin. Kirchenzeitung, 1846. ( Niedner , Kirchengeschichte, p. 867.) Allg. Augsburg, Zeitung, 1847, No. 46, Beilage. [See next sec¬ tion.] 8 See Der Evangel Bund, von K. Mann and Theod. Platt , Basel, 1847. [Annual Reports of the Alliance, particularly that of the Berlin Meeting, 1857, by Ed. Steaned\ 9 Blessig , Hafner , Emmerich , Kienlen , Bruch , Reuss , Redslob , C. Schmid. 10 Benj. Constant , Cousin , Guizot. Among the theologians we mention : Vincent of Nismes (Meditations et Discours, 1830, ss.), Vinet , died 1847, Merle dd Aubigne, Gaussen , Sardinoux. Periodicals : Ami de la Religion, § 285. History of Doctrines in other Lands. 415 Semeur ; Lien (organ of a moderate liberalism) ; Esperance (moderate church, orthodoxy) ; Archives du Christianisme (organ of Dissenters) ; Avenir (organ of the Free Church). See Ullmann , Polenische Erorterungen, in Stud, und Kritiken, 1852. H. Reuchlin , Das Christenthum in Frankreich, Hamb., 1837. 11 The formal aspect of the controversy respecting revelation was not at all mentioned. The opponents of the so-called Momiers ( Cheneviere , and others) may be said to hold Supernaturalistic principles, inasmuch as, proceed¬ ing from the doctrine of inspiration and the integrity of the canon, they found their dogmas upon Scripture (like the Socinians). That Arianism (!) could issue from this shows the difference of French and German nationalism. Comp, the works of Cheneviere , Rost , Malan. Histoire veritable des Mo¬ miers, Par., 1824. Basle, 1825. With this work compare: Re Wette , Ein- ige Bemerkungen iiber die kirchlicken Bewegungen in Genf (Easier wis- senschatiche Zeitschrift, iii. part 2, p. 33 ss.) ; and “ Genfs Kirchliche und Christliche Zustande,” by a theologian of French Switzerland, in the Zeit¬ schrift far cliristl. Wissenschaft, 1850, No. 30-34. — The Darbyites and Irvingites have also made disciples in Switzerland. On the former see J. Herzog , Les Freres de Plymouth et John Darby, Lausanne, 1845 : on the latter, see § 302, Note 4. A controversy on the inspiration of the Scripture was started by Scherer, in Geneva : a new French school on this basis, has its organ in Colani's Revue de Theologie et de Philosophic, Strasb., since 1850. [The power of the materialistic school of philosophy in France was broken by the Lectures of Laroniguiere , 1811-12 ; of Royer- Collar d, on the basis of Reid; by Maine de Biran, d. 1824; and especially by Victor Cousin , 1828 sq., in his System of Eclecticism, followed by Jouffroy (d. 1848), and others. A philosophical deism is inculcated by Jules Simon. Auguste Comte’s (d. 1857) Positive Philosophy makes induction the only philosoph¬ ical process. The Eclectic school was opposed by Ledru Rollin, and by the Catholic traditionalists : it is represented in the Dictionnaire des Scien¬ ces philosophiques, 4 vols. Cousin's Psychology, by C. S. Henry , 4th ed., New York, 1856 ; on the True, Beautiful and Good, by 0. W. Wight , 1852 ; Lectures on Kant, by Henderson, Lond., 1854. Hamilton on Cou¬ sin in Edinb. Rev., 50 (and in his Discussions). Comp. North Am. Rev., 29 ; President Ray, in Christ. Spec., 1835; Princeton Review, 1856. Fuchs , Kritik, Berlin, 1848. H. Taine , in Philos. Fran§aises, 1857. Rosenkranz, in Zeitschrift f. Philos., 23. — Jouffroy's Introd. to Ethics, transl. by W. H. Channing , 2 vols., Bost., 1840. — Jules Simon, Le Devoir, 2me. ed., 1854. La Religion Naturelle, 1857, transl. Lond. On Maine de Biran, see Astie, in Am. Theol. Rev., 1859. — On Comte, see Harriet Martineau’s exposition, 2 vols., 1854; Lewes’, 1853; Christ. Examiner (by Thos. Hill), 1854; Prince¬ ton Rev., 1856, 1858; Methodist Quart., a series of articles, 1852 sq. ; British Quart., 1854, 1858. Robinet , Notice sur la Vie de Comte, Paris, I860.] [Madame de Krudener , 1814, in Pays de Yaud, helped to revive religious belief; the party called Momiers. The Haldanes in Geneva. The Societe Evangelique, 1831. Malan on Justification : tracts and hymns. Merle 416 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. < TAubigne , Hist, of Reformation. Gaussen, Theopneustia, transl. by Kirk, new ed., Bost., 1860. A more liberal tendency was represented by Alex. Vinet , Essai sur les manifestations des convictions religieuses, 2d ed., 1859, (on separation of Church and State) transl. by C. T. Jones , 1843 : Essais de Philosophic morale, 1837 ; Pastoral Theol. and Homiletics, transl. by T. H. Skinner, N. Y., 1854: Moralistes des xvie. et xviie. Siecles, 1859; His- toire de la Predication, etc., 1861. Comp. Astids Esprit de Yinet, 1860. Agenor de Gasparin , School of Doubt, and School of Faith, etc. — The Revue Chretienne, published in Paris since 1853, edited by Ed. de Pressense, rep¬ resents substantially the school of Yinet. — Besides his work on Inspiration, Scherer has also written on the Church, and Melanges de critique religieuses, 1861 ; he represents an extreme rationalistic tendency. Ed. de Pres¬ sense, Histoire des trois premiers Siecles de l’Eglise, 2 Tomes, 1858. — French Protestantism has of late years shown an increased zeal in rescuing its early history from neglect ; see the Bulletin de la Societe de l’histoire du Protest- antisme Frang., 1852 sq. : the histories of De Felice , Soldan, and Puaux ; the republication of Calvin’s works in French, etc.] § 285, a. THEOLOGY IN ENGLAND IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. [The moderate theology of the divines of Queen Anne's reign, the ethical tendencies of the Latudinarians (see § 225, h ), and the gen¬ eral disposition, in the contest with infidelity, to reduce Christianity to its lowest terms, perpetuated, through the larger part of the eighteenth century, an indifference to thorough theological discussion. High Church principles were still inculcated by the Non-jurors1, who however were excluded from any general influence. As the result of the Bangor controversy,2 the powers of the church in Convoca¬ tion were annulled. The succession of Anglican divinity was kept up through the century, by the archbishops,3 Potter , Seeker , and' Laurence ; Thos. Burnet , master of the Charter-House ;4 the bishops Tomline , Thos. Newton , and Thos. Wilson ; Stackhouse , Skelton and Worthington ; bishops Halifax , Horsley , Hurd and Watson ; and carried into the next century by bishops Burgess , Van Mildert , and Mant .6 Warburton 6 was the most learned and vigor¬ ous polemic of the period. The theological system of Hey , the ethics and evidences of Paley , and to some extent the Arminianism of John Taylor , gave the tone to the popular religious discourse.7 In William Law , Bishop Edmund Law , and Jones of Nayland, were found a more earnest religious spirit.8 Biblical learning was represented by Abp. Newcome , Pococke , Robert Lowth , Kennicett , Horne , Boothroyd , Parkhurst and Herbert Marsh* Hutchinsoni- anism10 was a peculiar and transient attempt to show that all natur-e is symbolical of divine truth. Calvinism11 was still defended 285, a. Theology in England. 417 in the established church by Toplady and Scott ; but its chief advo¬ cates were found among the non-conformists,12 Ridgley , Watts , Doddridge , Gill and Williams. The Unitarian controversy in this and the next century was continued between Priestley and Horsley , Belsham, and Pye Smith , and others.13 Subscription to the Thirty- Nine Articles and the Athanasian Creed was defended on grounds of expediency.14] [Metaphysics were discarded, and mental philosophy was taught on the law of association by Hartley ; on the principles of common sense by Tucker ; on the basis of materialism by Priestley P The idealism of Berkeley 16 is an isolated phenomenon. Bishop Butler 17 established the ethical system on a purer basis, and Price vindicated an independent morality.18] 1 [Abp. Sancroft and two other bishops refused the oath of allegiance, 1688. — Scottish bishops joined them. The Non-jurors were divided, 1720, on the question of prayers for the dead, and the eucharistic sacrifice. Their Liturgy was revised, 1765. After the death of the Pretender, Charles Ed¬ ward, they acknowledged George III., and in 1792 were released from the penal laws. The last of the non-juring bishops was Boothe , who died in Ireland, 1805. Among their divines were Nathl. Spinckes (d. 1727), Hickes , Kettlewell , Leslie , John Johnson , Ken , Dodwell , Francis Lee , Wm. Law , Thos. Brett. See Thos. Lathbury's Hist, of Non-jurors, Lond., 1845; Bowles , Life of Bp. Ken, 2 vols., 1830; another Life by a Layman, 1851 ; comp. Dublin Rev., July, 1853. On their consecration, see Appendix to PercivaVs Apology for Apostol. Succession. Comp. Macaulay'' s Hist., vol. iv. and Notes and Queries, 2d s. xi. 232.] 3 [The Bangor Controversy, 1717 sq., was called forth by a sermon of the Latitudinarian Hoadly, Bp. of Bangor (1715-1761 : Works, 3 vols., 1763), maintaining that the established church is a human institution ; opposed by Drs. Snape, Sherlock , and others ; the Convocation was prorogued, and has had, until within the past few years, merely a formal being. On Law's Let¬ ter to Hoadly, see below, note 7. Works on Convocation, see ante, p. 295. P. Skelton, Vindication of Hoadly, Works, v. 211-251.] 3 [ John Potter, Abp. Canterb., b. 1674, d. 1747. Theol. Works, 3 vols., Oxf., 1753 ; on Church Government, reprinted in Tracts of Angl. Fathers, vol. iii. ; Archseologia Grgeca, 2 vols., 1797-99 ; editions of Lycophron and Clemens Alexandrinus. — Thos. Seeker, Abp. Cant., from 1758 to 1768. Works, 12 vols., Lond., 1770 ; Life by Bp. Porteus : Lectures on Catechism (Works, vols. 10, 11). — Richard Laurence, Abp. of Cashel, b. 1760, d. 1839 ; Bampton Lectures, 1804 (3d ed., 1838), on the Articles termed Cal- vinistic ; on Baptismal Regeneration, 3d ed., 1838 ; Documents on Predes¬ tination Controversy, 1819 ; Ascensio Isaise, 1819 ; Book of Enoch, transl., 1821 ; on Griesbuch’s Classification of MS., 1814*.] 4 [Thos. Burnet, Master of the Charter-House, b. 1635, d. 1715. He led the way in modern cosmogony by his Telluris Theoria Sacra, 4 Books, 1681—89, popularised in his Sacred Theory of the Earth, 7th ed., 2 vols., 418 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 1759 ; De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium, trausl. (with au auswer to al * the Heresies therein) by M. Earbery, 2d ed., 2 vols., Lond., 1738 (advocates the Millennium and the limited duration of future punishment) : Archse- logia? Philos., 1692, transl. by Foxton, 1729, etc. — Thomas Burnet , Prebend, of Salisbury, d. 1750: The Demonstration of True Religion (Bayle’s Lect., 1724-5), 2 vols., Lond., 1726 ; the Argument in Christ, as old as Creation, 3 parts, 1730-2.] 5 [George Pretyman , (his name changed to Tomline , 1803), Bp. Lincoln, b. 1750, d. 1827 : Elements of Christ. Theol., 2 vols., 2d ed. 1779, and often since ; Refutation of Calvinism, 1811, etc. — Thos. Newton , Bp. of Bristol, b. 1704, d. 1782 ; Dissertation on Prophecies, 10th ed., 2 vols., 1804; dissertations on theol. topics; Works, 6 vols., 1787. — Thos. Wilson , Bp. of Sodor and Man), b. 1663, d. 1755 : Works, 4th ed., 4 vols., 1796-7 ; new edition by Keble , in Angl. Cath. Library ; on Lord’s Supper, and Sacra Privata, frequent editions; Life hy Hugh Stowell , 3d ed., 1829. — Thos. Stackhouse , b. 1680, d. 1752 : Complete Body of Div., 3d ed. fob, 1755 ; Apostles’ Creed, 1747 ; New Hist, of Bible, 6 vols., 1767, 3, 4 to, ed. Gleig, 1817; 4 on Woolston, 1760. — Philip Skelton , see § 276, p. 385. — Wm. Worthington, b. 1703, d. 1778 ; Essay on Redemption, 1743 ; Boyle Lects., 1766-8, on Evidence of Christ (as growing), 2 vols., 1769 ; Script. Theory of the Earth (anon.), 1773. — Sami. Halifax , Bp. St. Asaph, b. 1733, d. 1790, On Justification, 2d ed., 1762 ; on Prophecy, 1776. — John Rotheram , Rector of Hough tonde-Spring, d. 1788, Apology for Athanasian Creed; Essay on Human Liberty, 1782 ; Argument for Prophecy (against Middleton), Oxf., 1753. — Samuel Horsley, Bp. ' St. Asaph, b. 1733, d. 1806 : Collected Works, 6 vols. 1845; Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, 3d ed., 1812; ed. Newton’s Works, 5 vols., 1779-85 ; Biblical Criticisms. See Allibonds Diet, i. 894. — Richard Hurd, Bp. Worcester, b. 1720, d. 1808 ; Works, 8 vols., 1811, chiefly literary criticism. — Richard Watson, Bp. Llandaff, b. 1737, d. 1816: Apology for Bible, against Paine, 2d ed., 1796; Collection of Theol. Tracts, 6 vols., 1791 ; Miscel. Tracts, 2 vols., 1815. — Thos. Burgess , Bp. Salisbury, b. 1756, d. 1837 : First Principles, 1804 ; Origin and Inde¬ pendence of Ancient Brit. Church, 2d ed., 1815 ; English Ref. and Papal- Schism, 1829 ; Tracts on Div. of Christ (see note 13 of previous section) ; Life bj^ Harford, 2d ed., 1841. — William Van Milder t, Bp. of Durham, b. 1765, d. 1836 : Theol. Works, 6 vols., Oxf., 1838 ; Boyle Lect. on Progress of Infidelity, 2 vols.; Bampton Lectures on Religious Controversy, 1814; Sermons. — Richard Mant, Bp. Down, b. 1776, d. 1849 : Appeal to Gospel (against the charges of Methodists), Bampton Lect., 1812; Churches of Rome and England, 1837 ; Hist. Chh. Ireland, 1840 ; Horse Liturgicae, 1845.] 6 [ William Warburton, Bp. of Gloucester, see ante, p. 384 ; besides the works there mentioned, he wrote Alliance between Church and State (Works, vol. 7); Doctrine of Holy Spirit (in vol. 6); Critical and Philos. Commentary on Pope’s Essay on Man.] 7 [John Hey, b. 1754, Norrisan Prof. Div., Camb., 1780, d. 1815 (“ acute, impartial, and judicious ;” Kaye ) : Lectures on Divinity,' 4 vols., 1796, 3d ed. Turton, 2,.1&41 ; Essay on Redemption; Thoughts on Athanasian Creed, § 2 85, a . Theology in England. 419 J 790. — William Paley, Arclid. of Carlisle, see ante, p. 384. His Natural Theology illustrated by Brougham and Bell , 5 vols., 1835-39. His selfish theory of morals opposed by Mackintosh, Stewart, Coleridge, Whewell, and most of the later English moralists. — John Taylor , of Norwich, a Unitarian divine, b. 1694, d. 1761 ; Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin, 1738, 4th ed., with Reply to Wesley, 1767 ; Paraphrase to Epistle to Romans, 3d ed., 1754; Script. Doctrine of Atonement, 1753 ; Hebrew Concordance, after JBuxtorf, \ 2 fob Norwich, 1754-7.] 8 \William Law , a non-juror and mystic, b. 1686, d. 1761 : Works, 9 vols., 1762. His Three Letters to the Bishop of Bangor ( Hoadly ) are famed in con¬ troversial literature for wit and argument. Remarks on Mandeville’s Fable of Bees, 3d, 1762; Case of Reason (against TindaT)\ Practical Treatise on Christ. Perfection, 5th ed., 1759 ; Grounds and Reasons of Christ. Regen er- . ation, 7th ed., 1773; Serious Call, 1st ed., 1729, often republished; in the deistic controversy, reply to Dr. Trapp, 4th ed., 1772, etc. ; he prepared in part an edition of Behmen’s works, 1764-81, and published on them, The Way to Divine Knowledge, 2d ed., 1762. — Edmund Law , Bp. Carlisle, b. 1703, d. 1787 : Considerations on the Theory of Religion, 1745, new ed. by G. H. Law , Lond., 1820 ; Inquiry into the Ideas of Space, Time, etc., in Answer to Jackson, 1734 ; he also transl. King on Origin of Evil. — William Jones , of Nayland, b. 1726, d. 1800 (“had the talent of writing upon the deepest subjects to the plainest understandings ;” Horsley) ; Theol. and Miscel. Works, 6 vols., 1810, 1826 ; The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity; Figurative Language of Scriptures ; Essay on the Church.] \William Newcome , Abp. Armagh, b. 1729, d. 1800: Harmony of Gospels, 1798, 1802, ed. by M. Stuart , Andover, 1814 ; Ezekiel and Minor Prophets, 1836; Eng. Bible Translations, 1792. — Samuel Parker , Bibl. Biblica, 5 fol. on Pent., Oxf., 1720, sq. — Richard Pococke , Bp. of Meath, b. 1704, d. 1765: Description of the East, 2 fob, 1743-5; Inscript. Antiq. liber., 1752. — William Romaine , Calasio’s Concordance, 4 vols., 1747 (Hutchinsonian). — Robert Ldwth , Bp. London, b. 1710, d. 1787 : Isaiah, new transh, 13th ed., 1842 ; De Sacri Poesi Hebraeorum Prselectiones, with Notes of Michaelis and Rosenmtiller, Oxf., 1821, transl. by G. Gregory , 2 vols. 1787, Boston, 1815, new ed., with notes of C. E. Stowe , Andov., 1829; Sermons; Letter to Warburton, 2d ed., 1766. — Benj. Kennicott,b. 1718, d. 1783 : State of Hebrew Text, 2, Oxf., 1753-9; Two Diss. on Tree of Life, etc., 2d ed., 1747 ; Collection of Hebr. MS., 1770; Diss. in Yet. Test. Hebr., 1780, etc. — George Horne, Bp. Norwich, b. 1730, d. 1792. Works, 4 vols., ed. by Wm. Jones, Lond., 1809 ; Comm, on Psalms, fre¬ quent editions; Letter on Behmen, and Cautions to Law (Works, i. 216, sq.) ; Discourses. He favored the views of Hutchinson (see next note). — Benj. Boothroyd (Independent), minister at Huddersfield, d. 1836 : Family Bible and Improved Version, 3, 4to, 1824 ; Biblia Hebraica. — Critical Comm, and Paraphrase on Old and New Test, and Apocrypha, by Patrick, Lowth, Arnold, Whitby, and Laeman ; new ed. by Pitman, 6 vols., 1822. — Geo. H Oyly and R. Mant, Notes, etc., Lond., 1845, 3 vols., 8vo. — John Park- hurst (Hutchinsonian), b. 1728, d. 1797 : Greek and English Lexicon, 1798, often repr., 1851 ; Hebr. and Eng. Lex., 1792, ed. Rose, 1829, Major, 1843. 420 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. — Herbert Marsh, Bp. Peterborough, b. 1757, d. 1839: Authenticity of the First Boots of Moses, 1792; Lects. on Criticism and Interpretation, 1838 ; on Authenticity of N. Test., 1840 ; Comp. View of the Churches of England and Rome, 1814, 1816 ; translation of Michaelis , Introd., 4 vols. in 6, 1802. — On Thos. Scott , see note 11, on Doddridge and Gill, note 12.] 10 [ John Hutchinson , b. 1674, d. 1737 : Philosophical and Theol. Worts, 12 vols., Lond., 1749; Moses’ Principia ; Glory or Gravity, etc.) He op¬ posed the Newtonian system. Among his followers were Bishop Horne, ParJchurst, Romaine, and Jones of Nayland. See Horne, Worts, vol. '6, p. 113, sq ., on the State of the Case between Sir Isaac Newton and Mr. Hutchinson; and Jones of Nayland, in Preface to Life of Bp. Horne. Their leading principle was, that ideas in divinity are formed from the ideas in na¬ ture ; the Trinity is to be conveyed to the understanding by ideas of sense ; the Cherubim represent humanity united to Deity, etc. Robert Spearman , publ. an Abstract of Hutchinson’s Works, Edinb., 1755 ; and a Supplement, 1765. Julius Hate , Defence of H., 1751.] 11 [ Augustus Montague Toplady, b. 1740, d. 1778 : Works, 6 vols., 1794, 1825 ; in one vol. 1853 (a strenuous Calvinist) ; Historic Proof of Doctrinal Calvinism of Church of England (vol. i. ii.) ; Church of Eng. vindicated from the Charge of Arminianism ; Doctrine of Predestination (vol. v.) , Scheme of Necessity against Wesley (vol. vi.) — Thos. Scott, b. 1747, d. 1821: Holy Bible with Notes, frequent editions; Works, ed. John Scott, 10 vols., 1823; Force of Truth ; Essays; Sermons; Synod of Dort, etc. ; Evangelical Doctrines stated and defended in Remarks on Bp. of Winches¬ ter’s ( Tomline ) Refutation of Calvinism (Works, vol. vii. viii.) His son, John Scott (d. 1834) published, Inquiry into Effect of Baptism, against Bp. Mant, 2d ed., 1817, and against Laurence, 1817. (See above § 225, b, note 2, p. 184. See on this subject the works of Tomline and Laurence, and Ed. Williams (note 12). Bp. Herbert Marsh was also a strenuous opponent of Calvinism. Thos. Edwards (Arminian), b. 1729, d. 1785, vicar of Nuneaton, on Irresistible Grace, Cambr., 1759. — John H. Hinton, Moderate Calvinism reexamined, Lond. 1861. Whately's Difficulties in the Writings of St, Paul (Essays, 2d series, 5th ed., 1845). Copleston on Predestination and Necessity, 1821.] 12 [ Thos . Ridgeley, see above § 225, b , p. 191. Lsaac Watts, b. 1674, d. 1748: Works, 9 vols., Lond., 1812. Sermons; Rational Order of Christ. Church ; Doctrines of Trinity ; Glory of God as Christ-Man (he held the preexistence of Christ’s human soul, as did Fleming and T. Goodwin) ; Im¬ provement of the Mind, etc. — Philip Doddridge, b. 1702, d. 1751. Family Expositor, .numerous editions; Works, 10 vols., 1802; Course of Lectures on Pneumatology, Ethics and Divinity (Works iv.) ; Sermons ; Life and Corresp., 5 vols., Lond., 1831. — John Gill (Baptist), b. 1697, d. 1771 : Expos. O. and New Test., 9 vols., 4 to, Lond., 1810 ; Solomon’s Song, fob, 1728; Complete Body of Divinity, 2, 1839 ; Cause of God and Truth, new ed., 1838, etc. — Edward Williams, b. 1730, taught in Indep. Academy of Rotheram from 1795, d. 1813 : Defence of Modern Calvinism (against Torn, line) 1812 ; Essay on Divine Government, 2d ed., 1813, omitting the exam § 2 85, a. Theology in England. 421 mation of Whitby and Fletcher; Christian Preacher, 5th ed., 1843 ; edited Doddridge and Jonathan Edwards, and abridged Owen on Hebrews.] 13 [Joseph Priestley , b. 1733, in America 1794, d. 1804, a voluminous writer on political, philosophical. and religious topics. Correspondence with Price on Materialism, 1778 ; Examination of Reid’s Inquiry, 1775 ; Insti¬ tutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, 2 vols., 2d ed., 1782 ; Letters to a Phil. Unbeliever (on Hume and Gibbon), 1747 ; Hist, of Church, 6 vols., 1790-1803. His History of Corruption of Christ, 2 vols., 1782, and Hist, of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ, 4, 1786, led to Horsley’s Charge, etc. (see note 5); Tracts in Controversy with Horsley, 1783-6, reprinted 1815. Memoirs to 1795 written by himself, 2 vols., Lond., 1806-7. — Na¬ thaniel Lardner, b. 1684, d. 1768: Works, 11 vols., Credibility of Gospel Hist. (17 vols., Lond., 1727—57) ; Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies (4 vols., 1764-7); Hist, of Heretics from MS. (1780); Two Schemes of a Trinity considered (Works, x.) ; on the Logos in Place of the Human Soul of Christ (vol. xi.) — Theophilus Lindsey , b. 1723, d. 1808 : Apology, 1774, Sequel, 1776 ; Histl. View of State of Unit. Doctrine from Reformation, 1783 ; Vindiciae Priestlieanae, 1788 ; Memoirs by j Belsham, 1812. — Thos. Belsham , b. 1730, d. 1809 : Calm Inquiry into Script. Doc¬ trine Concerning the Person of Christ (and review of Priestley and Horsley), 1811; Epistles of Paul, 2 vols., 4to, 1822 ; Appendix of Extracts from divines of Church of England, 1824. — Memoirs by John Williams , 1833. New Version of New Test, chiefly by Belsham. (Comp. Magee on Sacri¬ fice, ed. of 1842, vol. 2, pp. 74-311 on this Version ; Abp. Laurence , Crit¬ ical Reflections, 1811 ; Edward Nares , Prof. Hist. Oxf., d. 1811, Remarks on the Version, 2d ed., 1814. — Lant Carpenter , b. 1780, d. 1840 : Exami¬ nation of the charges against Unitarians, and the Improved Version by Bp. Magee, with Strictures on Bp. Burgess, Drs. Hales, Graves, Nares, Pye Smith, Rennel, etc., Bristol, 1820; he also wrote on the Atonement, 1843 ; Har¬ mony of Gospels, 2d ed., 1838, etc. — John Jebb , M. D., b. 1736, d. 1786. Works by Disney , 3 vols., 1787. — Caleb Fleming , 1698, d. 1779 : a Soci- nian, he wrote against Bolingbroke and Chubb , and in favor of psedo-baptism. — Jos. Bretland , Unit., b. 1742, d. 1819 : Sermons, 2 vols., 1820. — Abra¬ ham Pees , d. 1825, Sermons, 4, 1809. — John Disney , b. 1746, d. 1816 : Letters to Dr. V. Knox , on Unit. Christians ; Remarks on [ Tomline’s ] Charge, 1812; Sermons, 4, 1793-1818. — Richard Price , b. 1723, d. 1791: Four Diss. on Provid., Christianity, etc., 3d ed., 1772 ; on Civil Liberty, 9th ed., 1776; Sermons on Christ. Doctrine, 1787. — (On the controversy as to 1 John v. 7, see the treatise of Sir Ls. Newton, 1754; Bp. Burgess, Tracts on Div. of Christ, 1820, and Selection of Tracts on 1 John, v. 7, 1824 ; G. Travis , Letters to Gibbon, in defence, 3d ed., 1794 ; R. Porson, Letters to Archd. Travis, 1795 ; Bp. Marsh, Letters to Travis, 1795 ; W. Hales, in his Faith in the Trinity, 2, 133, sq. ; Cardinal Wiseman, in his Essays, vol. 1. — For the literature of the controversy, see Darling's Cyclop. Bibl. Subjects; Holy Scriptures, pp. 1718-23.) — On John Pye Smith's works in reply to Belsham and others, see the next section, note 24. William Magee, Abp. of Dublin (b. 1763, d. 1831), Dissertation on Atonement and Sacrifice (with Appendix on Mr. Belsham), new ed. 2, 1842. — During the present 422 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. century, the controversy has been continued between Wardlaw and Yates : Yates , Vindication of TJnitarianism, 4th ed., 1850 ; Sequel to Vind., 2d ed., 1822 : Wardlaw , Discourses on Principal Points of the Socinian Contro¬ versy, 2d ed., 1815 ; TJnitarianism Incapable of Vindication, 1816 (Ando¬ ver, 1817). — Edward Burton, of Oxford: Testimonies of Anti-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, 2d ed., 1829 ; ibid., Testimony to Trinity and Divinity of Holy Ghost, 1831. — William Hales , Faith in the Holy Trinity, 2d ed., 2, 1818. — G. S. Faber , Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, 2 vols., 1832. — John Oxlee , Trinity and Incarnation (Jewish sources), 3 vols., 1817-30. — The leading English Unitarians of the present century arc James Martineau (Essays and Reviews, Miscellanies, etc.) ; J. R. Beard (V oices of the Church, in reply to Strauss, 1845; Rationalism in Germany; Historic and Artistic Illustrations of the Trinity, 1846 ; Unitarianism in its Actual Condition, 1849) ; J. H. Thom, Commentaries, etc.] 14 [Many Presbyterian churches became Unitarian (170 of the Unitarian chapels were originally orthodox). At the Salter’s Hall Meeting, 57 of 110 ministers were against ail creeds. The Feathers ’ Tavern Association, was for the abolitiou of subscription (particular objection to the damnatory clause in the Athanasian Creed) ; three hundred clergy, led by Gilbert Wakefield (d. 1801). See also Archd. Hlackburne (b. 1705, d. 1787) : The Confessional, 1766 (anon, reprinted in his works, vol. 5 ; in vols. 6 and 7, tracts on the same subject). Comp. Doubts on the Authenticity of the last Publication of the Confessional, 1768; Short View of the Controversy, 2d ed., 1775. — Complete and Faithful Account of. the Papers publ. at Oxford on Subscription, 1772. Paley, Defence of the Considerations on the Pro¬ priety of requiring Subscription, in Reply to a late Answer : \V orks, vol. iv. 431, s<7.] f 15 [David Hartley, b. 1705, d. 1757 : Observations on Man, etc., 2 vols., 1749 ; 3 vols., 1791, ed. by Priestley, 1801 ; translated in German by Pistorius. Comp. [Priestley) Hartley’s Theory, 1790 ; and Jos. Berington, Letter on Hartley, 1776. See above the works of Reid, Dugald Stewart, Cousin, and Morell. — Abraham Tucker, b. 1705, d. 1774. Light of Nature (by Edward, Search); best ed. 7 vols., 1805, repr. in 2 vols., 1837. On Priestley, see note 13, above.] 16 [ George Berkeley (see § 285, a, note 16, and § 276, p. 384), Bp. of Cloyne, b. 1684, d. 1733: Essay towards a new Theory of Vision, 1709; Vindication, 1733 (see Bailey’s Review of same, Lond., 1842. New ed. by Cowell, 1860. Comp. Mill, in Westminster Rev., 38, 39). Comp, also Blackwood’s Magazine, Oct., 1841, June, 1842, June, 1843, May and Aug., 1847.] 17 [See ante, p. 227. On the influence of his Sermons upon the ethical speculation of England, see Mackintosh , Diss. on Progress of Ethical Philos., Section VI.] 18 [ Richard Price (see note 13) Review of Principal Question in Morals, 1758, 3d ed., 1787. This was an attempt to revive the more Platonic theory of morals ; tUe idea of right as simple and nndefinable.] § 285, b. Theology in England. 423 § 285, b. [ENGLISH THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY IN THE PRESENT CENTURY.] [Though England did not directly participate in the speculative movement of the German schools, yet the philosophy of Locke and the ethics of Paley gradually lost their influence.1 Here as in Scot¬ land, the scepticism of Hume, was supplanted by the philosophy of common sense (see § 285, c). Utilitarianism was also carried to its ex¬ treme positions in the system of Jeremy Bentham ;2 and the inductive : philosophy is made supreme in the works of James and John Stuart Mill* the latter in harmony with Comte.* Samuel Taylor Cole¬ ridge, 5 was the prophet, rather than the systematic expounder of a more spiritual philosophy. Ho one system can he said to have ascendency in England ; but there are favorable representatives of various philosophical tendencies.6] [The revival of theology began rather in the sphere of practical piety, than in that of abstract speculation. Stimulated by the zeal of the Wesleys and Wliitefield (see § 278), whose evangelical Ar- minianism was in striking contrast with the ethical Arminianism of the established Church, — the Evangelical or Low Church party rapidly increased in influence during the first quarter of the cen¬ tury.7 It was comparatively indifferent to the sacramental theory and the apostolical succession, and devoted to spiritual piety and evangelical works. But a strong reaction commenced, nearly coeval s with the passage of the Reform Bill (1832). The advocates of High V Church principles rallied with new vigor in the so-called Oxford School (Tracts for the Times)8 represented by Pusey ,9 Newman f Fronde , Keble , Wilberforce and others,11 many of whom at last, went over to the Roman Catholic communion.12 The Hampden Controversy ,13 the Gorham Case,1* the Denison Case,1* and the Forbes Case 16 in Scotland, are all connected with this movement. Be¬ sides the Evangelical and the Oxford Schools, there is a large class of liberal Anglican divines, represented by Copleston,11 Archbishop Whately ,18 Dean Milman, Dean Trench, Burton, Wordsworth and others ;19 still greater freedom is claimed, with a more liberal appli¬ cation of philosophy to theology, by the so called Broad Church.20 The progress of biblical science is exemplified in the works of Lee, Kitto, Tregelles, Davidson, Trench, Bloomfield, Wordsworth, Elli- cott, Jowett, Alford and others.21 — The Baptists have for the most part ceased to sympathize with their earlier Antinomianism,22 and are represented in a freer spirit by Byland, Fuller , Foster and Hall.™ The Independents have united an orthodox theology with a spirit of theologic inquiry, as is illustrated in the writings of John Pye Smithy 424 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. George Payne , John Harris , P. Vaughan and others.24 — The con¬ flict of Christianity with Infidelity has called forth a series of works25 upon the Evidences, and on Natural Religion. In the recent (Ox¬ ford) Essays and Reviews™ the arguments for the Evidences of Christianity, and for the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, are seriously impugned. In ManseVs Bampton Lectures (1858), on the Limits of Religious Thought, 2T all positive thought is excluded from the sphere of the supernatural.] 1 [See Sedgwick's Discourse, 5th ed., pp; 162 sq., criticising Paley’s defi¬ nition of Virtue, viz., “ the doing good to mankind in obedience to the will of God, for the sake of everlasting happiness,” and especially his statement, that “ pleasures differ in nothing but in continuance and in intensity.” See also Mackintosh's Preliminary Dissertation, and WhewelVs History of Moral Philosophy. On Locke see Cousin's Psychology, trans. by C. S. Henry , 4th ed., 1856.] 2 [« Jeremy Bentham , b. 1841, d. 1832 : Fragment on Government, 1776 ; Morale and Legislation, (1780) 1789 ; Theory of Legisl. (from French of Dumont , transl. by R. Hildreth , 2 vols., Brist., 1840) ; Deontology by Bow- ring , 1834 (see Edb. Rev., 61) ; Chrestomathia, 1817 ; Works, 11 vols., Edinb., 1843. In his Church of England and its Catechism, 1818, and his Not Paul but Jesus, he made an open attack on Christianity. (See Quart. Rev., 1818, and Rose's Critical Exam., 1819.) Comp, the articles of Mill on Ban- tham, in Westminster Rev., July, 1838, and Oct., 1852.] 3 [James Mill , Analysis of the Phenomena of Human Mind, 1829 (see MorelVs History of Phil., p. 237 sq.). John Stuart Mill , Diss. and Discuss., 2 vols.; Pol. Econ. ; System of Logic, 2 vols., 1842 (New York, one vol.) ; new ed., 1858. Comp. Whewell in Philos, of Inductive Sciences; North Am. Rev., Oct., 1845 ; Christ. Examiner, May, 1846 ; New Englander, May, 1850 ; Princeton Review, Jan., 1856. The Westminster Review, since 1834, is the organ of this school. G. H Lewes , in his Biog. Hist, of Philos, (repr. New York, 1857), represents the same tendency.] 4 [Auguste Comte , a French philosopher, b. 1798, d. 1857 : Cours de Philosophic Positive, 6 Tom., 1830— ’42 ; Systeme de Politique Positive, 4, 1851-2. Positive Philos, of Comte, by Harriet Martineau , New York, 1854 ; Philos, of Sciences, ed. Lewes , 1853. Comp. Meth. Quart. Rev., 1852 sq. ; Brit. Quart., April, 1854, and Oct., 1858 ; North British, May, 1854 ; N^rth Am. Rev., July, 1854; Presb. Quart., Sept., 1857; Christ. Exam., July, 1857. Comte’s inductive and materialistic theory is also at the basis of Buckle's Hist, of Civilization, vols., 1, 2, 1859-61. See § 285, note 11.] 6 [Samuel Taylor Coleridge, b. 1772, d. 1834: The Friend, 1812; Statesman’s Manual, 1816 ; Biographia Literaria, 2 vols., 1817 (Schelling) ; Aids to Reflection, 1825 ; Constitution of Church and State, 1830 ; Life by Gillman , vol. 1, 1838. New edition of his works, edited by H. H. and Sara Coleridge , 1844-9 ; Literary Remains, 4 vols., 1836-9 ; Prof. Shedd's edition, 7 vols., New York, 1854. Comp. Bibliotheca Sacra, iv. ; Princeton Rev., 1848; Church Rev., 1854 ; Brit. Quart., Jan., 1854; Christ. Rev., § 285, b. Theology in England. 425 July, 1854; Remusat in Revue cl. deux Mondes, Oct., 1856 ; Eclectic Rev., (Loud.) 4th s., vol. 29, reprinted separately. His Friend, and Aids to Reflection were republished by Pres. Marsh, Burlington, 1831 sq., with a preliminary Essay. His Theory of the Reason, and of the Will, are the main points iu Coleridge’s system.] [ W. Whewell , Hist, and Philos, of Inductive Sciences, 5 vols., 1837-40 ; new edition, 1857 ; Elements of Morality, 1845-8, repr. New York. Lect. on Systematic Morality, 1846 ; Moral Phil, in England, 1852. Herbert Spencer (of the inductive .school) ; Psychology, 1855; Essays, 1857; pro¬ posed series on the philosophical sciences. — J. D. Morell (eclectic), History of Modern Philosophy ; Philos, of Religion, 1849 ; Psychology, Part 1, 1853. — Alexander Bain , The Emotions and Will, 1859 ; Senses and Intellect, 1855. — Isaac Taylor , World of Mind, 1855. — Henry L. Mansel , Prolego¬ mena Logica, 2d ed., 1859, Bost., 1860 ; Metaphysics, or the Philos, of Con¬ sciousness, from the Encycl. Britan., Edinb., 1860. — John H. Macmahon , A Treatise on Metaphysics, chiefly in reference to Revealed Religion, Lond., 1860. — Wm. Archer Butler , b. 1814, d. 1848; Lects. on Development of Christ. Doctrine, ed. Woodward , 1850; on Ancient Philos., 2 vols., repr. Phil., 1858; Sermons.] 7 [On the Wesleyan movement, see above, § 278. On the division between White field and Wesley, see Stevens' History of Methodism, ubi supra. On the Wesleyan controversy as to Antinomianism and justification (1770), ibid. Charles Wesley, b. 1708, d. 1778 ; Sermons; Life and Times by T. Jackson, 2 vols., Lond., 1841. Among the Calvinistic Methodists was Wm. Huntington , S. S. (i. e. Sinner Saved), b. 1744, d. 1813 ; Works, 2 vols., 1820, 6 vols., 1856; comp. Southey, in Quart. Rev., xiv. The Lady Huntingdon Connection (England and Wales, in 1795 numbered about 100,000), grew up in this movement; see Mem. of Selina Huntingdon, (b. 1707, d. 1791), 2, 1840. Representatives of the Evangelical Party; Charles Simeon, b. 1759, d. 1836; Horse Homiletics, 21 vols., 1840, Memoirs by Cams, 1847. Henry Venn , b. 1725, d. 1797, Sermons, Complete Duty of Man, etc. William Wilberforce, the Statesman, b. 1759, d. 1833 ; Practi¬ cal View (frequent editions) ; Life, 5 vols., 1839. Hannah More, b. 1745, d. 1833; Works, 11 vols., 1830 (repr. New York). Richard Cecil, b. 1748, d. 1810 ; Works and Mem., 4 vols., 1811. John Newton, of Olney, b. 1725, d. 1807; Works, 2d ed., 1816. William Romaine, b. 1 714, d. 1795; Life of Faith ; Works, 8 vols., 1796. William Cowper, the poet, b. 1731, d. 1800 ; Life and Works by Southey, 15 vols., 1836, ’7. John Jebb, Bp. Limerick, b. 1775, d. 1833 ; Practical Theol., 2d ed., 2 vols., 1837 ; Sacred Lit., new ed., 1831. Reginald Heber , Bp. Calcutta, b. 1783, d. 1826 ; Hymns, Sermons, Narrative, etc.; Life, 2, 1830. Daniel Wilson , Bp. Cal¬ cutta, d. 1858 ; Evidences of Christ. 4th ed., 1841 (repr. Bost., 1830) ; Lect. on Colossians, Sermons, etc. Edw. Bickersteth, b. 1786, d. 1850 ; on Prayer, Baptism, Restoration of the Jews, etc. John Gumming, (Scotch Church, Lond.) ; Apocalyptic Sketches, Prophetic Studies, etc. Jas. Hamilton (Scotch Church, Lond.) ; Royal Preacher, etc. 8 [ Tracts for the Times, by Members of the University of Oxford, 6 vols., 1833-40, 90 in number. They declared that the Church of England was 426 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. not Protestant, and advocated (1.) Apostolical Succession ; (2.) Sacramental Grace (baptismal regeneration and the eucharistic sacrifice) ; (3.) Independ¬ ence of Church upon State ; (4.) Episcopal and Church authority ; tradition with the Scriptures ; (5.) Revival of certain ecclesiastical usages, e. g., altars of stone, lights, private confession, etc. No. 90 by J. H. Newman , advo¬ cated subscription to the Article in a non-natnral sense ; condemned by the Hebdomadal Board. Comp. F. Oakley , Tract No. 90 examined, 1841 ; J. H. Newman , Letter to Bp. of Oxf. on No. 90 ; E. B. Pusey , Articles in Tract 90 reconsidered, in a Letter to R. W. Jelf.- Among the most signifi¬ cant of these Tracts, were Pusey on Baptism (No. 67) ; Apostol. Succession (74) ; Reserve in communicating religious knowledge (80, 87). The Li¬ brary of Anglo Catholic Theology, containing reprints of works illustrating Anglican theology ; and the Library of Fathers of the Holy Cath. Church (ed. by Pusey , Keble and Marriott ), aided in this movement.] 9 \_E. B. Pusey , Regins Prof, of Hebr., Oxf. ; Letter to Bp. of Oxf., on Tendency to Romanism, 4th ed., with Preface on Justification, 1840 ; To Abp. of Canterbury, on Present Crisis, 3d ed., 1842 ; Sermons, 1845 ; Paro¬ chial Serm., 1848-53 ; Royal Supremacy, 1850 ; Sermon on Holy Eucharist, 1843 (proceedings against him for this) ; The Church of Eng. leaves her Children Free to open their Griefs, 1850, with a Vindication: Hist, of Councils, 1858 ; Minor Prophets, Pt. 1, I860.] 10 [ John Henry Newman ; Arians of Fourth Cent., 1833 ; Parochial Ser¬ mons, 6 vols., 1835 sq. ; Prophetical Office of Church, 2d ed., 1838 ; Justi¬ fication, 2d ed., 1840; Chh. of Fathers, 2d ed., 1842; Sermons, 1843; Essays on Miracles, 1843 ; Essay on Development of Christ. Doctrine, 1845 (comp. Milman on this, in Quart. Rev., vol. 77 ; William Archer Butler, ubi supra ; Maurice in Preface to his Lect. on Hebrews, 1846 ; Archd. Hare , in his Charge, 1852 : Palmer's Doctrine of Development and Conscience, 1846 ; W. J. Goode, on Theory of Development, 1846). Mr. Newman sub¬ mitted to the Roman Catholic Church in 1845.] 11 [Richd. H. Fronde, b. 1803, d. 1836 . Remains, 4 vols., 1838 (he gave an impulse to this whole movement). John Keble ; Primitive Tradition, - 1839; Christian Year, and Lyra Innocentium ; Psalter in English verse; Sermons, 1847 ; Praelect. Academ., 2, Oxf., 1844 ; ed. Hooker’s Eccl. Polity. Samuel Wilberforce, Bp. of Oxf. ; Charges, Sermons, etc. Henry Wm. and Robert Isaac Wilberforce, became Roman Catholics, the latter wrote : Doc¬ trine of Baptism, 2d ed., 1849 ; Incarnation, 3d ed., 1850 ; Eucharist, 1853 ; Sermons on New Birth, 1850. Wm. G. Ward, (Rom. Cath.) ; Ideal of Christ. Church, 1844; Nature and Grace, 1860. Fred. Oakeley (R. C.) ; On Submitting to Cath. Church, Sermons, etc. F. W. Faber (R. C.) ; Tracts on Church and Prayer Book. Henry Ed. Manning, Archd. Chichester (became R. C.) j Unity of Church, 1842 ; Sermons, 5 vols. ; Holy Baptism, 1844; Grounds of Faith, 1852. William Maskell (Rom. Cath.) ; Monu- menta Ritualia Eccles. Anglic., 3, 1846-7; Holy Baptism, 1848; Absolu¬ tion, 1849 ; Royal Supremacy, 1850. W. E. Gladstone ; The State in its Relations with the Church, 2 vols., 4th ed., 1841. Robert Owen, Introd. to Dogmatic Theol., Lond., 1858.] 13 \Ward, Oakley, Dal gair ns and Faber, became Rom. Cath. in 1815 § 2 85, b. English Theology and Philosophy. 427 with Mr. Newman. After the Gorham Case and the papal aggression (1851), Manning , Dodsworth , the two Wilberforces , Scott , Allies and Maslcell , also seceded; the Christ. Remembrancer, 1860, says, all of these but Scott and Masked were originally Low Church. In 1850-1, the secessions to Rome ■were over 100 clergymen ; in 1852, 200 clergymen and as many laity ; from Oxford, 118 clergymen and laymen. Comp. B. Price , The Anglo Catholic Theory, from Edinb. Rev., Oct., 1851, Lond., 1852; Cardinal Wiseman , Essays, vol. 2 ; ibid., on High Church Claims, 1842; Christ. Remb., Jan., 1860; Archd.. Afarc, on Contest with Rome, 1852 ; Church Eng. Quart., 1854; Bp. C. P. Mcllvaine , Oxford Divinity, Phila., 1841 ; Isaac Taylor , Ancient Christianity, 2 vols., 4th ed., 1844 ; Goode , on Baptism and the Divine Rule, 2 vols., 1842 ; Palmer , on Church, 2 vols., 1841.] 13 [ Penn DicJcson Hampden (Bp. Hereford, 1847), Phil. Evid. of Christ., 1827 ; Parochial Serm., 2d ed., Lond., 1836 ; Oxford Serm., 1848 ; Lects. on Moral Philos.; Tradition, 4th ed., 1841; Thos. Aquinas, etc., from Encycl. Metrop., 1832, 3d ed., 1848. His Lectures (Bampton) on the Scho¬ lastic Philos, in Relation to Christ provoked the chief controversy. Comp. British Critic, xiv. ; Henry Christmas , Hist, of Hampden Controv., 1848 (with documents) ; Corresp. between D. II. and Dr. Ilowley, Abpf Cant., 2d ed., 1838 ; Julius Chs. Hare , Letter to Dean of Chichester, 1848 ; Dr. H.’s Theol. Statements and the Thirty -Nine Articles, 1836; Edb. Rev. lxii. ; North British, viii. ; Frazer’s Mag., xxxvii. ; Church Rev. (New Haven) i.] 14 [The Gorham Case , 1847, sq. Mr. Gorham denied unconditional bap¬ tismal regeneration ; was prosecuted by Bp. Philpotts , of Exeter, who was sustained in the Court of Arches ; but this decision was reversed before the Queen in Council, 1850. Comp. W. E. Gladstone , on Royal Supremacy, 1850 ; Julius Chs. Hare , Letter to Cavendish, 2d ed., 1850. Letters to the Primate by a Layman ; W. J. Irons , The Present Crisis, and Sequel ; Keble, Church Matters in 1850 ; Edinb. Rev., xcii. xcv.] 15 [Denison Case , 1853—8, on Presence of Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharist ; Arch. Denison, removed by of Bp. of Bath ; Appeal of Ditcher vs. Denison dismissed by Privy Council, 1858.] 18 [Alex. Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, 1847 (Scotland), Explanation of Nicene Creed, etc., 1852. The controversy in his case is upon the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, in his Charge, 1857. Documents collected, 1860. Mr. Cheyne, who advocated the real presence, was condemned by the Scottish bishops, 1859.] 17 [Edward Copleston , Bp. Llandaff, b. 1776, d. 1849 : on Necessity and Predestination, 1821 (comp. Quart. Rev. xxvi.) ; Praelectiones Academics?, 1813, 1838 ; Sermons and Essays; Replies to Edinb. Rev. against Oxford, 1810-11 ; Memoirs, 1851. He was the head of the Oriel School (Whately, Arnold, etc.)] ie [Richard Whately, Abp. Dublin, Bampton Lect. on Party Feeling, 1822 ; Logic; Rhetoric; Essays; (1) Some Peculiarities of Christ. Revel., 4th ed., 1837, (2) Difficulties in St. Paul, 5th ed., 1845, (3) Errors of Ro¬ manism traced to their Origin in Human Nature, 4th ed., 1830 ; The King¬ dom of Christ delineated, 1841; Hist, of Relig. Worship, 2d ed., 1849; Good and Evil Angels, 1851 ; Future State, 1854, etc.] 428 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 19 Henry Hart Milman , Dean of St. Paul’s; Bampton Lect., 1827, on Character and Conduct of the Apostles; Hist, of Jews, 3 vols., 1840; Hist, of Christ, to Abolition of Paganism, 3, Lond., 1840 (New York, one vol.) ; Hist, of Latin Christ., 6 vols., 2d ed., 1859, 8 vols., New York, 1860. Richard Chevenix Trench , Dean of Westminster : Hulsean Lect., 1845-6 (repr. Phil.), on Fitness of Holy Scripture for unfolding Spiritual Life, and Christ the Desire of all Nations; Notes on Parables, 1841, and Miracles, 1852, various editions, reprinted New York, 1854 ; on Words, Proverbs, English Version, etc. — Edward Burton , Prof. Div. Oxf., b. 1794, d. 1836 (Works 5, 1837) ; Heresies of Apostolic Age, 1829 ; Testimonies of Ante- Nicene Fathers to Trinity etc. ; Eccl. Hist, of first Three Centuries, 3d ed., 1845; Hist, of Church to Constantine, 1836. — J. J. Blunt , Marg. Prof. Oxf., d. 1859: Ref. in England, 5th ed., 1840 ; Undesigned Coincidences, 3d ed., 1850; Lects. on Early Fathers; Constitution of Early Church, etc. Christopher Wordsworth, b. 1774, d. 1846: Christ. Institutes, 1837 ; Eccles. Biog., 4 vols., 1839. — Among the other Anglican divines who have written chiefly on church history or patristic literature, are Routh , Gaisford , Ja¬ cobson, Greswell, Hardwick, Faber, J. M. Neale, Stebbing, Cardwell, Hook, Chs. Maitland, S. R. Maitland , etc. — G. H. Browne on Thirty-Nine Arti¬ cles, 2 vols. J. B. Mozley , Baptismal Regen. ; Augustinian Predestination, 1855.] 20 [The so-called Broad Church designates, indefinitely, a class of writers, who received an impulse from the philosophy and critical method of Cole¬ ridge (see above, note 5), and from the liberal and earnest historical spirit of Arnold. It is difficult to name those that belong here, for it is rather a tendency than a school. Bunsen was affiliated with them. Thos. Arnold , Head-Master of Rugby, b. 1798, d. 1842 : Hist, of Rome, 3, 1840-3 ; later Rom. Commonwealth, 2, 1847; Introductory Lect. on Mod. Hist., 2d ed., 1843; Fragment on the Church, 1844; on Prophecy, 1844; Sermons; Miscellaneous Works : Life, by A. P. Stanley. (Most of his works republ. in New York. — On his Theological Opinions, see Tappan , in Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan., 1858.) — Julius Chs . Hare , d. 1855 : Victory of Faith, etc., 1840 ; Unity of Church ; Mission of Comforter, 2d ed., 2, 1836 (Appendix on Luther) ; Guesses at Truth (with his Brother), 1847, rep. Boston, 1860 ; Contest with Rome (against Newman), 1852. — F. D. Maurice, Kingdom of Christ, 1838, 1842 (repr.); Epist. to Hebrews, 1846; Religions of World (Boyle Lect.), 1847 ; Lord’s Prayer, 1848 ; Lectures on O. T., 1851, sq. ; Theol. Essays. 1853; on Revelation (against Mansel), 1859, etc. — F. W. Robertson, d. 1858 : Sermons. — McLeod Campbell, on the Atonement, 1856. Chs. Kingsley : Village Sermons ; Limits of Exact Science as applied to History, etc. — Arthur P. Stanley , Apost. Age, 1847 ; Memorials of Can- terb. ; Lectures on Eastern Church, 1861.] 21 [ Samuel Lee , b. 1783, d. 1853 : Hebr. Gram, and Lex. ; Book of Job, etc. Journal of Sacred Lit., ed. by Kitto, 1848-53, now by Burgess. Kitto published Illustrated Comm, on O. and N. Test., 5, 1840, sq. ; vCyd. Bibl. Lit.; Bible Illustrations, etc. S. P. Tregelles : Daniel, 1852 ; His¬ toric Evidences ; History of Printed Text N. Test., etc. — Samuel Davidson : Bibl. Criticism, 2, 1852 ; Hermeneutics, 1843 ; Introd. to N. Test., 3, 1848-« § 285, b. English Theology and Philosophy. 429 51 , Controversy on his edition of the 2d vol. of Horne’s Introduction, new ed. S. T. Bloomfield : Recensio Synoptica, 8, 1826 ; Greek Test., 2, 1841- 50. Chs. Wordsworth , Apocalypse, 1848-9; ed. of N. Test, and Comm., etc. — C. J. Ellicott , on Epistles. — Conybeare and Howson , on St. Paul. — Alford , New Test., 4 vols. — Jowett , on Gal., Cor., etc.] 22 [On Gill , see Note 13 of previous section. Abraham Booth , b. 1734, d. 1806: Works, 3 vols., 1813; The Reign of Grace; Death of Legal Hope the Life of Evangelical Obedience, etc.] 23 [ John Byland (the father), b. 1723, d. 1792 : Scheme of Infidelity, 1770; Contemplation on Creation, 3, 1779-82. John Byland (the son), b. 1753, d. 1825. — Andrew Fuller, b. 1754, d. 1815. Works, 1853, and often: Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation ; Calvinism and Socinianism compared ; Letters on Controversy with Rev. A. Booth ; Antinomianism contrasted with the Religion of the Scriptures, etc. He adopted in the main the principles of Jonathan Edwards. — Samuel Stennett , d. 1795 : Works, 3, 1824. — John Foster, b. 1768, d. 1843: Essays; Popular Ignorance; Contributions to Eclectic Rev., 2, 1844. Life by J E. Byland, 2d ed., 2, 1848. — Bobert Hall, b. 1764, d. 1831 : Works, with Life by Gregory, 6, 1839 ; Reminis- oences, by John Greene, 1832. — Alex. Carson, Baptism in its Modes and Sub¬ jects, 1844, etc.] 24 [ John Bye Smith , Principal of Homerton, b. 1775, d. 1851. The Sacrifice of Christ, 1813; Script. Test, to Messiah, 1847; Script, and Geology, 4th ed., 1848; First Lines of Christ. Theol. (posthumous), 2d ed., 1860; Memoirs by Medway. — George Payne, d, 1848 : Mental and Moral Science, 3d ed., 1845 ; Divine Sovereignty, 3d ed., 1846 ; Original Sin, 1845 ; Lect., on Theol., 2 vols., 1850. — John Harris, Principal of New Col¬ lege, d. 1857 : Great Teacher; Man Primeval, 1849; Prse-Adamite Earth, etc. F. Henderson, Divine Inspiration (Cong. Lect.), 1836 ; Isaiah, 1840 ; Minor Prophets, 1845 (repr. Andov., 1859); Jeremiah, 1851. William Jay, d. 1859 : Works, 12 vols. — Bobert Vaughan , ed. of Brit. Quart. Rev., Causes of Corruption of Christ., 1852 ; Essays, 2, 1849 ; John de Wycliffe, 1832, 1853 ; Congregationalism and Modern Society; Revolutions in Eng. Hist., 1859-61. John Kelly : The Divine Covenants, 1861.] 26 [Among these are the Bridgewater Treatises ; the prize (Burnet) essays of Thompson and Tulloch ; Pearson, on Infidelity ; Hampden's Phil. Evi¬ dences ; Smyth , Lect. on Evid. ; Faber's Difficulties of Infidelity ; F. Dove, Logic of Christianity ; W. H. Mill , Christian Advocate (against Strauss) ; T. Young, Christ in History ; Isaac Taylor , Restoration of Belief ; BirTcs , Difficulties of Belief ; Henry Bogers, The Eclipse of Faith, etc. ; Ed. Miall , Bases of Belief, 3d ed., 1861.] 26 [Essays and Reviews, 1859, 9th ed., 1861, reprinted Boston, ed. by F. H Hedge, under the title, Recent Inquiries in Theology. They are under examination by a Committee of Convocation. In these Essays, Dr. Bow- land Williams reproduces the critical hypotheses of Bunsen ; Baden Powell (d. 1860, author of Essays Nat. Phil., Inductive Science, etc.), discredits the argument from miracles ; Mr. Goodwin shows the inconsistency between science and the Mosaic Cosmogony ; Prof. Jowett advocates such an inter¬ pretation of Scripture as would annul every creed in Christendom. Numer- * 430 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. ons articles and works (over 50) have already been written in reply ; West¬ minster Rev., Oct., 1860 ; Quart. Review, Jan., 1861 ; British Quart. Jan.; North Brit. Review, Aug. ( Isaac Taylor ); Christ. Rembr., Oct., 1860 ; Edinb. Rev., April, ’61 ( Stanley ?); Journal Sac. Lit., April ; North Am. Rev., Jan ; Am. Theol. Rev., April ; Am. Quart. Church Rev., July. See also Jas. Buchanan , Essays and Reviews Examined, Edb., 1861 ; Jelf, Specific Evidence of ITnsoundness, etc. ; Lord Lindsay , Scepticism, its Re¬ trogressive Character. 27 [The position taken in these Lectures is, that the ideas of the Infinite, Absolute, Cause, etc., are negative in the view of reason), the result of an impotence of the mind. This is on the basis of Hamilton's theory of knowl¬ edge. Comp. North British, Feb., 1859; Brownson’s Quart., Jan., 1860 ; Am. Theol. Rev., Feb., 1860; Bibliotheca Sacra (. Hickolc ), Jan., 1860; Brit. Quart., July, 1860 ; Dorner , in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1860 ; Maurice , What is Revelation? and Mansel’s Reply, 1859-60 ; John Young , Province of Reason, I860.] § 285, c. THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY IN SCOTLAND. [The discussions and divisions in Scotland during the first half of the eighteenth century, were chiefly ecclesiastical,1 though theologi¬ cal differences came to light in the Marrow Controversy ,2 and Sandemanianism .3 The Moderates 4 ruled under the Robertson administration (1758-82) : the tone of their theology was moral, mitigating the strictness of the old Confessions. ( Leechman , Blair , Beattie , Macknight , Campbell). 5 The theological writings of the Er shines, Maclaurin , John Dick and Principal Hill , upheld the Scotch orthodoxy.0] [Philosophical investigations were most rife in Scotland, when England was indifferent to speculation. The scepticism of David Hume 7 was supplanted by the vigorous common sense of Thomas Reid.8 On the same general basis Dug aid Stewart ,9 wrote his elo¬ quent Disquisitions. Dr. Thos. Brown,™ in his fervid Lectures crit¬ icised details of the system with great ingenuity, without effecting permanent results. Sir William Hamilton, with unusual learning and subtility, commented on Reid, defined clearly the province of Logic, and tried to overthrow transcendental speculations by a denial of all positive knowledge of the Infinite and the Absolute.13 Other Scotch philosophers12 have rendered good service in different branches of speculation.] [The revival of evangelical theology was stimulated by the preach¬ ing and teaching of Thos. Chalmers.™ The Free Church, 1843, (the most remarkable religious movement of the century) doubled § 285, c. Theology and Philosophy in Scotland. 431 the efficiency of the church. The recent representatives of Scotch theology ( John Brown , Dick , Grombie , Dewar , Symington , McCrie , Buchanan , Candlisli , Cunningham and others),15 and of Biblical learning (Eadie, Fairbairn , etc.)18 unite adherence to the older con¬ fessions with a liberal and earnest scholarship. The Independents17 are represented by Wardlaw and IP. L . Alexander. The Unita¬ rian controversy divided for a time the Irish Presbyterians. 1R] 1 [7%? Associate Presbytery (Ralph and Eben Erskine, with six others) was formed in 1733 (Synod 1746) because the Assembly yielded on the question of civil patronage. This was again divided, 1747, into Burghers and Anti-Burghers , on the question of the oath administered to freemen in the Royal Burghs, (The Burghers, 1786, divided into New and Old Light). The Reformed Presbyterians ( Covenanters , Cameronians), separated in 1743 (opposed to the Revolution settlement) ; the Relief Secession ( Thos . Gillespie , Thos. Boston ), 1761, in opposition to patronage.] 2 [The Assembly in 1710, passed an act for the Preservation of the Purity of Doctrine, bearing against the stricter adherents to the Covenants. Prof. Simpson of Glasgow, was mildly censured for Arminian views, while the Auchterarder Creed (interpreted as Antinomian) was condemned. In 1718 Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity (published in 1646 : Edward Fisher, b. 1597, d. in Ireland), was republished by Hog ; and the Neonomians (moderates) of the Assembly, 1720, condemned five propositions said to be drawn from it; 1. That assurance is of the essence of faith. 2. Unlimited offer of Christ to all men, a warrant to each one to receive Christ. 3. Holiness not necessary to salvation. 4. Punishment and reward not motives to obedience. 5. The law is not a rule of life to believers. The book was prohibited — and ran through numerous editions; 19th ed., by Boston, 1803. The Associate Secession (above) was involved in this contro¬ versy.] 8 [John Glas , b. 1638, d. 1773 ; Works, 2d ed., 5, 1782 ; in 1727, he published a treatise to show that civil establishments are unchristian (The Testimony of the King of Martyrs concerning his Kingdom) : he was deposed and formed a sect. In 1775 Robert Sandeman, an elder in one of these churches (b. 1723, d. in America 1771), wrote Letters on [Hervey’s] Theron and Aspasia, maintaining that faith is the simple assent of the understanding to the truth (opposing Flavel, Boston and the Erskines) ; and that the death of Christ, without man’s act, is sufficient to justify. Sandeman came to Amer¬ ica in 1764. These churches maintained unanimity by expelling the min¬ ority. See Andrew Fuller's Twelve Letters (Works, 256-294) ; Bellamy's Nature and Glory of the Gospel.] 4 [William Robertson, the historian (b. 1721, d. 1793, minister at Edin¬ burgh, 1759, Principal of Univ., 1762), was for a long time the recognized leader of the Assembly, and head of the moderate party. He only published one Sermon, viz., The Situation of the World at the Time of Christ’s Appear¬ ance, 6th ed., 1791. Geo. Cook (minister of Laurence Kirk, author of Hist, of Ref. in Scotland, 2d ed., 3, 1819, and Hist, of Chh. of S., 3, 1815) sue- 432 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. ceeded Robertson as leader, giving a higher tone ; and Principal Hill followed. As late as 1796, the Assembly rejected a proposal for foreign missions. BucJcle , in his Hist, of Civilization (vol. 2, 1861), gives a caricature rather than a history of the state of religion in Scotland.] & [Many of the moderates adopted the ethical principles of Francis Hutch¬ eson, b. 1694, Prof, at Glasgow, 1729, d. 1747 ; Introd. to Moral Philos., 1747; Moral Sense, 3d ed., 1769 ; Origin of Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 1725 ; 5th ed., 1753 ; System of Moral Phil., with his character by Leech- man, ed. by his son, 2, 4to., 1775 ; Letters on Virtue, 1772. Wm. Leech- man, Prof, at Glasgow, 1743, d. 1783 ; Sermons with Memoir by Jas. Wodrow , 2, 1789. Hugh Blair , b. 1718, d. 1800 : Sermons, Lectures on Rhetoric, 3, 1803; he defended Hume against the Assembly. — James Beattie , b. 1735, Prof, in Aberdeen, d. 1803 : On Immutability of Truth, 1770 (for which the Univ. of Oxford made him LL. D.) ; Essays ; Moral and Critical Disserta¬ tions, 1783; Evidences, 4th ed., 1795; Moral Sciences, 3d ed., 1817; Life by Sir Wm. Forbes, 3, 1807. — James Macknight, b. 1721, d. 1800: Har¬ mony of Gospels, 5th ed., 2, 1819 ; Epistles, 4, 1795, and often since. Geo. Campbell, b. 1719, Principal of Marischall College, 1759, Prof. Div., 1771, d. 1796. The Four Gospels, 1790, 4, 3d ed., 1814; Diss. on Miracles, 1762, new ed., 1723, transl. in French, Dutch and German; Rhetoric, 1776 ; Lect. on Syst. Theob, 1807 ; Eccles. Hist., 1800, and often (Bp. Skinner's Positive Truth and Order, 1803, in reply). Thos. Reid (see below). Carlyle (Auto¬ biography, first publ., 1860, also belonged to the Moderates.] 6 [Evangelical Religion had a strong hold of the popular mind. White- field was in Scotland nine times, 1741-68. There was constant correspond¬ ence between the Scotch and American Divines. Ebenezer Erskine, b. 1680, d. 1754 (a grandson of Ralph Erskine, who had 33 children); Works, 3, 1799, 1810; Sermons and Discourses; Life, 1831. His brother Ralph , 1685-1752: Works, 2, fob, 1764-66; 10, 1777-1821. John Erskine, 1721-1803 : Theol. Diss., 1765 ; Sketches of Church Hist, and Theol. Con- trov., 2, 1790-7. Thos. Gillespie (of Presb. of Relief), d. 1774. — John Maclaurin of Glasgow, b. 1793, d. 1854 : Prophecies relating to Messiah ; Nature of Happiness; Sermons and Essays; Works, 2, 1860, ed. W. H. Goold (“ scarcely less intellectual than Butler, he is as spiritual as Leighton” — Dr, John Brown). His sermon on Glorying in the Cross, is of high rer pute. — John Dick (Prof, to Associate Synod), b. 1764, d. 1833 ; Lectures on Theol., 2d ed., 1838, repr. New York, 1856 ; Inspiration, 3d ed., 1813 ; on Acts, 3d ed., 1848. — George Hill, b. 1748, Principal St. Mary’s, d. 1820 ; Theol. Institutes, 1803 ; Lect. on Divinity, 3, 1821 ; 5th ed., 1849, New York, 1847. Jas. Morison was condemned, 1841, for holding that Christ died equally for all men (in United Secession Synod, Dr. Brown dissenting) ; he afterwards also denied unconditional election ; an Evangelical Union formed.] 7 [David Hume, (see § 275, 285.) His essay on Miracles provoked the most immediate opposition ; but the fundamental principles of his sceptical philosophy, asserting that nothing is certain (real) but sensations and ideas, aroused a profounder criticism ; awaking Kant in Germany “ from his dog¬ matic slumbers,” and leading Reid to plant philosophy upon “common sense,” § 285, c. Theology and Philosophy in Scotland. 433 afterwards defined as the “ fundamental laws of human belief.” See Cousin, Hist, of Mod. Philos.; Hamilton's Discussions; Christ. Exam. [Walker), Nov., 1854 ; Brownson's Quarterly, Oct., 1855; Christ. Rev., April, 1855 ; Quart. Rev., 73.] 6 [ Thos . Reid , Prof. Moral Philosophy, in Glasgow, d. 1796 : Inquiry into the Human Mind on Principles of Common Sense, 15*64; Essay on the In¬ tellectual Powers of the Human Mind, 1764 ; 3, 1819 ; Active Powers, 1788 ; Hamilton's ed., Edinb., 1846-52, 5th ed., 1858, incomplete (made doubly valuable by Hamilton’s notes). Stewart's Life and Writings of Reid, (Works, vii., 207-293). His works have been translated into French; Reyer-Collard adopted his views: see Cousin's Lectures. Metaphysics, as distinct from Psychology, was ignored in Scotland from the time of Reid.] 9 \_Dugald Stewart, b. 1753, d. 1828 : Elements of Philos, of Human Mind ; Moral Philos. (Walker’s ed., Bost., 1850) ; Phil. Essays ; Progress of Philos, (in Encycl. Brit.) ; Works, 7 vols., Bost., 1829, new ed., by Hamilton, 1858 sq. Life and Philos., in North British, 1858. See also Mackintosh in Edinb. Rev. xxvii., and Jeffrey, ibid., xvii. ; Quart. Rev. vi. ; Morell's Hist. Phil. His Elem. of Phil., transl. into French, by Prevost of Geneva ; 2d. vol., by Farcy • his Prelim. Disc, by Buchon ; Phil, of Active Powers, by Simon.] 10 [Thos. Brown, M. B., b. 1778, d. 1820. Inquiry into Relation of Cause and Effect (invariable antecedent), 1804, 4th ed., 1835 ; Lectures on Phil. Human Mind, ed. B>. Welsh, 1820, 11th ed., 1838; abridged U. S. ed., Hedge, 2 ; Lect. on Moral Philos., ed. Chalmers. Comp. North Am. xix., and for July, 1829 ; North British, 1857. Sir Wm. Hamilton's severe article against Brown (on Perception) in Edbg. Rev., 1830, is reprinted in his Discussions. Brown’s system makes mental philosophy to be essentially a generalization of states of mind ; the faculties are put under the two great laws of simple and relative suggestion.] 11 [Nzr William Hamilton, b. in Glasgow, 1788, Prof. Logic and Metaph. in Edinb., 1836, d. 1856. Review of Cousin, Edinb. Rev., 1829 ; on Whate- ly’s Logic, 1833 ; Discussions in Phil. Lit., etc., New York, 1853 ; Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, ed. by Mansel and Veitch (4 vol)., Bost., 2, 1859- 60 ; Essays in French, by Peisse. While verbally defending, he in reality undermined, the fundamental principles of the Scotch system, making infinite and absolute merely negative to thought, though admitting the necessity of belief. Comp. Baynes , in Edinb. Essays, 1854. On his system see Calder- wood's Philos, of Infinite, 2d ed., 1861 ; Philos, of Sir W. H., arranged by O. W. Wight, New York, 1853 ; North British, Nov., 1858, May, 1859 ; Brit. Quart., Nov., 1852; Prosp. Rev., July, 1853; Westminster, April, 1859 ; Frazer’s Mag., 1860 ; Christ. Rev., Jan., 1854, Jan., I860. July, 1861 ; Brownson’s Quart., 1855 ; Meth. Quart., Jan., 1857, July, 1861 ; South Presb., Jan., 1856 ; Presb. Quart., Oct., 1858; Princeton Rev., Oct., 1859, and July, 1860 ; New Englander, Feb., 1860 ; Bib. Sacra, Jan., 1861 : North Am., Jan., 1861 ; Remusat in Rev. des deux Mondes ; American Theol. Rev., Jan., 1861, and Me Cosh, in his work on Intuitions, I860.] 12 [/. F. Ferrier, Institutes of Metaphysics, the Theory of Knowing and Being, 2d ed., 1856. — Jas. McCosh, Method of Divine Government, Physi¬ cal and Moral, repr., New York, 1851 ; Typical Forms, 1856 ; Intuitions of 434 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. the Mind inductively investigated, 1860. P. G. Dove , Theory of Human Progression, 1851 ; Logic of Christianity, 1856. — Jas. Douglas , Philos, of Mind, 1839. Geo. Jamieson , Essentials of Philos., Edbg., 1859. A. C. Fraser , Rational Philosophy, 1858. J. G. Macvicar , Inq. into Human Na¬ ture. Chalmers and Wardlaw , see below.] 13 [Thos. Chalmers, b. 1780, Glasgow, 1814; Prof. St. Andrew’s 1824; Edinb., 1828; Prof. Theol. Free Church College, 1843; d. 1847; Works, 25 vols. : Posthumous, ed. Hanna, 9 vols. ; Memoirs, 4 vols. — Among his works are Natural Theology ; Internal Evidences ; Sketches of Moral and Mental Phil.; Discourses on Astronomy, 1817 ; Christian and Economic Polity, 1821-6 ; Political Economy, 1832; Lectures on Romans; Bridge- water Treatise ; Horse Biblicse ; Institutes of Theology, 2 ; Preelections on Butler, Paley and Hill. He adopted, in the main, the theology of Edwards, according with him (in his Lects. on Romans) in respect to the imputation of Adam’s sin, though afterwards modifying his statements on this point.] 14 [The Free Church movement was on the question of State patronage and intrusion, raised by the Auchterarder case, 1837. The Assembly, 241 to 110, in 1842, passed the Protest anent Encroachments . The House of Lords decided against it. In 1843, Solemn Protest against State Encroach¬ ments, and withdrawal of 474. Dr. Welch, moderator; Chalmers, Gordon, McFarlane and others. Five hundred new, churches were built in a year. Comp. Candlish, Summary of the Quest, respecting the Church of Scot¬ land, 1841.] 16 [ John Brown (United Presb.), d. 1857 : Civil Obedience, 3d ed., 1839, First Epistle of Peter, 2d ed., 1849 (New York) ; Discourses and Sayings of Christ, 3, 1852 (N. Y.) ; Our Lord’s Intercessory Prayer, 1850 ; Resurrection of Life, 1852, etc. ; Sufferings and Glories of Messiah ; Galatians, 1853. — Thos. Diclc, b. 1774, d. 1857 ; Christian Philosopher, 1823, and often; Philos, of Religion ; Philos, of Future State. Works, 10 vols., Phil. — Alex. Crombie, b. 1760, d. 1842 : Philos. Necessity, 1793 ; Natural Theol., 2, 1829, etc. — Daniel Dewar, Design of Christ., 1818; Holy Spirit, 1847 ; The Church, 1845; Elements of Moral Phil., 2, 1826 ; Nature of Atone¬ ment, new ed., 1860. — Thos. McCrie , b. 1772, d. 1835: Life of Melville; Ref. in Spain (1829), Italy (1833) ; Sketches Eccles. Hist. ; Life by his Son, 1840. — Jas. Buchanan, Office of Holy Spirit, 4th ed., 1843 ; on Modern Infidelity and Atheism, 2, 1858. William Symington, Atonement and In¬ tercession of Christ, 1834, New York, 1856, on Justification ; Elements of Divine Truth. — Geo. Stevenson, The Offices of Christ. — Gordon (Ao5.) Christ in Old Test., 2 vols. — Hugh Miller, d. 1856, Footprints of Creation ; Old Red Sandstone, 4th ed., 1850. — Robert S. Candlish, Expos, of Genesis, 2, 1852 ; Cross of Christ; the Atonement, 1835, new ed., 1861 (the act of atonement postponed to the end of the world — so as to reconcile the uni¬ versal offer with the limited redemption) ; Reply to Maurice, 1856 ; The Two Great Commandments, 1860. Principal Cunningham, articles in the Brit, and For. Evangelical Review, of which he is editor. The North Brit¬ ish Review, 1844, sq., is in the interest of the Free Church.] 16 [ John Eadie (United Presb.), Bibl. Cyclop., 6th ed., 1857 ; Ephesians, 1853, 1859; Colossians, 1856; Philippians, 1859. — Patrick Fairbairn , St. § 285, d. Theology in the United States of America. 435 Peter, 2, 1836 ; Typology of Script., 2, 1845, 3d ed., 1857, Pliila. 1853 ; Prophecy, 1856; Hermeneutical Manual, 1858; Ezekiel. — Donald Mac¬ donald, Creation and Fall, 1856 ; Introd. to Pentateuch, 1860. — J. A. Hal¬ dane, d. 1851, on Romans. Thos. Guthrie, The Gospel in Ezekiel. — Tlie works of Brown, Chalmers, and Candlish , see above. Some of the best works of German theology have been reproduced in the valuable Foreign Library of the Clarks, Edinburgh.] 17 [Ralph Wardlaw , d. 1853, Socinian Controversy, 1815-16 ; Ecclesi¬ astes, 2, 1821 ; Christian Ethics, 3d ed., 1837 (repr. in Boston) ; Congrega¬ tional Independency, 1848 ; Atonement, 3d ed., 1845 ; Infant Baptism, 1846 ; Miracles, 1852 (N. Y., 1857) ; posthumous, Lects. on Theol. 3, and Expository Lectures on Proverbs, etc. — W. L . Alexander, Connexion and Harmony of Old and New Test., 1841 ; Anglo-Catholicism not Apostolical, 1843; Swiss Churches, 1846; Christ and Christianity; Life and Corresp. of Wardlaw.] 18 [In 1827 a division on the Trinity in the Ulster Synod ; W. Bruce led the Unitarians ; Dr. Geo. Cooice, the Trinitarians. Theological College of Belfast: W. Gibson, McCosh, W. D. Killen (the Ancient Church, 2d ed., 1861.)] § 285, d. THEOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. New England : Edwards and his School. [Christian Theology in America has received some peculiar modi¬ fications adapting it to the new position and relations of the church. Its most marked and original growth has been in the line of the Reformed or Calvinistic system. The separation of the church from the state, the unexampled immigration, and the rapid growth of the country, made the pressure to come upon the practical rather than the theoretical aspects of Christian truth. Hence, the most thorough discussions and controversies have been chiefly upon questions of anthropology and soteriology. Systems of theology have all been preached. Controversy too, has been sharpened by the fact, that in the new world are representatives of all the ecclesiastical divisions of the old world, with many sectarian subdivisions. The minor sects of Europe have had the sway in America.] [The starting-point in this new development of the Reformed faith is with Jonathan Edwards / who fortified the Calvinistic theo- logy against Arminian objections, in his works, on the Will and on Original Sin. The central idea of his system is that of spiritual life (holy love) as the gift of divine grace. Extensive revivals of religion attended his preaching ( Whitefield ).2 Bellamy ,3 Smalley ,4 Backus* and Stephen West* taught in the main in his spirit. Other New England divines ( Prince , Mayhew , Prests. Clap and Stiles , Samuel 436 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. West , Cks. Chauncy , S. Mather )/ and their Presbyterian cotempor¬ aries (Tennent, Davies , Prests. Dickinson , Burr and Witherspoon), were but partially inclined to, in some cases opposing, the views of Edwards.]8 [, Samuel Hopkins 9 gave to Edwards’s theory of virtue (love to being), the form of disinterested benevolence; held that sin (overruled) was an advantage to the universe ; and equally enforced the divine sovereignty and the obligation of immediate repentance ( Hopkinsian - ism). The younger Edwards' 0 modified the theory of the atonement. Nathaniel Emmons 11 pressed the doctrine of divine efficiency, and the necessity of unconditional submission, to their sharpest state¬ ment, and matured the Exercise Scheme , denying all original sin, and making justification to consist in pardon. Other Hopkinsians, Asa Burton ,12 Leonard Woods, 13 advocated the Taste Scheme. The Connecticut theologians ( Smalley , Dwight, Strong), and other New England divines, preferred a less extreme statement of the main points of the Calvinistic system.]14 [ The Neiv Haven theology 16 ( Natlil . W. Taylor, Fitch, Goodrich) planted itself in direct opposition to the old Hopkinsian theories on three points, viz., divine efficiency, sin as the necessary means of the greatest good, and the nature of virtue, while agreeing with Emmons in the position, that all that is moral is in exercises (interpreted as acts of the will). Unitar ianism16 was an offshoot from the lingering Ar- minianism of New England, and also in part a reaction from extreme Calvinistic principles, and a further, onesided, development of some of the ethical principles of the prevalent theology ( William Ellery Channing, Buckminster, Norton, Dewey and others.)17 The specu¬ lations of Horace Bushnell1 8 revived the controversy as to the per¬ son of Christ.] 1 ['Jonathan Edwards , b. 1703, at Northampton, 1727, dismissed, 1750 ; missionary at Stockbridge, d. 1758, Prest. of N. J. College. He opposed the views of his predecessor and grandfather, John Stoddard , on the Lord’s Supper as a converting ordinance. Sermons on Justif., 1738 ; Religious Affections, 1746; Freedom of the Will, 1754 — philosophical necessity; Original Sin, 1758 — identity with Adam in his transgression (“the guilt a man has upon his soul at his first existence is one and simple, viz., the guilt of the original apostacy, the guilt of the sin by which the species first re¬ belled against God.”) His chief posthumous works (by Hopkins ), were Hist, of Redemption, 1774; Nature of Virtue, 1788 ; the End of God in Creation (his declarative glory). Works: Worcester, Mass., 8, 1809; Lond. ed., Williams , 8, 1817 ; vols. 9, 10, Edinb., 1847 ; Lond., 2, by Hick¬ man, 1839 ; 10 vols., with Life by S. Dwight, 1830 ; 4, N. Y., 1844 ; Wor¬ cester ed., rep. in N. Y. 4, 1855. On Charity and its Fruits, N. Y., 1852. Life by Hopkins , by Sami. Miller (in Sparks’ Am. Biog., 1st. s. viii. Arti¬ cle by Geo. Bancroft, in New Am. Cyclop. — “ I consider Jonathan Edwards § 285, d. Theology in the United States of America. 437 the greatest of the sons of men Robert Hall. “ He in fact commenced a new and higher school in divinity, to which many subsequent writers, Ers- kine, Fuller, Newton, Scott, Ryland, the Milner’s [Chalmers, John Pye Smith, Wardlaw], Dwight and indeed the great body of evangelical authors, who have since lived, have been indebted E. Bicker steth. “ His power of subtile argument, perhaps unmatched, certainly unsurpassed among men, was joined, as in some of the ancient mystics, with a character which raised his piety to fervor Sir James Mackintosh. — On his work on the Will, see Bugald Stewart ; Isaac Taylor , Introductory Essay, repr. Bost., 1831 ; Prest. Bay , Examination of Edwards, 1841 ; H. P. Tappan , Rev. of Ed¬ wards, 3 vols., repr. in London in one vol. ; Bledsoe’s Exam, of Edwards, 1843; Martin , in New Englander, v. ; Bibl. Repos., 1839, 1841. — Samuel West, of New Bedford (b. 1730, d. 1807), wrote Essays on Liberty and Ne¬ cessity, 1793-5, against Edwards, to which the younger Edwards replied. Stephen West, of Stockbridge, vindicated Edwards in his Essay on Moral Agency, 1772. On Edwards on the Nature of Virtue, see Bellamy, Works, i. p. xxix. ; the criticism of Mackintosh in Diss. on Ethical Philos., section 5 ; Robert Hall , in Works, i. 43, a note to his Sermon on Modern Infidelity ; Princeton Review, 1853 (where it is incorrectly represented as Utilitarian) ; E. A. Park, in Bib. Sacra, 1853 ; Ed. Beecher , in Bib. Sac., 1853. On his work on Original Sin, see Christ. Mo. Spect. ( Taylor ) vi. x., and Beecher's Conflict of Ages.] 2 [On Whitefield, see above, § 275 ; and Tracy's Great Awakening.] 3 [ Joseph Bellamy, b. 1719, d. 1790, at Bethlem, Ct. : True Religion delineated, against Antinomians, 1750 ; Wisdom of God in Permission of Sin (as means of greatest good) : Div. of Christ ; Letters between Theron and Aspasio, 1759; Half-Way Covenant, 1769. Works, 3, 1811; 2 by Cong. Bd., 1850. Comp. J. Woodbridge, in Lit. and Theol. Rev. ii. His True Religion, Letters, etc., rep. in London.] 4 [ John Smalley, Berlin, Ct., 1784-1820, Natural and Moral Inability, 1760 (one of the best treatises on the subject) ; against Universalism (Murray), 1785 ; Sermons, 2 vols. Memoir by T H. Skinner , Christ. Mo. Spect. vii.] 6 [Charles Backus, Norwich, Ct., 1749-1803. He educated nearly 50 theol. students, and refused the divinity chairs in Dartmouth and Yale ; vari¬ ous Sermons; Truth of the Bible, 1797 , on Regeneration.] 6 [Stephen West, Stockbridge, Mass., 1736-1819: Moral Agency, 1772 ; Atonement, 1785 ; Life of Hopkins, 1805; Sermons. Volition, he says, is a direct effect of the divine agency ; sin the necessary means of the greatest good ; in these propositions he went beyond the elder Edwards.] 1 [Thomas Prince , pastor of Old South Church, Boston, b. 1687, d. 1758 : Chronol. Hist, of N. E., 1736-55; Sermons, ed. by John Er shine , Edbg. See Wisner’s Hist, of Old South ; North Am. Rev., Oct., 1860 ; J. M. Manning, in Congregational Quart., 1860. — Jonathan May hew , Bos¬ ton, b. 1720, d. 1766: on Justification; Controversy with Apthorp about the Propag. Soc. ; Various Sermons: see Allen’s Biog. Diet., and Sprague’s Annals. — Thos. Clap, Prest. of Yale College, b. 1703, d. 1767 : Hist, and Vind. of Doctrines in N. E., with a Specimen of a New Scheme, 1755 (the 438 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. ♦ new scheme was in the works of Hutcheson, Foster, Taylor, Campbell, etc,) ; Nature and Foundation of Moral Obligation, 1765, etc. — Ezra Stiles , Prest. Yale, b. 1727, d. 1795, an opponent of the new divinity. Sermons; Life by Holmes. See Fisher's Hist. Disc.; Am. Qu. Reg. viii. ; Spark's Am. Biog. xvi. — Samuel West , New Bedford, see note 1.— Chs. Chauncy , of Boston, b. 1705, d. 1788: In his Seasonable Thoughts, 1743, he opposed Whitefield; 1767-1772, Controversy on Episcopacy with Chandler; Salva¬ tion of All Men, 1784 (answered by the younger Edwards) ; Fall and its Consequences, 1785. — Samuel Mather , d. 1785 : Vita Franckii, 1733 ; Liberties of the Churches, 1738 ; against Chauncy’s Universalism, 1781.] 9 [ Gilbert Tennent , b. 1703, d. 1764, the revival preacher, was in unison with Whitefield and Edwards; numerous Sermons; Trinity, 1744; Justifi¬ cation, 1745. See Alexander's Hist, of Log College, 1845 ; Tracy's Great Awakening; Sprague's Annals. — Jonathan Dickinson , Prest. N. J. Coll., b. 1688, d. 1747 ; Five Disc, on Election, Original Sin, etc., 1741 (against Whitby) ; Regeneration, 1743 (against Waterland) ; the two last reprinted Edinb., 1793 ; Controversies with John Beach on Civil Establishment of Religion, and on Free Grace (1736-46). See Sprague and Allen. — Samuel Davies , Prest. N. J. Coll., b. 1724, d. 1761. A great preacher; Sermons 3, 1765; 5, 1774; Lond. 5, 1767-71 ; New York 3, 1849-51, with an Essay by Barnes oh his Life and Times. — Aaron Durr , Prest. N. J. Coll., b. 1716, d. 1757 : Supreme Deity of Christ (against Emlyn ), repr. 1791 ; Sermons. See Green's Disc. 300-313 ; Allen and Sprague. — John Witherspoon , b. 1722, in Scotland, d. 1794, Prest. N. J. Coll. : Works, ed. Rodgers , 4, 1802 ; 9 vols., Edbg., 1815; Moral Philos.; Regeneration; Justif. ; Lectures on Divinity. See Allen and Sprague ; and Edwards' Qu. Reg., 1836.] 9 [a Samuel Hopkins, b. 1721, Great Barrington, 1740-60, d. 1803 : Sys¬ tem of Theology, 2, 1793, 1811 ; Works, 3, Bost., 1853 ; Memoir by E. A. Park, 2d ed., 1854 ; Sin through the Divine Interposition an Advantage to the Universe, 1759 ; Promises of Gospel not made to the exercises of the Unregenerate (against Mayhew), 1765 ; Div. of Christ, 1768; True State of Unregenerate (against Mills), 1769; True Holiness (against Hcmmen- way), 1773-91; Slavery; the Millennium, etc. See Ely, Calvinism and Hop- kinsianism, 1811 ; Christ. Examiner, xxxiii. ; Bibl. Sacra, x., by E. Beecher, and Conflict of Ages, by the same. — Hopkins was opposed in respect to “ Un¬ regenerated Doings,” by Moses Hemmenway (pastor in Wells, Me., for 51 years, 1759-1811), in two works, 1772-4 ; and by David Tap pan, Prof, in Harvard (b. 1753, d. 1803), in a Discourse on the Character of the Unre¬ generate, 1782. — The points in which the old Hopkinsianism was distin¬ guished from the older Calvinism were, 1. Divine efficiency extending to all acts (more sharply stated by Emmons) ; 2. Sin, the necessary means of the greatest good ; 3. The atonement unlimited, as a provision ; 4. Obligation to immediate repentance ; 5. Sharper distinction between natural and moral ability and inability ; 6. Disinterested benevolence (involving uncondi¬ tional submission, in the form of a willingness to be cast away forever, for the divine glory) ; 7. The theory of the covenants resolved into a divine constitution (imputation, as a transfer of moral character, discredited) ; 8. Prior to moral exercises, there is only a divine constitution, and no m< ral § 2 85, d. Theology in the United States of America. 439 character (hinted at by Hopkins, and developed by Emmons). But in the exercises, the will was not yet distinguished from the affections.] 10 [Jonathan Edwards , the younger, b. 1745, d. 1801, Prest. Union Col¬ lege, N. Y. : Salvation of All Men examined (reply to Chauncy) ; Liberty and Necessity; Three Sermons on the Atonement, 1785, etc. Works, with Memoir by Try on Edivards , 2, Andov., 1842. He represents the atonement as a satisfaction to the general or public, not to the distributive, justice of God. See The Atonement ; Discourses and Treatises by Edwards, Smalley, Maxcy, Emmons, Griffin, Burge, and Weeks. With an Introd. Essay by E. A. Park, Boston, 1859, who attempts to find hints of the same view in the earlier New Eng. divines.] 11 [Nathaniel Emmons , of Franklin, Mass., b. 1745, d. 1840. Works, with Life, by Ide,ffi vols., 1842 ; enlarged, with Memoir by E. A. Park., 6 vols., 18513-60. See Bib. Sacra, vii., Theology of Emmons, by Smalley ; Am. Qu. Reg. xv. ; New Englander [Fitch) ; Am. Bibb Repos. 2d s. viii. x. ; Christ. Rev. vii. viii. ; Princeton Rev. xiv. ; Christ. Examiner, xxxiii. ; New Englander (Fisher), 1861 ; Am. Theol. Review, 1861. — Among the peculiarities of his divine efficiency and exercise scheme were the following : God is the universal cause — the efficient cause of sinful as well as holy acts, yet he creates them free ; sin is not merely permitted but produced by divine agency, yet man has natural powTer to thwart the divine decrees ; each man is consituted a sinner in consequence of Adam’s first sin ; all sin consists in sinning — there is no original sin ; true holiness demands uncon¬ ditional submission, a willingness even to be cast away ; every moral det is either perfectly holy or perfectly sinful; justification is simply pardon; Christians are rewarded in heaven for their own holiness. In respect to the nature of the soul, he was understood as affirming that it is a series of exercises. In his system there is a singular commingling of the idealism of Berkeley, supra* lapsiarian Calvinism, and natural ability. The scheme of absolute predes¬ tination has nowhere been more consistently developed, nor the responsibility of the sinner, and the claims of disinterested benevolence more earnestly en¬ forced. His system contained sharply defined, yet contradictory elements, which must lead to a division. — Samuel Spring , Newburyport, Mass., d. 1819: on Immediate Coming of Christ; United Agency of God and Man (in the- sense of Emmons). On the question of Divine Efficiency, see Christ. Spect., March, 1836; E. D. Griffin , The Div. Efficiency, 1833, — the Causal Power in Regeneration Direct ; the latter reviewed in Evang. Mag., Dec., 1835.] 12 [Asa Burton , of Thetford, Vt., b. 1762, d. 1836 ; Essays on some of the First Principles of Metaphysicks, Ethicks and Theology, Portland, 1824. Dr. B. advocated the Taste Scheme — that the essence of virtue or vice is not in exercises, but in the antecedent taste or disposition. He, probably, among the N. E. divines, first made a sharp distinction between the affec¬ tions and the will. Judge Nathaniel Niles , of West Fairlee, Vt., (a student of Bellamy, d. 1828), advocated the same system; he published in 1809 an acute Letter on the Power of Sinners to make New Hearts, 1809 ; The leading Connecticut divines were opposed to the Emmons scheme (Bellamy, Smalley , Dwight , etc., also Dr. Woods ; see next note). A similar position has been 440 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. held, inclining in some cases more decidedly to the literal acceptance of the Westminster Confession, by Nathan Lord (Prest. Dartmouth, on Justifica¬ tion, Faith, etc.) ; John Woodbridge (Hadley) ; Heman Humphrey, Prest. Amherst Coll., d. 1859; Parsons CooJce (Lynn, Mass.); Neh. Adams (Bos¬ ton, Evenings with Doctrines, I860.)] 13 \Lconard Woods, b. 1774, d. 1846, Prof, in Andover from 1808. Works, 5 vols., Bost., 1849. Lectures on Theok, 3 vols. ; Letters to Unita¬ rians, 1820 : Reply to Dr. Ware, 1821 ; Letters to N. W. Taylor, 1830 (on divine prevention of sin, and sin the necessary means of the greatest good) ; Essay on Native Depravity, 1835 (comp. Evang. Mag., Nov. 1835) ; on the Doctrine of Perfection (against Mahan). Comp. Bib. Sacra, viii. [Hum¬ phrey). — In the latter part of his life, Dr. Woods insisted more upon the points of agreement between the Hopkinsian theology and the generally re¬ ceived Calvinism. See his Theology of the Puritans.] 14 yjimothy Dwight, Prest. of Yale, b. 1752, d. 1817 : Theology ex¬ plained and defended in a Series of Sermons, 5 vols., 181 8 ; frequent edi¬ tions in this country and in England. He inculcated the utilitarian theory of ethics ; wrote against the position, that the soul is a series of exercises (Emmons ? or Jonathan Edwards the younger?) ; and gave a temperate and judicious exposition of the New England theology. — Nathan Strong, Hart¬ ford, Ct., b. 1748, d. 1816 ; ed. Conn. Theol. Mag.; on Eternal Misery, in reply to Huntington ; Sermons, 2 vols. See Sprague's Annals. — Jos. Lothrop , West Springfield, Mass., 1731-1820; Sermons, 7 vols. — Jesse Ap¬ pleton, Prest. Bowd. Coll., d. 1818 : Theol. and Acad. Lect., 2, 1837. — Jas. Catlin , d. 1836 : Comp, of Theology, 1828. — Enoch Pond, Bangor; Baptism ; The Church ; essays and reviews.] 15 Nathaniel W. Taylor, Prof. Theol. New Haven, b. 1786, d. 1858 : Sermons, Lects. on Moral Government ; Essays in Revealed Theology, 1858-9. — Dr. Taylor opposed Hopkinsianism on the points above stated, and advocated the positions — that self-love is the spring of all moral action ; that the sinner has natural ability (as power to the contrary) to repent; that the reason of the divine permission of sin may be, that God could not (from the nature of free agency) prevent all sin in a moral system. The atonement was vindicated as a governmental scheme. — The main works in this controversy were : E. T. Pitch (Prof. New Haven), Disc, on Nature, of Sin, 1826 ; ibid., Inq. into Nature of Sin, 1827. N. W. Taylor, Con- cio ad Clerum, 1823 — by nature we became, not are, sinners (Review by Jos. Harvey, ’29) ; ibid., Review of Spring on Means of Regeneration (Christ. Spect., 1829) — self-love theory, and “ suspension of the evil principle,” in regeneration. This called out the Strictures of Bennet Tyler (b. 1783, d. 1858, Memoirs and Lects., ed. Gale, 1859); Review of Strictures by Taylor (Christ. Spect., ’30) ; Vindication of Strictures, by Tyler. Woods ’ Letters to Taylor, ’30; Review by Taylor (Christ. Spect., ’30). Various Articles by Taylor and Tyler , in Spirit of Pilgrims, and Christ. Spect., 1832-3. — Wil¬ bur Fisk (Methodist), on Predestination and Election (criticising the New Haven views), was replied to by Fitch, Christ. Spect., 1831 (see Fisk, Calv. Controversy, 1853.) — Spring, on Native Depravity, 1833 ; reviewed by Taylor , Christ. Spect., 1833, D. N. Lord, Views in Theology. — Chauncey § 285; d. Theology in the United States of America. 441 Lee, Letters from Aristarchus to Philemon, 1833; review of the same in the Evang. Mag., 1833. — Harvey , on Theol. Speculations in Conn., 1832. — See ( Tyler ) Letters on Origin and Progress of New Haven Theology, N. Y., 1837. Pigeon, in Lit. and Theol. Pev., v. vi. Leonard Paeon, Appeal to Cong. Ministers in Conn., 1840, Seven Letters to G. A. Calhoun, 1840. — Edvmrd Beecher : Conflict of Ages, ’53, and Concord of Ages, ’59. In these two works, the theory of preexistence is applied to settle the conflicts of the schools, and vindicate the honor of God.] 16 [As early as 1756, Emlyn’s works were republished in Boston. Samuel Clarke’s works were also much read. In 1785, King’s Chapel, Boston [Jas. Freeman ) altered its Liturgy on the Trinity. Mayhew, of Boston, and Gay, of Hingham, were Unitarians. The election of Henry Ware (b. 1764, d. 1845), to the Hollis professorship, Harvard College, 1805, was opposed on account of his Unitarian views (by Jed. Morse , b. 1761, d. 1826, in his True Reasons, 1805, and Appeal to the Public, 1814). Hosea Ballou (Uni- versalist), in his work on the Atonement, 1805, denied the essential divinity of the Son. Noah Worcester (b. 1758, d. 1838), in his Review of Testi¬ monies in Favor of Div. of Son, and his Bible News, 1810, 5th ed., 1844, and Address to Trinit. Clergy, 1814, maintained the Arian hypothesis (like Clarke). T. Lindsey's Memoirs, 1812, were republ. in part by Morse, and reviewed by Worcester in the Panoplist, 1815. (The work described the silent progress of Unitarianism in N. E. — Helsham, Review of Am. Uni- tarianism, 2d ed., Lond., 1815.) — The controversy became more decided upon the publication of W. E. Channing’s sermon at the ordination of Jared Sparks, in Baltimore. Stuart’s Letters to C., 1819; Woods’ Letters to Unit., 1819; Henry Ware, Letters to Trin. and Calv., 1820; Woods re¬ ply to Ware, and Ware’s Answer, 1822 ; Andrews Norton, True and False Religion, and Views of Calvinism, in Christ. Disciple (1820-2); N. W. Taylor in reply, in Christ. Spect., 1823-4; Norton , Statement of Reasons for not Believing the Doctrines of Trinit., in Christ. Disciple, 1819, 1833, new ed. by Abbot, 1855. Sami. Miller, Letters on Unitarianism; reply by Sparks, 1821. See Ellis, llalf-Cent. of Unit. Controv., 1857. He Hemusat, transl. from Rev. d. deux Mondes in Christ. Exam., May, 1857. — In their views on the person of Christ, the Am. Unitarians range from Sabellianism to Humanitarianism.] 17 [ William Ellery Channing, b . 1780, d. 1842. Works, 5, 1841 ; 6, 1846 ; repr. Lond., and several transl. into French and German. From Hopkins he received the principle of disinterested benevolence, without its Hopkinsian inferences. Memoir by W. H. Channing , 3, 1843. Comp. Westminster Rev., ’50 ( Martineau ) ; Christ. Exam. xiv. {Dewey), xlv. ( Fur¬ ness ) ; Lit. and Theol. Rev., i. ( Withington) ; Democ, Rev., xii. ( Bancroft ) ; New Englander, viii. — Jos. Buckminster, d. 1810, Sermons; ed. Griesbach’s N. Test. — Andrew Norton, b. 1786, d. 1853, Prof, at Cambridge (see above), Genuineness of Gospels, 3, 1837-44, 2d ed., ’52 ; New transl. Gospels, ’55 ; Internal Evid., ’55. — Orville Dewey, Discourses, Controv. Theol. etc., 3, 1846-7. — G. W. Burnap, Unitarianism, 1835 ; Trinity, 1845 ; Evid., 1855. J. G. Palfrey, Evid.; 1843 ; Jewish Scriptures; Hist. N. E., 1858. — A. P. Peabody, Christ. Doctrines, 1844. — Sam. Osgood, Christ. Biog., etc. — . 442 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. W. H. Furness, Jesus and bis Biographers, 1838 ; Hist. Jesus, 1850. — • H. W. Fellows, Re-statements of Christ. Doctrine, 1860. Alv . Lamson, Church of First Three Cent., I860.] 18 [ Horace Bushnell, Hartford, Ct. : on Christ. Nurture, 1847, new ed., 1860 (see Princeton Rev., 1847 ; Christ. Exam., xliii. ; New Englander, v. ; Letters to Dr. B. by Dr. Tyler, 1848; What does Dr. B. mean? 1849; Contributions of C. C., 1849) ; God in Christ, 1849 ; Christ in Theol., 1851. Princeton Rev., 1853 ; Reports to Hartford Central, and Fairfield West Assoc., 1850-3 ; Christ. Exam., xlvi. xlvii.) ; Nature and the Supernatural, 1858. — Dr. B.’s position is, that the Trinity is in and for the sphere of a revelation, though there may be an eternal ground for it in the Godhead. — See also, A Biblical Trinity, by Theophilus, Hartf., 1850.] 285, e. [THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNITED STATES. CONTINUED.] [The New England theology early extended its influence into the Presbyterian churches of the Middle and Western States ( Triangle Controversy )F It led to the trial of Albert Barnes and of Lyman Beecher for alleged heresy/ and finally to the disruption of the church (1837, Old and New School). 3 The system- of Edwards, in its main features had many able advocates {Ely, Griffin, Wilson , Bichards, Skinner, and others).4 The older Calvinism was de¬ fended by Romeyn , Mason, Green, Miller, the Alexanders, Bice, Breckinridge, Thornwell, Hodge, and others.5 — Perfectionism 6 was deduced from the new divinity by Finney and Mahan. — The discus- ' sion between Professors Park and Hodge brought the extreme positions of the New and Old School to a definite statement.7] [Though Locke on the Understanding, was the leading collegiate text-book in the last century, yet the idealism of Berkeley affected many theological speculations.8 The introduction of the Scotch philosophy contributed largely to the New Haven reaction against the old Hopkinsianism ; theories of ethics and of the will shaped the theological definitions. The literature of the country has been prolific in systems of mental and moral philosophy, and of logic, of a popular character.9 The spiritual philosophy of Coleridge ,10 the eclecticism of Cousin, 11 and the transcendental (and German) spec¬ ulations12 have had their advocates ; while in opposition to the Scotch school, other systems have been framed on a more indepen¬ dent basis {Tappan, HickokP) [Most of the denominations are represented by their theolog¬ ical periodicals.14 Biblical learning15 has been fostered by the labors of Stuart, Robinson, Bush, Turner, Hackett, Barnes, Hodge, Alexander, Norton, Noyes, and others. The best German works § 2 85, e. Theology and Philosophy in the United States. 443 on Church History have been translated, and this department of theology is cultivated with new interest.16 [Besides the above controversies among the Congregationalisms and Presbyterians (which have been the most fruitful in a doctrinal point of view), each denomination has had its theological represen¬ tatives, advocating its distinctive tenets or polity, whose writings form a large part of the church literature of the country. The Episcopal Church17 is represented by Johnson , Chandler , Seabury , White , Hobart , Bowden , Hopkins , Jarvis , Hawks , Tyng , and others ; the Baptists 18 by Backus , Benedict , Wayland , Williams , Sears , Fuller , etc., (the Campbellites) ; the Methodists ,19 by Asbury , Bangs , Elliott , Olin , McClintock , Stevens , etc. ; the Lu¬ therans™ by Muhlenburg , Hazelius, Kurtz, Mann, Schmucker, and others ; the German Reformed,™ by Harbaugh, Nevin, and Schaff ; the Dutch Reformed,™ by Livingston, Frelinghuysen, De Witt , Cannon, Berg, etc. ; the TJniversalists ,23 by Winchester, Ballou, Chapin ; and the Annihilationists, by Hudson. The Quakers,™ were divided by Elias Hicks. The more fanatical sects25 (Sha¬ kers, Adventists , Spiritualists'), and the Mormons 26 have also had free scope, and are dying out. On the Roman Catholics , see § 287, note 15 ; on the Swedenborgians, § 278 ; Irvingites , § 285, note 6.) [In the midst of all these divisions, the progress of evangelical doctrine in the United States has kept pace with the growth of the population. Christianity is here to work itself out to its full prac¬ tical results, independently of the aid of the civil power. Four sources of difficulty affect its growth ; the increase of Romanism, the inroads of infidelity (both of these chiefly through the foreign immigration), the institution of slavery, and the multiplicity of sects. All these practical hindrances raise questions of the highest theoretic and theological interest, which the Protestant churches are to press to their solution.] 1 [ Gardiner Spring (see above, note 15), pastor of the Brick Church, N. Y., 1810 (Works, 12 vols., 1854, sq ., Attractions of Cross; Glory of Christ, etc., see note 14.) Ezra Styles Ely (d. 1860), Contrast of Calvin¬ ism and Hopkinsianism, 1811. Samuel Whelpley (d. 1817), The Triangle, 1816 (against limited atonement, inability, and immediate imputation). Jas. P. Wilson , Phil. (d. 1830), on Natural Ability and Moral Inability, 1819. The progress of the New England theology in the Presb. churches was favored in the West by the Plan of Union, 1801, made with the Genl. Assoc, of Conn.] 8 [. Albert Barnes , the commentator, was put upon trial, 1833, for his sermon on the Way of Salvation, and his Comm, on Romans : again in 1835 by Dr. Junkin ; acquitted by the Assembly, 1836. — Lyman Beecher , Prof, in Cincm., prosecuted by A L. Wilson (d. 1846), 1834-5, and ac- 444 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. quitted : see Wilson’s Plea, 1837, and Beecher’s Views of Theol. (Works, iii., 1853), as developed in bis Trials, with Remarks on the Princeton Re¬ view (on sin, ability, imputation, etc.) — Geo. Duffield on trial before Presb. of Carlisle, 1832-3, for his work on Regeneration ; complaint dismissed in the Assembly.] 8 A Memorial to the Assembly, 1834, specified nine doctrinal errors cur¬ rent in the church. The Act and Testimony of the Minority (0. S.), 1834. The Old School had a majority, 1835, and recommended the abrogation of the Plan of Union. New School majority in 1836 ; Mr. Barnes acquitted. In the Assembly of 1837, the Plan of Union was abolished: 4 synods cut off without further trial (comprising 500 ministers and 57,724 communi¬ cants.). The reasons were, 1. Opposition to the new divinity; 2. to volun¬ tary societies ; 3. Demand for rigid subscription; 4. In part, the question of slavery. The Auburn Convention (N. S.), 1837, adopted the Protest against the act of exclusion, which also gives a clear statement of the views of the New School. See G. N. Judd , Hist, of Division of the Presb. Church, 1852; Z. Crocker , Catastrophe of Presb. Church, 1838. — Among the doctrinal affirmations contained in the above protest of the New School (in reply to charges of heresy on the particular points — sixteen being enu¬ merated in all) — the following are the most important : “ God permitted the introduction of sin, not because he was unable to prevent it, but for wise and benevolent reasons, which he has not revealed” . . . .“ By a divine constitution, Adam was so the head and representative of the race, that, as a consequence of his transgression, all mankind became morally corrupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal”. ... The “sufferings and death” of infants, “ are to be accounted for, on the ground of their being involved in the gen¬ eral moral ruin of the race induced by the apostacy”. . . .“Original sin is a natural bias to evil, resulting from the first apostacy, leading invariably and certainly to actual transgression. And all infants, as well as adults, in orde. to be saved, need redemption by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost”. . . .“The sin of Adam is not imputed to his posterity in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts, and demerit ; but by reason of the sin of Adam, in his peculiar relation, the race are treated as if they had sinned. Nor is the righteousness of Christ imputed to his- people in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts and merit ; but by reason of his righteousness, in his peculiar relation, they are treated as if they were righteous” ....“ The sufferings and death of Christ were not symbolical, governmental, and instructive only, but were truly vicarious, i, e., a substitute for the punishment due to sinners. And while Christ did not suffer the literal penalty of the law, involving remorse of conscience and the pains of hell, he did offer a sacrifice, which infinite wisdom saw to be a full equivalent. And by virtue of this atonement, overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race, and salvation secured to all who believe”* . . . “ All believers are justified, not on the ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground of the obedience and death, or, in other words, the righteous¬ ness of Christ”. ...“ While all such as reject the Gospel of Christ do it, not by coercion, but freely — and all who embrace it, do it, not by coercion, § 2 85; e. Theology and Philosophy in the United States. 445 but freely — the reason why some differ from others is, that God has made them to differ.” 4 [On Ely and Wilson, see note 18. Edw. D. Griffin, Prest. Williams Coll., b. mo, d. 1837 : Life by W. B. Sprague, 1839 ; see also Durfee's Hist. Williams Coll.; Sermons; on Div. Efficiency, see note 10; Humble Attempt to Reconcile Differences on the Atonement, 1819 (rep. by Cong., Bd., 1859) ; Park-street (Boston) Lectures, 1813. — James Richards , Prof. Theoh, Auburn, d. 1843. Lectures, with Life, by Gridley, 1843. — George Duffield, Detroit: Regeneration, 1832; on Prophecy and Millennium. — N. S. S. Reman, Troy : Episcopal Contro. ; Discourses ; Atonement (see Princeton Essays, \.)~Samuel H . Cox, Quakerism not Christ. ; ed. Bower’s Popes; Remarkable Interviews. — Thos. H. Skinner: Aids to Preaching; Sermons ; transl. of Vinet, etc.] 5 \J. B. Romeyn , New York, d. 1825 : Sermons, 2 vols. — John M. Mason , d. 1829 (distinguished as a preacher) ; Works, 4 vols., on Episcopacy; the Church; Communion, etc. — Ashbel 6rrm2, d. 1848 : ed. Christ. Advocate; Hist. N. J. College; Lects. on Cat. 2, 1841; Discourses. — S. Stanhope Smith , Prest. N. J. Coll., d. 1812: Human Species, 1788 ; Evidences, 1809; Moral Phil.; Nat. and Rev. Religion. — Sami. Miller, Princeton, d. 1850 : Retrospect 18th Cent., 1801 ; Order of Ministry, 1807 ; Unitarian- ism (Sparks), 1821; Sonship of Christ (Stuart), 1823. — Archibald Alex - ander, Princeton, d. 1851: Evidences; Justif. ; Canon; Moral Phil.; Hist. Israelites. — John H. Rice, Va., d. 1831 : Pamphleteer, 1820 ; ed. Ya. Evang. Mag. — Thos. Smyth, S. C., on Presb. and Prelacy ; the Trinity. — Jas. W. Alexander , New York, d. 1859 : Discourses and essays. — Ah L. Rice, Divine Sovereignty ; R. C. Controv., etc. — J. U. Thornwell, S. C., Apocrypha ; theological essays and reviews. — R. J. Breckinridge, Ky., Knowledge of God, Objective and Subjective, 2, N. Y., 1858-9. — Charles Hodge, Princeton : Essays and Reviews, 1857 ; Commentaries; ed. Princeton Review. — A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theoh, 1860. — Saynl, J. Baird, The First Adam and the Second: the Elohim Revealed, 1860 ; against immediate and antecedent imputation; see Princeton Rev., April, 1860 ; So. Presb. Quart. (Thorn- well), 1860 ; Baird’s Rejoinder to Princeton, 1860. — Griffin , Geo., a lawyer of N. Y., d. 1860, in a work on the Sufferings of Christ, 2d ed., 1846, ad¬ vocated the view that the divine nature suffered.] 8 [ Asa Mahan, Oberlin : Christ. Perfection ; Woods’ Reply, see above, and Am. Bib. Rep., 2d s. i. ii. iv. ; Princeton Rev. xiii. xiv. C. G. Finney, Oberlin : Lectures on Revivals, 13th ed., 1840 ; Sermons, 1839 ; Lects. on Syst. Theoh, new ed. by Bedford, 1851. See Princeton Rev. (Hodge), 1847; Rand, in Volunteer, and New Divinity Tried, and Vindication, 1832.] 7 [ Edwards A. Park : The Theology of the Intellect and of the Feelings ; a Discourse before the Convention of Cong. Ministers of Mass., 1850 (Bib. Sacra, vii.) ; Remarks on Bibl. Repert. (Bib. Sac. viii.) ; Unity amid Diver¬ sities of Belief (Bib. Sac. viii.) ; New England Theol. (ix.). Chas. Hodge , three articles in Princeton Rev., reprinted in his Essays and Reviews, p. 529, sq. — Review of Prof. Park’s Disc, in Lit. and Theoh Rev., 1850. — Daniel Dana, Remonstrance to the Trustees of Phillips Acad., 1853. — » Review of Dr. Dana's Remonstrance by a Layman^ 1853. — Views in New 446 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Eng. Theology, Nos. 1, 2, Boston, 1859. — The three main points of New England theology, in Professor Park’s view, are “ that sin consists in choice, that onr natural power equals, and that it also limits our duty.” The oppos¬ ing position was, that the older New England divines did not hold these three principles in this unlimited, and abstract form ; and that they cannot properly be exalted to tbe rank of essential points in a system of Christian theology.] 8 '[Berkeley' s (see § 285, a , note 16) speculations were a frequent theme of discussion. His theory was adopted by Samuel West, of New Bedford, and by Samuel Johnson (who became an Episcopalian, see note 17, below) ; and his influence can be distinctly traced in tbe works of Stephen West and of Emmons.] 9 [ Witherspoon and S. Stanhope Smith , wrote on Moral Philosophy. All the leading New England divines elaborated the theory of ethics (Ed¬ wards, Hopkins, Emmons, Burton, Dwight, Taylor). J. Macpherson , Moral Phil., Phila., d. 1791. — F. JBeasley , d. ’48, Search after Truth, ’22. — Jasper Adams , d. ’41, Moral Phil., ’37 .—Chs. J. C. Follen , d. 1840 (a German), Works, 5, ’41, on Moral Phil, and Psychology. — T. C. Upham, Bowd. Coll., Mental Phil., The Will, etc. — Jas. Richards, Mental and Moral Phil. — R. II. Bishop, d. ’55, Logic, ’33 ; Science of God, ’39. — Jeremiah Bay, Prest. Yale, on Edwards on Will, ’41 ; on Self-Determining Power, ’49. — Francis Way land, Moral Phil, (numerous editions) ; Intel. Phil., ’44 ; Pol. Econ. — Archibald Alexander , Moral Science, ’52. — S. A. Sawyer, Mental Phil., ’39. — Francis Bowen, Cambr., Critical Essays, ’42 ; Ethical and Metaph. Science, ’47.- — Jas. Walker, Prest. Cambr., ed. Reid and Stewart. — F. E. Brewster, Phil. Hum. Nature, Phila., 1851. — R. Hildreth, Morals, ’44. — Jos. Haven, Chicago, Mental Phil., ’57 ; Moral Phil., ’59. — H. Winslow, Moral Phil., ’56. — J. L. Bagg, Elements of Moral Science, 1860. — Henry Carleton, Liberty and Necessity, Phil., 1857. — W. B. Wilson, Logic, 1856. — J. T. Champlin, Intel. Phil., 1859. — Samuel Tyler , Baconian Phil., ’46 ; Essays, ’56. — Coppee, Logic, 1857.] 10 [ Coleridge's Friend and Aids to Reflection were republished 1831-40 with an able Preliminary Essay, by Prest. Jas. Marsh, Burlington, Vt. (b. 1794, d. 1842 : Remains, ed. by Torrey, 2d ed., 1845: Systematic Arrange¬ ment of Knowledge ; Remarks on Psychology, on the Will of the Spiritual Principle in Man). Coleridge's Works, ed. by W. G. T. Shedd (Andover), who has also published Lects. on Phil, of Hist., 1850 ; Discourses and Essays, 1856. [J. Tracy\ Essay on Christ. Philos., Andov., 1848.] 11 [ Cousin , Introd. to Hist, of Phil., transl. by Linberg, Bost, 1832 ; Course of Mod. Phil., by 0. W. Wight , 2, 1852-4; Philos, of Beautiful, by J. C. Baniel , 1849 ; Psychology, by C. S. Henry, 4th ed. : Selections, by Geo. Ripley (in Phil. Miscl.), 1838. See North Am. 53 (Bowen), 85 ; Brownson, in Christ. Exam., 21 ; Am. Qu. Rev., 10. Bay on Cousin’s Psy¬ chology in Christ. Qu. Spect., 7. — C. S. Henry has also publ. Comp. Christ. Antiq., ’37 ; Moral Phil. Essays, ’39 ; Epitome of Hist., Phil., from French, 2, 1845. — Asa Mahan, Intel. Phil., new ed., ’54 ; Logic, ’57 ; Moral Phil., ’48 ; The Will.] 12 [The transcendental philosophy led to a controversy between Andrews § 285, e. Theology and Philosophy in the United States. 447 Norton and Geo. Ripley ; Ripley , Disc, on Phil, of Religion, 1836 ; Norton , The Latest Form of Infidelity, 1839 ; Ripley , Letter on the same (including a View of the Opinions of Spinoza, Schleiermacher, and De Wette), 1840 ; Norton , Remarks on the same. — Comp, on Transcendentalism, Princeton Rev. xi. xii. ; Am. Bib. Rep., 3d s. i. ; Christ. Exam., xxi. xxii. [Bowen) ; Brownson’s Quart., ii. ; New Englander, i. — A. Kavfmann , transl. BocJc- shammer, on the Will, 1835. — Stallo , General Principles of Philos, of Na¬ ture (Schelling, Oken, Hegel), Bost., 1848. — F. A. Rauch (Mercersburg), Psychology, 1835. — E. V. Gerhart, Philos, and Logic, 1858. — This general transcendental movement became deistic in Theodore Parker (d. 1859 : Ser¬ mons on Theism ; Miscellanies ; of Religion ; Popular Theology ; Addresses) ; and pantheistic in Ralph Waldo Emerson (Essays, two series ; Addresses ; Poems; Representative Men; Conduct of Life). — J. W. Miles, Philosophic Theology, ’49 ; Ground of Morals, ’52. — Henry James , Nature of Evil, ’55 ; Christianity the Logic of Creation, ’57.] 33 \Henry P. Tappan, Chancellor of Univ. Michigan, Review of Edwards, 3 ; Logic, 1844 and 1857. — Laurens P. Hickok, Union Coll., Rational Psy¬ chology, 1849, 2d ed., 1860; Science of the Mind in Consciousness, 1854; Moral Philos.; Christian Cosmology, 1858 — The general method of Kant, with positive and Christian results. See Lewis, in Bib. Sacra, 1850, 1851 ; Christian Remembrancer, Juty, 1853 ; New Englander, Feb., 1857 ; Prince¬ ton Rev., 1859 ; Am. Theol. Rev., I860.] 14 [Conn. Evang. Mag. (Backus), 1806-7 ; Panoplist (Morse), 1806, sq. ; Christian Disciple, 1813-24 (Ware), since 1824, the Christ. Examiner (Unit.), now ed. by Hedge . — Christ. Spect., Monthly, 1819-28 ; quarterly to 1834, New Haven; Spirit of Pilgrims (Cong.), 1829-33; Mag. of Ref. Dutch Church, 1826-30 ; Princeton Repository, Presb. (Hodge), since 1849 ; Am. Qu. Obs. (H. H. Edwards), 1833-4 ; Christ. Rev. (Bapt.), since 1836 ; Lit. and Theol. Rev. (L. Woods), 1834-9; Meth. Qu., 4 series, since 1819 ; Universalist Qu., since 1844 ; So. Meth. Qu., since 1847 ; Church Rev. (Episc.), since 1848 ; Evangel. Rev. (Lutheran), since 1849; Deutsche Kirchenfreund, monthly, since 1847 ; Theol. and Lit. Journal (Lord), since 1840 ; Biblical Repository (Robinson and Edwards), Andov., 1831-7, New York (Peters, Agnew, Sherwood), 1837 to 1850 ; Bibliotheca Sacra, i. 1843 (Robinson), 1844, sq. (Park, Taylor) ; New Englander (New Haven) since 1843; Brownson’s Quart., since 1844 Rom. Cath. ; Southern Presb. (Col¬ umbia, S. C.), since 1848; Presb. Quart. ( Wallace), Phil., since 1852 ; Prot. Episc. Quart., N. Y., since 1854 ; Free Will Baptist Quart., since 1857 ; Cong. Quart., 1859 ; Am. Theol. Rev., 1859; Danville Quart. (Presb.), 1861 ; Evang. Rev. (Ref. Dutch, Berg), 1860 ; United Presb. Quart., 1860; Boston Review (Cong.), 1861.] 16 [ Moses Stuart, Prof. Andover, 1810-1852; Heb. Gram., 1821, 6 edi¬ tions ; Chrestomathy ; Ep. to Hebr., ’27, 3d ed., Robbins , ’59 ; Romans, ’32, 3d ed., Robbins ; Notes to Hug, ’36 ; New Test. Gram.; Apocalypse, 2, ’45; O. Test. Canon, ’45; Miscel., ’46; Daniel, ’50; Eccles., ’51; Pro¬ verbs, ’52 ; Letters to Channing and Miller (on Eternal Generation, ’22) j Diss. on Original Lang, of Bible, 2d ed., ’27 ; Transl. of Gesenius’ Hebr. Gram., and Defence of the same, ’47. — Edward Robinson, Prof, in Andov., 448 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 1830, in New York, ’37 ; Winer’s Grain.; Wahl’s Cl avis, ’25 ; Buttmann’s Gram., ’33 ; N. Test. Lex., ’36 and ’50 ; Hebr. Lex. ; Bibl. Res. in Palest. 3, ’43, new ed., ’55 ; Harmony of Gospels, ’45 ; Eng. Harm., ’46. — Isaac Nordheimer , Hebr. Gram., ’42. — George .Bush, d. 1859 : Script. Illustrat. ; Millennium, ’32 ; Hebrew Gr., ’35 ; Anastasis, ’44 ; Pent. Josh., ’40 to ’58 ; ed. New Jerusl. Mag. — Sami. H. Turner (Prot. Episc.), Jahn and Planck’s Introd. ; Jewish Rabbies, ’47 ; Prophecy, ’52 ; Rom., Hebr., new ed., ’59. — Elias Biggs (Constple.), Manual of Chaldee, ’24, new ed., ’56. — B. B. Backet t , ed. Winer’s Chaldee Gram. ; Acts, 2d ed., ’52. — Albert Barnes , Comm, on New Test. ; Job; Isaiah, etc. — Charles Bodge, Ep. to Romans, ’35, abridged, ’36; 15th ed. Phil., ’56; Ephes., ’56'; 1 Cor., ’57 ; Hist. Presb. Church, 2, ’40 ; Way of Life, 30th ed., ’56, etc. — Jos. Addison Alexander, Princeton, b. 1809, d. 1860 (Princeton) : Isaiah, 2, ’46-7 ; Psalms, 3, ’50 ; Essays on Prim. Church. — B. J. Bipley (Bapt.), Gospels ; Rom. ; Acts. — J. J. Owen (N. Y.), Gospels, 1858-60. — D. D. Whedon , Gospels Matth., Mk., 1860. — F. G. Bibbard, Psalms. — Justin Edivards, d. 1853, New Test. — Jas. Strong , Harm, and Expos, of Gospels. — G. B. Noyes (Cambr.), Job, Psalms, Prophets. — Andrews Norton (Carnbr.), New transl. Gospels, Genuineness of Gospels, ’52-’55. — M. Jacobus, Gospels. — F. S. Sampson, Hebr., ’56. — T. V. Moore, Haggai, etc., 56. — On Apocalypse, D . N. Lord, AT, Macdonald ; Weeks, ’51. — Abp. Kenrick , New Test, transl. from Vulgate, ’47— ’51. — T. J. Conant, Rochester, Rodiger’s Gesenius ; transl. of Job and New Test, (in progress). A. C. Kendrick , Olshausen’s Comm, revised, 6 vols., 1858.] 16 [ Neander , transl. by Prof. Torrey, 5 vols., 1840-54. Base by Blu- menthal and Wing, ’55. — MosheirrCs Institutes, 3, 1832, frequent editions, and Commentaries on First Three Cent., ’51, by Jas. Murdock (d. 1856) ; also transl. Munsclier1 s Dogmat. Hist., ’30, and the Syriac N. Test., ’61. — Guericke, i. by G. W. T. Shedd. — Kurtz, Sacred Hist, by Schaeffer, ’57. — Gieseler, Hist, to Ref. by F. Cunningham, 3, ’42 ; revision of Davidson’s Edinb. Version, by B. B. Smith, continued to 1648, 4 vols., New York, 1857-61. — P. Schaff, Apostol. Church, ’53, Hist, of Church, i., ’58. — » Coleman's Ancient Christ., ’52. — M. Mahan, Church Hist, of First Three Cent., I860.] 17 [The Church of England was established in the southern colonies; in Mary¬ land after the decline of the Roman Catholic influence (1692) ; and in New York after its cession by the Dutch, (1693). Frequent projects of appointing bishops in the other colonies failed. The first controversy in New England was (1720) between John Checkley (d. 1753), and Ed. Wigglesworth (Prof. Cambr., d. 1765). In 1722 Tim. Cutler (d. 1756), S. Johnson and others in Ct. became Episcopalians. The latter wrote in defence of the Epis. Church (1733) ; A Syst. of Morality, ’46 ; Hebr. Gram., ’67 ; d. Pres. King’s Coll., ’72. Noah Bobart (Fairfield, Ct., d. 1773), wrote: Serious Address to the Episcopal Separation, ’48 ; Second Address, ’51. J. Wetmore , (d. ’60) : Vindication of Professors of Church of England, ’47 ; and Rejoinder to Ho¬ bart. J. Beach (d. 1782): Answer to Hobart ’49 ; Vindication, ’56. Prest. Dickinson , Reasonableness of Nonconformity, ’38 ; Second Vindication, etc. (see Alien1 s Biog. Diet.) In 1763, East Apthorp, controversy with Dr. § 285, e. Theology and Philosophy in the United States. 449 Mayhew , on the Plans of the Propag. Society ; May hew, on Conduct of the Society, and two Defences, 1763-5. The Abp. of Canterb. ( SecJcer ) replied to Mayhew. T. B. Chandler (d. 1790) : Appeal on behalf of Chh. of Eng., ’67; Defence, ’69, ’71. Chauncy of Boston, Remarks on Bp. of LlandafFs Sermon, ’67 ; Answer to Chandler, ’68, ’70 ; Complete View of Episcopacy, ’71. After the Revolution, episcopal ordination was obtained in Scotland, 1781, by Samuel Seabury (d. 1796), in England by Bp. White (d. 1836). On the proposed alteration in the Liturgy, see § 222, note 6. In 1811, Bp. Hobart of N. Y. (d. 1830), advocated High Church claims in his Companion for the Altar ; J. M. Mason , replied in Christ. Mag. ; Hobart , Apology for Apostolic Order. John Bowden (d. 1817), advocated Episcopacy against Stiles , 1778; against Miller, 1806-10 ( Miller's Order of Ministry, 1807; reply to Bowden, 1810.) Bp. H. U. Onderdonk (Phil., d. 1858), Episco¬ pacy tested by Script., 1830 ; reply by Albert Barnes, 1844. Wainwright and Potts' discussion on the theme ; a Church without a Bishop. (Comp. Woods on Episc. ’44; Smyth, Prelacy; Coleman's Prim. Church; Jos. A, Alexander, Prim. Church Officers, ’51). The Oxford Controversy had its echoes in America. Between 1815 and 1858, 38 of the Episcopal Clergy went to Rome (Bp. Ives, 1852). Bp. Hopkins of Vt., wrote on Church of Rome, ’37, and Novelties, ’44 ; Confessional, ’50 ; End of Controversy, ’54. Bp. Mcllvaine, on Justif., ’40 ; Oxf. Div., ’41 ; Apostolic Office, ’55 (see Princeton Rev., ’56). Other Episcopal Divines, S. F. Jarvis (d. ’51), Re¬ gen., ’21 ; Prophecy, ’43 ; Introd. to Chh. Hist., ’45 ; Reply to Milner, ’47 ; Chh. of Redeemed, ’50. Bp. Ravenscroft , d. 1730: Disc, and Controv. with J. H. Rice. Samuel Seabury, Continuity of Chh. of Eng., ’55 ; Am. Slavery Justified, ’60. J. 0. Ogilby (Prof. N. Y., d. ’51), on the Chh. and Lay Baptism, ’44. F. L. Hawks, N. Y., Eccl. Hist, of Md. and Va. ; Egypt ; Chris. Antiq. Murray Hoffman (jurist) Canon Law, ’51. John S. Stone, The Mysteries opened (on Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence), 1844 ; The Church Universal, ’46. Stephen H. Tyng, Law and Gospel, ’48 ; Israel of God ; Christ is all, 1849.] 18 [The Baptist Controversy is perpetually renewed. Among the leading divines of this denomination are : Isaac Backus, b. 1724, d. 1806, Hist, of Baptists, 3 vols., to 1801 ; Mem. by A. Hovey, 1858. David Benedict , Hist. Bapt., new ed., ’48 ; Compend. Eccies. Hist. ; Fifty Years among Bap¬ tists, ’60. Jas. Maxcy (Prest. Brown Univ., d. ’20), Disc, and Remains (Elton). Francis Wayland (Prest. of Brown), b. 1796 ; Sermons; Moral and Intel. Phil. ; Pol. Econ. ; on Slavery [Fuller) ; Principles of Baptists, ’56, etc. Wm. R. Williams (N. Y.), Miscel. ; Rel. Progress ; Lord’s Prayer, etc. Barnas Sears (Prest. Brown), on Education ; Addresses and Reviews. R. Fuller on Baptism, Slavery [Wayland), Close Communion, ’49. T. F. Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, ’57. S. S. Cutting, Hist. Vindication, ’59. — The Campbellites are named from Alex. Campbell, editor of Christ. Bapt., ’23-’29, of Millennial Harbinger, since ’30 ; Christ. System ; Baptism ; Infidelity refuted by Infidels ; Public Debates with Walker, Me Alla, Purcell and Rice; Debate with Owen on Socialism. See J. B. Jeter, Campbellism Examined, 1858.] u [In 1784 the First Methodist Conference was organized under Wesley’s 450 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. rales. In I860, the total of Methodists in America, was 1,880,269. Fran* cis Asbury, d. 1816, preached 17,000 Sermons; Journals, 3 vols. ; Life by Strickland, ’59. Bp. Emory, Defence of Fathers ; Episc. Controversy ; Hist. Discipline. K. Bangs , on Meth. Ep. Church ; Original Church of Christ ; Sanctif. Cks . Elliott , Delineation of Rom. Catholicism, 2, N. Y. (3d ed., Bond., ’5l) ; Bible and Slavery; Baptism, ’34 ; Hist, of Secession of South¬ ern Chh. G. Peek, Christ. Perfection ; Rule of Faith. W. Fisk , d. 1830 ; Predest. and Elect, (against Fitch). Stephen Olin , d. ’51, Sermons and Addresses. J. McClintock, Temporal Power of Pope, ’55 ; ed. Classical Works. Abel Stevens , Chh. Polity; Memorials of Method. ; Rel. Movement in 18th cent., i., ii., 1858-60.] 30 [On the early German emigration to United States, see W. M. Rey¬ nolds, in Evang. Review, July, 1861. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, d. 1787; Reports in Hallische Hachrichten, 1741-85 ; Life by Stoever. The Lutherans are divided into (1), the strict Old Lutheran — controversy 1850, between Missouri and Buffalo Synods ( Lober , Walt her) ; (2.) Moderate Lutheranism of the Penn, synod; (3.) Evangelical Lutherans (Gettysburg). The American Lutherans generally reject the strict doctrine of consubstan- tiation ; the discipline is stricter than in the European churches ; the gov¬ ernment more Presbyterian. — For a full literature of the. denomination, see Evang. Review, April, 1861. — J. C. Kunze , d. 1802, orientalist. — J. G. Lochmann , d. 1826, Hist. Lutheran Doctrine, 1818. — J. Bachmann (S. C.), Defence of Luther; Unity of Race, etc. — E. L. Hazelius, Hist, of Church, i. ’42 ; of Am. Luth., ’46 ; Life of Stilling. C. W. Shaffer, Early Hist. Luth., ’57. — B. Kurtz , Why a Luth., ’43 ; Inf. Bapt., ’48. W. J. Mann, Luth. in Am., ’57 ; Plea for Augsb. Conf., ’56. J. G. Morris, Life of Arndt, ’53 ; on Martin Behaim, ’55. J. A. Seiss, on Hebrews, ’46 ; Bap¬ tist System, 2d ed., ’58 ; Gospel in Lev., ’60 ; Digest of Doctrine, ’57. A. and S. Henkel, Transl. of Luther on Sacraments, ’53 ; of Book of Concord, ’54. S. S. Schmucker (Prof. Gettysburg), Storr and Flatt transl., 2, ’26 ; Appeal on Union, ’38 ; Psychology, ’42 ; Am. Luth. Church, ’51 ; Lutheran Manual, ’55 ; Am. Lutheranism Vindicated (reply to Mann), ’56 ; Formula of Gov. and Discipline. See J. A. Brown, The Hew Theology, ’57, and Schmucker in reply.] 21 [The German Reformed were at first united with the Dutch. — Dr. Mayer, d. 1849, Hist, of Ref. Church. — H. Harbaugh, Fathers of Germ. Ref. Church ; The Future Life, etc. J. W. Kevin, Bibl. Antiq. ; Mystical Presence, ’46 ; Heidelb. Catechism, ’47, and a series of articles in the Mer- cersb. Review on Puritanism, the Cyprianic Church, etc. See in reply, Hodge in Princeton Rev., ’48, Schmucker and Berg ; also Brownson’s Quart, and Ebrard (approving Hevin’s views) in Studien und Kritiken, ’51. On P. Schaff (comp, note 16); he has also written on the Sfinde wider den heiligen Geist ; Principles of Protestantism, ’45 ; What is Church History ? ’46 ; America, ’55 ; Germany and its Universities, ’57 ; edited Deutsche Kirchenfreund, ’48-’53, and Mercersb. Rev., and contributed numerous arti¬ cles to Bib. Sacra and other reviews.] 22 [The Dutch Ref. Church was first established in Hew Amsterdam (Hew York), under the classis of Amsterdam; Domine Everardus Bogardus, § 285, e. Theology and Philosophy in the United States. 451 1633-47 ; S. Megapolensis, 1642-68. 1737—71, a strong movement against the dependence on Holland — Coetus and Conference parties; the Coetus party at last succeeded. First preaching exclusively in English by A. Laidlee , d. ’78. The Decrees of Dort and the Heidelberg Catechism are the standards. J. H. Livingston , Prof. Theol. (b. 1746, d. 1855) ; Sermons and Addresses; Life by Gunn, ’56. Theod. J. Frelinghuysen, d. 1754, Sermons, ed. De Witt , ’56. — W. C. Brownlee, on Quakers, ’24; on Popery; West Apost. Church; Rom. Cath. Controv. ; Deity of Christ. Thos. De Witt , Hist. Disc., ’58, etc. D. D. Demurest , Hist., Ref. D. Church, ’59. J. S. Cannon, d. 1850, Lect. on Pastoral Theology, ’53. W. R. Gordon , Godhead of Christ, 1855. Jos. F. Berg (Germ. Ref. till ’52), Lect. on Ro¬ manism, ’40; Theology of Dens, ’40; Papal Rome; Voice from Rome; Pope and Presbyterians, ’44 ; Robe of Treves; Myst. of Inquis., ’46 ; Reply to Abp. Hughes, ’50 ; Farewell Words to Germ. Ref. Church and Nevin, ’52 ; Prophecy, ’56, etc.] 23 [ John Murray, from England, b. 1741, d. 1815, formed the first Uni- versalist Society in Am., 1779; Letters and Sermons, 3, 1816. Chs. Chauncy, in Boston (see § 285, d., note 7), taught the doctrine in his Salva¬ tion of All Men, 1784 (reply by Jonathan Edwards, Jr., ’85), and Jos. Hunt¬ ington, of Coventry, Ct. (d. 1795), in his Calvinism Improved, publ. 1796 ; replies by Strong, of Hartford, and others. — Elhanan Winchester (b. 1751, d. ’97) : Univ. Restoration, 1786 ; on Prophecies, 2, 1800. — Hosea Ballou , d. 1851, Orthodoxy Unmasked; Divine Benevolence, 1815; Atonement, 1805-1828. — Hosea Ballou, 2d, d. 1861 : Univ. Expositor, 1831 ; Ancient Hist. Universalism. — W. Balfour , d. 1812: Inquiry; Essays; Letters to Stuart, etc. — E. H. Chapin, Characters in Gospels ; Lord’s Prayer ; Hu¬ manity in City, ’54. — The Annihilationists : Geo. Storrs, Are the Wicked Immortal, 21st ed., ’59. C. F. Hudson, Debt and Grace, ’57 ; Human Destiny, a Critique of Universalism, ’61. See Alvah Hovey , State of Im¬ penitent Dead, 59 : J. R. Thompson, Law and Penalty : R. W. Landis, Immortality, etc., 2d ed., ’60. Abp. Whately, Scriptl. Revel, respecting Future State, ’55.] 24 [The Quakers (Society of Friends) had trouble, 1692, with George Keith, who organized the Christian Quakers, and at last became an Episco¬ palian. The Quaker predominance in Penn, came to an end, about 1755, in the discussions on men and supplies for the French war. No Friend was allowed to hold slaves ( John Woolman, Epistle to Quakers, 1773. JBenezet (d. 1784) aroused the zeal of Clarkson in England). — A division, 1827, by Elias Hicks (d. 1830), who denied the divine authority of the Scriptures, and the deity and atonement of Christ. Separate organizations formed (150,000 regular, and 10,000 Hicksite Quakers.)] 25 [The Shakers began in England (called Millennial Church), with Jas. and Jane Wardley, Bristol, 1747. Mother Ann Lee joined them, 1757, and became the spiritual mother ; emigrated to America, 1774, Watervleit, N. Y., d. 1784. Strict celibacy; Christ’s Second Coming (4th dispensation began in 1847). See Evans 1 Hist., 1859 ; A Summary View of the Millen¬ nial Church, Albany, 1823. — Adventists: Win. Miller preached in 1833, that the end of the world would be in 1843 : J. V. Hines, Advent Herald, 452 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 184C. Spiritualism, (Rappings, Necromancy) began 1850, with the Fox family , Andrew Jackson Davis, Harmonia, 6, 1850; Nature’s Div. Revel.; Philos, of Spiritual Intercourse; Harmonial Man, etc. J. W. Edmonds, Spiritualism, 2, 1853-5. Owen , Footfalls on the Boundaries, etc., 1860. See Asa Mahan, Mod. Myst. Explained, Bost., 1856. Modern Necromancy, in North Am. Rev., 1855 ; Christ. Exam., Nov., 1756 {Hill) ; Church Rev., July, 1855 ; Westminster, Jan., 1858. W. R. Gordon, Threefold Test of Modern Spiritualism, N. Y., 1856 ; Agenor de Gasparin , Science vs. Spirit¬ ualism, 2, 1856 (transl. by E. W. Roberts ). The Literature of Spiritualism, New Englander, 1858. North Brit., Feb., 1861, on Edmonds and Owen.] 28 [ Mormons , Latter Day Saints . Joe Smith , b. 1805, published Sol. Spalding's (d. 1816) Romance on the American Aborigines (Nephi and Lehi), as the Book of Mormons, 1830. The church founded with three high priests, twelve apostles, twenty elders: temple in Nauvoo, 1842: Smith killed. Brigham Young succeeded ; in 1856 emigration to Utah. They may now number 60,000 in Utah. Gifts of tongues and prophecy ; poly¬ gamy practised. See J. B. Turner , Mormonism in all Ages. Accounts by Bennet , 1843 ; Gunnison , 1852 ; Ferris , 1854 ; Green , 1858 ; Hyde , 1859 ; Edb. Rev., April, 1854 ; New Englander, Nov., 1854 ; Jules Remy , Voyage au Pays des Mormons, 2, Paris, 1860 ; T. W. P. Taylder , The Mormons’ Own Book, Lond., 1855, — The Book of Doctrines and Covenants ; Kirtland, Q., 1835 ; Nauvoo, 1846 ; and a 3d ed. in England.] § 286. CONFLICTS OF THE CONFESSIONS. It was characteristic of the theology of the eighteenth century that it attached less importance to the denominational differences of the confessions of faith, upon which so much stress had been laid in the preceding period. These differences had receded in view of the new and fresh antagonisms. The cause of this was not only rationalistic in- differentism, but also the efforts of the Pietists, and other sects of a similar character, for the promotion of practical piety.1 Although the union of Catholicism with Protestantism was restricted to pious and impracticable wishes,2 yet on the other hand, in several parts of G-ermany a union was brought about between the Lutherans and the Calvinists.3 But even this union led to a revival of the former denominational differences, which were not only made the subject of scientific discussion,4 but also gave rise to separations and commo¬ tions in the church.6 Thus Scriptural Supernaturalism, as well as old Lutheran orthodoxy,6 and the rigid Calvinism7 of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, were strongly defended in the nineteenth. The work of union has been very much shattered by this dogmatic partisan hatred. § 286. Conflicts of the Confessions. 453 1 Comp. Urlsperger , (§ 277, note 6), Zinzendorf (§ 277). 3 Did Lavater and Sailer labor to effect such a union ? — Connection of the literary romantic school with the catholicising tendency in the Pro¬ testant church. — Conversion and proselytism. See the works on Church History [Hase, Gieseler , Niedner , Guerickei] 3 1817-30 : Prussia, Nassau, Baden, the electorate of Hesse, Hesse-Darm- Btadt, Wtirtemberg. Compare the works on ecclesiastical history. 4 Among the writers on systematic theology, Augusti , previous to the establishment of the Union, showed the necessity of enabling the students of theology to obtain a more thorough knowledge of the systematic theology of the Lutheran Church which even Lessing held to be more than “ a patch- work of blunderers and semi-philosophers,” in his work : System der Christ - lichen Dogmatik, nach dem Lehrbegriff der lutherischen Kirche , im Grund- risse dargstellt, Leipz., 1809 — Respecting particular doctrines, see the special history of doctrines (Lord’s Supper, Predestination, etc.). The revived study of symbolism, see § 282, also helped in this matter. 6 Scheibel in Breslau and Steffens (who wrote : Wie ich wieder ein Lu- theraner wurde und, Was mir das Lutherthum ist, Breslau, 1831), GuericTcc , (1835), Kellner , Wehrhahn , and others. Concerning the commotions to which these conflicts gave rise, see the works on ecclesiastical history, e. g. Hase, p. 569, ss., and H. Olshausen. Was ist von den neuesten kirch lichen Ereignissen in Schlesien zu halten? Leipz.. 1835. Niedner , p. 888 sq. 8 Rudelbach und Guericke , Zeitschrift fur die gesammte lutherische Theolo- gie und Kirche, from the year 1840. Rudelbach , Reformation, Lutherthum und Union, Leipz., 1839. Somewhat later we find the camp of the Ultra- Lutherans itself divided into fractions : see Gieseler , Kirchengeschichte der neuesten Zeit, Bonn, 1855, pp. 213, 277. The Lutherans represented by the Zeitschrift fur Protestantismus und Kirche, edited by Thomasius and Kofman. [Theologische Zeitschrift, 1860. K. F. A. Kahnis, Die moderne Unions-doctrin, Leipz., 1853 ; K. J. Nitzsch, Wiirdigung der Augrifle des Dr. Kahnis, 1854 : Kahnis , Die Sache der lutherischen Kirche gegentiber die Union, 1854. — The chief works in this controversy are Julius Muller , Die evang. Union, 1854, and F. J. Stahl (d. 1861), Die lutherische Kirche und die Union, 2te Aufl., 1860. Naur, Dogmengeschichte, p. 356, represents the course of things thus : the church in opposition to the new philosophic spec¬ ulations could not take any other consistent standpoint than that of the older Confessions ; but as soon as they come back to them earnestly, the old con¬ flicts of the symbols must break out anew.] 7 Among the Momiers in the Church of Geneva (comp. § 285, note 9), in the Netherlands and in the district of Elberfeld ; yet it can not be pretended, that there was a revival of older Calvinism, like that of old Lutheranism ( Neidner , 885). 454 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. § 287. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. GERMAN-CATHOLIC ISM. The development of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany was different from that in France ; for these two countries alone here come into consideration.1 In the former country Romanism was affected by the influence of the philosophical systems, and the prevailing tendency of the age. While some Roman Catholics, especially as favored in the reign of Joseph II., Emperor of Austria, directed their efforts chiefly to the reform of the government of the church,2 there were others who sought partly to rationalize (az^klaren),2 and partly to idealise (verklaren) the Roman Catholic doctrine.4 Here the modern speculation led through the indefinite views of the older rationalism, to a more profound and philosophical advocacy of their doctrines in their conscious distinction from those of the Protestant Church. This was the case especially with Hermes 5 and M older * and Gunther ,7 though with different degrees of success. In France the Jansenistic controversy was continued at the commencement of the present period in the controversy concerning the Constitution.8 From the time of the French Revolution, theological conflicts appear so intimately connected with political contests, as to preclude the expectation that even those highly talented men who took a prominent part in these conflicts,9 would do much for the scientific development of theology. The theological system of Bautain is of special importance in its relation to the theology of Hermes. The former tried to prove on speculative ground, that speculation is not admissible in systematic theology, and rested his system entirely upon faith,10 while Hermes endeavoured to establish faith by philos¬ ophy. Both systems were condemned by the Papal See as being founded on extreme views. The so-called German Catholicism troubled itself less about dogmatic principles. Called into being by an extreme Roman Catholic superstition,11 it planted itself upon a rationalistic eclecticism ;12 and though a fraction sought to save more positive elements, yet it was devoid of thorough theological basis.13 [The Roman Catholic literature of England,14 and the United States of America,15 has been chiefly historical and contro¬ versial.] 1 Among the Italian theologians, the most eminent is Cardinal Perroney Prof, in the Collegium Romanum : Preelections Theologicse Rom., 1835 ; in German, Landshut, 1852. [Some 25 editions of this work, and its abridgment have been published ; Perrone has also written on the Rule of Faith (Latin and French), 3 vols., 1853 ; on the Immaculate Conception, § 287. The Roman Catholic Church. 455 1848; Theology and Philosophy, 1845. Perrone was born 1794, and be¬ came Prof, in Rome, 1823. — Pellicia , Prof, in Naples, d. 1823, and Pas- saglia , the editor of the Eccles. Christ! Monumenta de immacul. Virginia Conceptu, are the two other most eminent Italian divines of the century. — Among the Italian philosophers, Galluppi , of Naples, d. 1846, taught in the spirit of Reid; Ventura (b. 1792), on Philos. Reafeon and Catholic Reason, and on the Origin of Ideas, 1853, interpreted reason by the light of the Council of Trent. — The two great Italian philosophers of the century are Vicenzo Gioberti , d. 1852, and Antonio Rosmini ( Serbati ), d. 1855, both of them vigorous opponents of the pantheistic school. Gioberti wrote on the Moral Primacy of Italy ; the Jesuits : the Good and the Beautiful ; Theory of Supernatural; posthumous, 7 vols. (Philos, of Revel., and Pro- tology). His formula is Pens creat existentias. Comp. Westminster Rev., Oct., 1853 ; Brownson’s Quart. (N. Y.), 1859, 1860. Rosmini, on Origin of Ideas, Moral Phil., Theodicy, Ontology, Theosophy, etc. Comp. Zeitschrift f. Philos., 1856, 1859 (by Seydel) ; Annales de Philos. Chret., 1860 ; Depit , Histoire de la Phil, dans ITtalie, Paris, 1859; Bartholmess , Histoire critique des doctrines religieuses de la Phil. Moderne, 2 vols., Paris, 1855. Father Lockhart , Life of Rosmini, Lond., 1856. Rosmini’s work, The Five Wounds of the Church (1. In left hand — separation between people and priesthood in public worship ; 2. In right hand— inadequate instruction of priesthood ; 3. In the side — discussion among bishops ; 4. In right foot — lay nomination of bishops ; 5. In left foot — dependence of ecclesiastical property) — written 1832, publ. 1844, was prohibited by the Congregation of Cardinals, 1845; but the accusation was dismissed as containing no heresy, after an examination of all Rosmini’s writings, (30 vols.), under the Presidency of the Pope in General Congregation. Rosmini founded the In¬ stitute of Charity, on the Lago Maggiore, 1838.] 3 Joseph II. (reigned from the year 1780) stood in the same relation to the Roman Catholic Church, in which Frederick II. stood to the Protestant Church, but manifested greater interest for religion, and was also more dic¬ tatorial. Concerning Justinus Febronius (Nicolas of Hontheim) and the Punctation of Ems (1786) ; and Scipio Ricci , Bishop of Pistoja and Prato under the reign of Leopold of Tuscany, see the works on ecclesiastical his¬ tory. [De Potter , Vie de Ricci, 2 tom., 1825]. The contests about the hierarchy, celibacy, and monasticism also belong to church history, and not to the history of doctrines. 8 Isenbiehl (1774) was violently attacked on account of his interpretation of the Messianic prophecies. — In later times the critical and exegetical la¬ bors of Jahn , Hug, and Scholz , were distinguished by a more liberal spirit of inquiry. — Dereser and Van Fss translated the sacred Scriptures into Ger¬ man ; Blau (died 1798) undermined the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church (Frankf., 1791). — Joseph Muth examined the relation in which Christianity stands to the religion of reason (Hadamar, 1818). Michl (Anton) manifested more liberal views in the treatment of ecclesiastical his- tory. [Among the German Roman Catholic divines, at the close oj* the last century, who tried to popularise theology, were Gazzaniga, Prelect. Theol,, Vien., 1775 ; Gervasio , Tract. Theol., Vien., 1765 : Klupfel , Institut, Theol., 456 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Yindob., 1789; Wiest, Demonstratio dogm., Ingolstadt, 1788 ; S tattler, in bis Theol. Christ. Theoret., Eustad., 1781, and Loci Theol., 1775, tried to introduce i more philosophical spirit. Under the influence of the later German philosophy, Schwarz made use of Kantian ideas ; Zimmer applied Schelling’s theory of intellectual intuition ; Dobmeyer interspersed philoso¬ phical reflections ; Klee tried to infuse into the whole system a philosophic method ; Liebermann (Inst. Theol., ed. 7, Mogunt., 1853), has more the character of a positive dogmatics. See Kuhn , Katbol. Dogmatik, Bd. i. 2te. Aufl., p. 515. Kuhn’s own work takes a high rank among the modern Ro¬ man Catholic systems, in the attempt to reconcile faith and reason ; the second volume is on the Trinity.] 4 'Wessenberg and his school were characterized by an idealing tendency, and a spirit of toleration towards other communions. [ Von Wessenberg- Ampringen , b. 1777, d. 1860; from 1817 to 1827, in the diocese of Con¬ stance, in conflict with Rome. He wrote on the German Church, 1816 ; the Great Councils of the 15th and 16th Cent., 4 vols., 1845 ; God and the World, 2 vols., 1857.] Comp. ( Keller ) Katholikon, fur Alle unter jeder Form das Eine, Aarau., 1827. On the other hand, Sailer (1751-1832) in distinction from this more rationalising tendency, endeavored to represent Romanism in an attractive form, by the use of mystic phraseology ; and, lastly, some others, such as Martin Hoos , Al. Henhofer , and Johann Goss- ner , sought to introduce the stricter evangelical principle (and Pietism) into the theology of the Roman Catholic Church ; the twro latter afterwards be¬ came converts to the Protestant faith, but not the first ; see his autobiogra¬ phy, edited by Gossner, Leipz., 1826. — In opposition to these reforming tendencies, Gorres (born 1776) endeavored to maintain the principles of the Romanism of the middle ages. His works, characterized by vigor and genius, gave new support to the school of Munich. [ Joseph Gorres , b. 1776, d. 1848. His History of Mysticism is a reproduction of the mediaeval sys¬ tems, adapted to modern times.] 6 George Hermes, born 1775, was professor of theology in Munster and Bonn, and died 1831. By asserting that the Romish doctrine might be proved philosophically, he undermined the authority of the Church. See his Einleitung in die christkatholische Theologie, Munster, 1819, 31, Yoll. ii., 1829. Christkatholische Dogmatik, herausgegeben von Achterfeldt , Mtinster, 1834, 3 voll. His theory was condemned by Pope Gregory XYI. (1835.) Comp. P. J. Elvenich , Acta Hermesiana, Gott., 1836. Zell , Acta antihermesiana, Sittard, 1836. Hraun et Elvenich , Meletemata theologica, Lips., 1838 ; Acta Romana, Han., 1838. Pheinwald , Repertorium, xxxii.- xxxiv. The condemnation of Hermes was renewed by Pius IX. in 1847. [See Niedner , p. 828-30 ; and his Philosophise Hermesii Explicatio, 1838. Die Wahrheit in Hermes. Sache, Darmst., 1837. Elvenich , Der Hermesian- ismus und Joh. Perrone, 2te. Aufl., 1844. Sudhoff in Herzog’s Realen- cyclop.] 6 Mahler was born 1796, and died 1838. Having received his first im¬ pressions from the study of Protestant theology (Schleiermacher), he after¬ wards employed his knowledge to oppose it. By his Symbolism (Mainz, 1832), he revived the controversy between the Roman Catholics and Pro § 287. The Roman Catholic Church. 457 testants, and induced the latter to re-examine their own principles. [Sym¬ bolism, transl. by J. R. Robertson, 2 vols., Lond., 1843 ; New York, 1844. For the works in reply, see vol. i. ante, p. 42. P. MarheineJce , Ueber M.’s Symbolik, Berk, 1833.] — The most eminent theologians and philosophers of the Roman Catholic Church are : Francis JBaader [d. in Munich, 1841 : works edited by F. Hoffmann , 12 Bde., 1858. Comp. Lutterbeck , der philos. Standpunkt Baaders, 1854; Hamberger , Cardinalpunkte Baaderschen Phil., 1855; Hoffmann , Belenchtung der neuesten Urtheile, 1854; Erd¬ mann in Zeitschrift f. Philos., 1856 ; Pelt , in Reuter’s Repert., Mai, 1860 ; Hamberger , Schelling und Baader in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1860] ; F. A. Staudenmaier [d. 1854] (among his numerous works we mention : Ency- clopadie, 1834. Philosophic des Christenthumus, 1839. Metaphysik der heiligen Schrift, 1840); and J. JB. Hirscher (he wrote : Ueber das Yerhalt- ness des Evangeliums zu der theologischen Scholastik der neuesten Zeit im katholischen Deutschland, Tub., 1823. Die Katholische Lehre vorn Ablasse. ibid., 1829, etc.) [Sengler, Specul. Philos, und Theol., 1837 ; Die Idee Gottes, 2, 1852; Denzinger , Die religiose Erkenntniss, 2, 1857 ; Oischinger , Die neuere Phil., 1853 ; Glaubenslehre, 1858 ; Von Lasaulx , d. 1860, Phil, der Gesch., Aesthetik, etc. — The question on the relation of faith and reason is agitated anew between Clemens and Kuhn. See Clemens , De Scholastio- rum Sententia, Philosophiam esse Theologize Ancillam, Comment. ; against Kuhn’s Dogmatik (1846) ; Kuhn , Philos, und Theologie, 1860, Glauben und Wissen nach St. Thomas in the Theol. Quartalschrift, 1860, and the 2d ed. of his Dogmatik; Clemens , Ueber d. Yerhaltniss der Philos, zur Theol., I860.] 7 Gunther , Yorschule zur ‘specul. Theol. Wien, 1828-1848. [ Gunther und Palst, Januskopfe fur Philos, und Theol. Wien, 1834.] Comp. H. P. Oischinger , Die Gunthersche Philos., Schaffl., 1852. Ba.ltzer, Neue theol. Briefe an Gunther, Bresl., 1853. Die specul. Theologie Gunthers und seine Schule (reprinted from Himmelsteins Kathol. Wochenschrift), Wiirzb., 1839. Zeitschrift f. lutherische Theol., xvi., 1854. Hase in Church History, p. 655. [Gunther was condemned at Rome, 1857, for his teachings on the Trinity, Incarnation and Creation ; and submitted.] 8 The relation in which Zinzendorf stood to Jansenism is worthy of notice : u Jansenism was the salt without which the Roman Catholic Church of that 'period [beginning of the eighteenth century], would have perished Tho- luclc, Yermischte Schriften, ii. p. 33. Concerning the various modifications of Jansenism, see Hase , Church History, p. 516. 9 The anti-ecclesiastical theories of Theophilanthropinism (1796-1802), and of St. Simonism (at a later period), [see Hase, 679] had only a temporary existence. Romanism was brought into connection with politics by Chateau¬ briand (born 1769) and Lamennais. — The rationalistic church of Abbe Chatel (1830, August.) [ Chateaubriand , b. 1769, d. 1848 ; his Genius of Christianity was published in 1802, English version by F. Shoberl , 2 vols., 1811; new translation by C. J. White1 Phil., 1856. Bautain has also pub¬ lished a Moral Philosophy, 1842, and Psychology. De la Mennais , d. 1854, his work on Indifference in Matters of Religion (1817-1823, 9th ed., 1851,) was an eloquent advocacy of Rome; but he abandoned the traditional faith 458 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. in liis Affaires de Rome, and Esquisse d’une Philosophie, 1841-5. Count Joseph de Maistre , d. 1821, Defended the ultra-montane idea of the Papacy, and inveighed against the Baconian induction. — Aug. Nicolas , Etudes phil- osophiques, sur le Christianismus, 2 vols., 7 th ed., 1854. The works of A. Gratry (De la Logique, de Dieu, Psychologie, 1855-8), revive the earlier French speculations.] 10 JBautain , Philosophie du Christianisme, Strassb., 1835. Rheimvald Acta, histor. eccles., 1835, p. 305, ss., 1837, p. 68, ss. F. Junge , in Illgens Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie, 1837; vii. part 2. His system was con¬ demned by the Pope, 1834, Dec. 20th. Comp. \Kuhn , doer Glauben und Wissen, in der theologischen Quartalschrift, 1839, part 3. [Traditionalism has been the prevailing tendency of French Catholicism, represented by De Donald. Bautain and his Annales de la Philos. Chretienne. The Roman See in 1856 took still more definite ground against the pure traditionalists in 4 Propositions, at the instance of Abp. Sibour. On this controversy, see Annales de la Philos. Chret., 1859-60 ; Brownson’s Quarterly Rev., 1860—1 ; Lupus , Le Traditionalisme et le Rationalisme, 3 Tom., Liege, 1860. 11 History of the Holy Coat of Treves. See Guericke , Hase , p. 656 ; Niedner , p. 926. [ Gildemeyer and von Sybel , Historisch. Untersuchung, 1844. John Ronge, or the Holy Coat of Treves, New York, 1845.] 12 John Ronge [b. 1813], of Laurahtitte, in Silesia. Letter to Bp. Arnoldi of Treves, Oct., 1844. — Council at Leipsic, March 23-26, 1845. His system given by Niedner , p. 927, note. [He denounced papacy and hierarchy, and claimed full freedom of conscience and of investigation ; the statements of his faith are simply those of the Apostles’ Creed. See Sam. Laing , Notes on Rise of German Catholic Church, 1845. Gervinus , Mission of German Cath., transl. Lond., 1846.] 13 John Czerski of Schneidemtihl (in Prussian Posen), Offenes Glau- bensbekenntniss der Christl.-Apostol.-Kathol. Gemeinde, Stuttg., 1844. — - Czerski , Sendschreiben au alle christl.-theol.-kathol. Gemeinden, June, 1845. — Berlin Protestant Church, May to August, 1845. — Meeting of Ronge, Theiner and Czerski, in Rawicz, Feb., 1846. — Synod in Schnei- demiihl, July, 1846, and final adoption there of the Confession of Faith., See D. F. F. Kampe , Das Wesen das Deutschkatholicismus, Tubingr, 1850. See also (including the literature), Niedner , p. 926, sq ., and Herzog's Reale n cyclop. Hase, p. 657. 14 \_Alban JButler, b. 1710, d. 1773 : Lives of Saints, 12 vols., 1847, New York, 1846 ; Meditations and Discourses, repr., 1840. — Charles Butler, b. 1750, d. 1832 : Historical Memoirs of English, etc., Catholics, 4 vols., 3d ed., 1822 ; Confessions of Faith, 1816 ; Book of Rom. Cath. Church (against Southey ), 1825, and Vindication, against Townsend, 1826 ; Horae Biblicse etc. — John Milner, b. 1752, d. 1836 : End of Controversy, 2d ed., 1819 (reply by Jarvis in Am.) ; Vindication of the same, 1822. — Jos. Berington , b. 1743, d. 1827 : Letter on Hartley (see § 285, a, note 15, above) ; State of English Catholics, 1780, 1787 ; Exposition of Rom. Cath. Principles, 1787 ; Rights of Dissenters, 1789; his Memoirs of Panzani’s career in Eng¬ land (1634-7), transl. 1793, led to a controversy with Rev. C. Plowden, and to Berington’s Faith of Catholics, 1813 ; Literary Hist, of Middle Ages, § 287. The Russian-Greek Church. 459 1814, 1816. Richard Challoner , bp. of Debra, d. 1781, Britannia Sacra, 1740. — John Lingard , d. 1851: Hist. England, new ed., 10 vols., 1849; Antiq. of Anglo-Saxon Church, 2, 1848 ; Strictures on bp. Marsh’s Compar¬ ison of Confessions, 1815 ; Transl. of Gospels, etc. — Cardinal Nicholas Wise¬ man (Abp. of Winchester, 1850) is the ablest of the English Catholics: Lectures on Doctrines, etc., of Church of Borne, 2, 1844; Real Presence, 1836 ; Science and Revealed Religion, 2d ed., 1842, reprinted in Andover; Essays, 3 vols., 1853, etc. — The following went from the Oxford School to the Catholic Church (comp, above, § 285, a.) John Newman , now head of the Catholic Univ., Dublin, difficulty of Anglicans, 1850; Position of Catholics, 1851 ; University Education, etc. W. G. Ward , Ideal of Church, 1844; Anglican Establishment, 1850, contrasted with Church Catholics; Nature and Grace, 1860. Henry E. Manning , Unity of Church, 1852 ; Sermons; Grounds of Faith, 1852. Henry W. Wilberforce , Baptism, 2d ed., 1849 ; Incarnation, 3d ed., 1850 ; the Eucharist, 1853. The Dublin Review , since 1855, has been the ablest organ of the English Roman Catholics.] 15 [Bp. John England (S. C.), d. 1842: Works, 5 vols., 1849. Prince Gallitzin , d. 1840 : Defence of Catholic Principles. Abp. John Hughes of New York, controversial pamphlets. Abp. F. P. KenricJc , b. 1797 : Theol. dogmatica, 2 vols., 1840 (repr. in Antwerp); Theologia Moralis, 3, 1842 ; the Primacy, 1837 ; Justification, 1841, Reply to bp. Hopkins, etc. — Bp. Spalding (of Kentucky), on the Reformation (against Merle d’Aubigne) ; Miscellanies; Evidences. O. A. Hrownson , Society and Church, 1836 ; Essays on Church Questions,. 1852 ; ed. Brownson’s Quarterly, which has been Catholic since 1844.] § 288. THE RUSSIAN-GREEK CHURCH. [A. N. Monravieff, Hist, of Church of Russia, 1838, transl. by Blackmore, Oxf., 1842. R. W. Blackmore, Doctrine of the Russian Church, from Sclavonic and Russ, originals, Aberdeen, 1845. Macaire , Theologie dogmatique orthodoxe, trad, par un Russe, 2 vols., Paris, 1860. Introduction & la Theol. orthodoxe de Macaire (rector of Ecclesi¬ astical Academy of St. Petersburg, translated by Michael Bulgakoff; see Christ. Rembr., Jan., 1858), Paris, 1851. Catechisme detaille de l’Eglise catholique orientale, trad, du Russe, Paris, 1852. W. Palmer, Dissertations on the Eastern Catholic Commu¬ nion, Lond., 1852. Prince August. Galitzin , l’Eglise greco-russe, Paris, 1861. Wad- dington's Greek Church, 1854. Gass in Herzog’s Realencyclop. Glaubenszeugnisse der griechischen Kirche, in Appendix to Ease , Dogmatik, 5te. Aufl., 1860. A. P. Stanley , Lectures on the Eastern Church, 1861, Lectures 4 to 8 on Russia.] In the Russian-Greek Church Theophanes Procopowicz1 and Pla¬ ton 2 set forth the orthodox doctrines which were afterwards defended by the Imperial Counsellor, Alexander of Stour dza,* against the attacks of the Jesuits. But none of these exerted any influence upon the development of the doctrines of Christianity in general. 460 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 1 Procopowicz was born at Kiew, a. d., 1681, died 1739, as archbishop of Novgorod. After his death was published his : Christiana Orthod. Theolog, Tom. i.-vii., 1773-76, ss. See Schrockh , Kirchengeschichte (as continued by Tzschirner ), ix. p. 20 7, ss. 2 Platon, born 1737, became archbishop of Moscow [1775], and died 1812. He wrote : Rechtglaubige Lehre, oder Kurzer Auszug der christlichen The- ologie, zum Gebrauch Seiner Koniglichen Hoheit des Grossfursten Paul Petrowisch, Riga, 1770 (translated into German.) Comp. Schrockh, 1. c. p. 212, ss. Schlegel , Kirchengeschichte des 18ten Jahrhunderts, vol. p. 59, ss. [English translations of Platon by Pinkerton , viz., The Present State of the Greek Church in Russia, or Summary of Christian Divinity, Lond., 1814 ; another translation by Coray , The Orthodox Doctrine of Apostolic Eastern Church, etc., 1857; by Potessaco , Lond., 1858.] 8 Considerations sur la doctrine de l’esprit de l’eglise orthodoxe, Stuttg. 1816. Translated into German, 1817 (by Kotzebue .) Concerning the sects of the Greek Church, the Nestorians, Monophysites, and Monothe¬ lites (Maronites), as well as those who dissented from the Russian Church (from the year 1666), viz. the Staroverzi (Rascolniks), and the Duchoborzi (the Russian Quakers), comp, the works on ecclesiastical history. Ease , p. 667. Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift, 1842, No. 19. Eefele, Die russische Kirche, in Tubing. Quartalsehrift, 1853. [The Malakans — eat¬ ing milk on fast-days, have become widely diffused during the present century. See Le Raskol (means dissent) ; Essai historique et critique sur les Sectes religieuses de la Russe Paris, 1854. Russian Schismatics, in Revue des deux Mondes, 1859.] B. SPECIAL HISTORY OF DOCTRINES DURING THE FIFTH PERIOD. FIRST DIVISION. PROLEGOMENA. RELIGION. REVELATION. BIBLE AND TRADITION. (MIRACLE AND PROPHECY.) § 289. RELIGION. After Christianity, from the time of Wolf, had ceased to he regarded as the only religion, and a distinction had been made between natural and revealed religion, it became necessary to define the latter more precisely. For a considerable time both rationalists and supernaturalists adopted the definition : Religio est modus Deum cognoscendi et colendi / with this difference, that the former made religion to consist chiefly in morality.3 Semler made a dis¬ tinction between religion and theology,8 and Herder separated reli¬ gion from doctrinal opinions and religious usages.4 According to Schleiermacher , religion consists neither in knowledge, nor in action, but is a certain definite tendency of the soul, manifesting itself as the absolute feeling of dependence on God.5 Most of the modern mediating theologians rest their systems on the same principle.* The adherents of speculative philosophy consider knowledge as the foundation ;7 the practical systems appeal to conscience , in the last instance.8 1 On this point comp. Twesten , Dogmatik, i., p. 2, and Nitzsch , System § 6. The formula is somewhat enlarged by Ammon, Summ. Theol. Chr. § 1 : Conscientise ‘vinculum, quo cogitando, volendo et agendo numini nos obstric- tos sentimus. 462 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 2 According to Kant, religion consists in this, that in reference to all our duties we consider God the legislator who is to be reverenced by all. See his Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Yernunft, p. 139. 8 Sender too confounded religion with ethics (the reformation of the life). See TholucJc , ii., p. 111. 4 In his treatise: Yon Religion, Lehrmeinungen und Gebrauchen, 1798. (Works, xviii., p. 169-330.) 5 Christliche Glaubenslehre, § 3 ss., comp, his Reden uber die Religion, p. 56-77. [On Schleiermacher’s and kindred views, see Morell's Philosophy of Religion (1849), pp. 82-106; Thornwell in Southern Presb. Rev., April, 1856. Miles, Philosophic Theology (1849), 175, sq. G. Wissenborn, Yorlesungen Tiber Schleiermacher’s Dogmatik (1847), p. 31-65.] 6 This definition was adopted by Twesten and Nitzsch , 1. c. and, with some modifications by Hase , § 2-6, and De Wette , Yorlesungen fiber die Religion, Yorles. 4. Wegscheider (Inst. § 2.) defines religion as aequabilis et constans animi affectio , etc. That this theory does not necessarily exclude knowledge, may be seen from the passages of the respective writers above referred to. Comp, also Elwert , fiber das Wesen der Religion, Tiibinger Zeitschrift, 1835, part 3. Ch. Weisse , in his Philosophische Dogmatik, oder Phil, des Christ- enth urns’ (ii. Leipz., 1855-60), comprises religion under the generic idea of Experience ( Erfahrung ), § 22-103. See also, S. A. Carlhlom , Das Geffihl in seiner Bedeutung ffir den Glauben, Berlin, 1857. \Lechler, Idea of Re¬ ligion, in Studien und Kritiken, 1851, translated by W. Stearns , Bib. Sacra, 1852. Hase , defines it as “ a striving after the absolute, in itself unattainable ; but by love to it, man becomes a partaker of the divine perfection.” Nitzsch , § 7 : “an active- and passive relation of the finite consciousness to the Crea¬ tor, Preserver, and Ruler of the World.”] 7 See Hegel’s Preface to Hinrichs Religionsphilosophie. According to Hegel and VatJce, religion is the process of the mind. (Nitzsch, System, p. 9). Feuerbach insists upon the subjective element as making the essence of religion, and then finds in this the evidences that it rests'upon self-decep¬ tion ; theology is only anthropology, God is only a reflex of man. See his Wesen des Christenthums, p. 20 : “ Religion is a relation of man to himself, or, more correctly to his own nature (his subjective nature), but a relation to his own nature as if it were another nature.” In reply see Zeller, TJeber' -das Wesen der Religion, in his Theolog. Jahrbficher, 1845, p. 26, sq., 393 sq., Hiederman, Die freie Theologie, Tfib., 1844, pp. 31-45. [Comp. Marian Evans's translation of Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, p. 32 sq. : “ Con¬ sciousness of God is self-consciousness, knowledge of God is self knowledge.” He urges the position, conceded by some theologians, that the divine attri¬ butes have only a subjective sense and value ; what is admitted of the attri¬ butes or predicates, he says, must also hold good of the subject of these predicates : “That which has no predicates or qualities, has no effect upon me ; that which has no effect upon me has no existence for me. To deny the qualities is to deny the being.”] 8 J. T. Beck, Christliche Lehrwissenschaft, i. 230 sq. Ebrard, i., p. 11. See also J. P. Lange, i. 185. \Ebrard, “ Religion is the elevation of sensi¬ bility, will and feeling into a higher and immediate unity of the God-con- • i § 290. Christianity, Reason and Revelation. 463 sciousness; ©r the indivisible unity of blessedness, holiness and wisdom.” Lange says there is a threefold relation to God ; first, man recognizes God as the all-determining spirit, and his dependence upon him : second, gives him¬ self to God, as a being of absolute power, goodness and love, and in doing this attains the pure determination of his own nature : third, in this union with God he receives the true life of his own soul, etc. Schenkel in his Dogmatik vom Standpunkte des Gewissens, 1858, i. 135-155, makes con¬ science to be the organ of religion in man. JRothe , Ethik, i. 264, views con¬ science as essentially religious ; “ conscience stands or falls with the idea of God.”] § 290. TRUTH AND DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY. PERFECTIBILITY. REASON AND REVELATION. Notwithstanding their many differences of opinion, all Christians agreed in believing, that of all historical forms of religion, Christian¬ ity was most worthy of God, and best adapted to the religions wants of mankind. The rationalists, however, had recourse to the supposi¬ tions, either, that the historical religion, serves as a mere vehicle for the natural, and will at some time be resolved into it,1 or, that it will gradually lose its present local and temporary character, and he per¬ fected after the ideal formed by reason.2 On the other hand the supernaturalists of course regarded the religion revealed in Holy Writ as complete in itself for all times. As regards the nature of revelation, and its relation to reason, the supernaturalists belonging to the earlier part of the present period conceded important rights to the latter.3 Asserting that revelation was, more properly speak¬ ing, the complement of reason, they assigned to the latter (now be¬ coming conscious of its limits) the office of proving the possibility and necessity of revelation.4 But after Kant had combated the idea that reason was competent to decide what was revealed or not, the rationalists substituted the idea of positive (historical) religion for that of revealed religion, and maintained that the moral value of the former was to be determined by practical reason.6 In opposition to both these systems, others assigned a more comprehensive mean¬ ing to the idea of revelation .6 In the opinion of some speculative philosophers, it is not so much the communication of isolated and abstract ideas, as the intellectual intuition of the universal, which constitutes the essence of revelation.7 According to others, (practical theologians), revelation is rather. the manifestation of the divine power, which, however, does not exclude the cognitive faculties of man, though it puts them in a secondary place.8 At any rate the idea of revelation is now taken in a more living and flowing 464 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. sense tLan it was in the older theology, notwithstanding all the dif¬ ferences of present usage. 1 Henke , Lineam. i. 2 : Quo magi's adolescunt homines. . . .eo minus pon- deris apud illos habet. . . . auctoritas aliorum. Hinc et omnis revelata re- ligio paullatim in rationalem transit, et eo eniti potest homo, ut alienae institutioni non amplius fontis, sed canalis, non lucis, sed lucernae ( ! ) benefi- cium tribuat. 2 Lessing suggested the idea of a perfectibility of the Christian religion, in his (?) treatise : Ueber Erzichung des Menschengeschleclits. The views of Semler respecting the local and temporary in Christianity, and the dis¬ tinction which he made between public and private religion, seem to indi¬ cate that he held the same opinion. The same may be said in reference to the work of Teller : Religion der Vollkomnen. Comp. W. T. Krug , Briefe liber die Perfectibilitat der geoffenbarten Religion, Jena u. Lpz., 1795, and Ch. F. Ammon , Die Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion, Lpz., 1833-35, ii. ; 2d ed., 1836-40, iv. 3 In opposition to the Socinians, who (in strict accordance with supernat¬ uralism) rejected the idea of natural religion, as well as to the “ Fanaticos, qui dicunt, rationem esse caecam, corruptam, hominem a Deo magis abdu- cere, quam ad Deum adducere,” the adherents of the old orthodoxy defended the use of reason in matters of religion, e. g ., Beck , in his Fundamenta, p. 35, ss. J. L. Frey (professor of theology in Basle, died 1759), De officio Doctoris Christiani, pp. 33, 34 : Cum enim lumen naturae aeque ac revela- tionis Deum patrem luminum auctorem agnoscat, nihil a Deo naturae lumini repugnans revelari censendum est, nisi Deum sibi ipsi adversari blaspheme statuere in animum inducamus. Imo ne ipsius quidem revelationis divinitas credi posset, si quidquam rationis lumini repugnans in ilia inveniretur. Comp. Baumgarten , Glaubenslehre, Einleitung. — The distinction made between articuli puri et mixti. — Advocates of modern evangelical supernaturalism have again maintained, that reason is altogether blind in matters of religion (in opposition to rationalism). [Comp, the Mansel and Maurice discussion, § 285, 5, note.] 4 Comp. Bret schneider, Entwicklung, etc. (new edit., 1841), § 30, and the compendiums of dogmatic theology. 6 See Fichte , Kritik, etc. Tie/trunk, Censur, p. 66, ss., p. 245, ss. * According to Herder , the general meaning of revelation is disclosure, publication, enlightening, clear idea, perception, conviction. See the pas¬ sages collected in Herder’s Dogmatik, p. 20, ss. 7 In the opinion of Schelling (Methode, p. 196), the whole of history is a divine revelation. According to Blasche (Philosophic der Offenbarung), revelation is equal to manifestation (§ 5.) Not only history, but also natu¬ ral history, belongs to the province of divine revelation (§ 22.) He combats the common (supernaturalistic) view, according to which revelation is super¬ natural, § 43, ss. Revelation is opposed to mystery, and signifies the dis¬ closures of mysteries, while, according to the common view, revelation itself contains mysteries, § 55, ss. 8 Twesten , § 24 (vol. i. p. 340), defines revelation as the “ manifestation § 291. Scripture and Tradition. 465 of divine grace for the salvation of mankind.” Comp, the whole section, and Nitzsch , § 23, ss. De Wette shows the necessity of making a distinction between revelation and the inspiration of Holy Writ, Dogmatik, § 26. On the difficulty of establishing precise definitions, see Schleiermacher , § 10. Among the recent divines, see J. P. Lange, i. 385, sq. Martensen (ed. of 1836), p. 49, sq. Ch. Weisse, § 104-179. On Hermes and Bautain in the Catholic church, see § 287. [Comp. H. Ulrici , Glauben und Wissen, Speculation und exacte Wissenschaft, Lpz., 1858. — H. Rogers , (Edinb. Rev., 1849), on Faith and Reason, repr. in his Essays; and his Eclipse of Faith, 1852. — Fronde's Nemesis -of Faith, Lond., 1849. MorelVs Phil, of Religion. F. W. Newman , Phases of Faith, 1850. Brownson’s Qu. Rev., July, 1856. Bibliotheca Sacra, vi., on the Relations of Faith and Philosophy. Christ. Examiner, March, 1861 : The Cause of Reason and the Cause of Faith {Hedge). — The controversy between Traditionalism and Rationalism in the Rom. Cath. Church, led to the publication of four propositions by the Holy See, on Reason and Faith, Dec. 12, 1855. The first asserts, that though faith be above reason, yet there is no dissension, for both are from one fountain of light, • viz., God. 2. Ratiocinatio Dei existentiam, animae spiritualitatem, hominis libertatem cum certitudine probare potest. Fides posterior est revelatione ; proinde ad probandum Dei existentiam contra atheum, ad probandum animae rationalis spiritualitatem, ac libertatem con¬ tra naturalismi, ac fatalismi sectatorem allegari convenienter nequit. 3. Ra- tionis usus fidem praecedit, et ad earn hominem ope revelationis et gratiae conducit. The fourth proposition asserts, that the method of Bonaventura and others does not lead to rationalism. See Brownson’s Qu. Rev., 1860, p. 440, s^.] § 291. THE WORD OF GOD. SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. SCRIPTURE AND SPIRIT. During the preceding period Protestant theologians had been accustomed to call the sacred Scriptures themselves the Word of God; in the course of the present period the distinction was enforced be¬ tween the Word of God contained in Holy Writ and the Scriptures themselves.1 The rationalists themselves, however, retained the (negative) principle of Protestantism, that the sacred Scriptures are a purer source of knowledge than tradition.3 Only Lessing advanced the opinion that tradition is older than Holy Writ.3 Some modern theologians endeavored to determine precisely the relation in which these two stand to each other, and showed that their difference is more relative than absolute.4 Puseyism made the attempt to en¬ force the authority of tradition in the old Catholic sense.5 By the Protestant Friends [§ 284, note 2] the question : Scripture, or 466 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Spirit? was decided in a sense which gave the most unlicensed ph to subjective opinions.6 1 There were hints of this even in the century of the Reformation ; see Schenkel , i. § 13. The distinction was first made prominent by J. G. Toll- ner (died 1774): Der Unterschied der heiligen Schrift und des Wortes Gottes, in his Miscellaneous Essays, Frankf., 1766, p. 85, ss. He shows, from the language of Scripture itself, that, by the Word of God , we are not to understand the Sacred Scriptures ; on the other hand there are some things in Holy Writ which do not belong to the Word of God (such as historical events) although all in it has respect to the Word of God ; and, in con¬ nection with it, that not all parts of Holy Writ are equally rich in the Word of God. Tollner goes even as far as to maintain that the Word of God is not limited to the sacred Scriptures, but also exists elsewhere ; for he who propounds divine truth, propounds the Word of God. It is further contained in reason, and may be found in all the different forms of religion known among mankind, though Christians possess the Word of God in its most excellent, most perfect, and clearest form in the sacred Scrip¬ tures. — Herder directed the attention of theologians to what may be called the human aspect of Scripture (Briefe fiber das Studium der Theologie, Brief, i., and in his Spirit of Hebrew Poetry [see Marsh's version] ; in his essay, Yom Geist des Christenthums, and in other works. 2 The rationalists often ventured to maintain that their system alone was in accordance with Scripture , and rejected the development of doctrines, and the symbolical definitions, as contrary to the principle of Protestantism. 3 Lessing, in his controversy with Gotze, appealed to the Regula Fidei in its earliest sense, which existed previous to the wrritten Word. Comp, his works, vi., vii. ; Theologischer Nachlass, p. 115 ss. Delbruck revived this idea in his work: Philip Melancthon, der Glaubenslehrer, Bonn, 1826. He was opposed by Sack, Nitzsch, and Lucke , Bonn, 1827. 4 Pelt, iu the first part of the Theologische Mitarbeiter, Kiel, 1830. Schen- kel, fiber das ursprfingliche Verhaltniss der Kirche zum Kanon, Basel, 1838. Compare with this wrork the modern compendiums of dogmatic theology, e. g. Twesten, i., p. 115-119, 128-130, 288. Marheineke, Symbolik, ii., p. 187 ss. The critical researc-hes^respecting the origin of the Canon (from the time of Sender), rendered the distinction between Scripture and tradition more in¬ definite. [Comp. Holtzmann , Kanon und Tradition, 427 sq.] & See Keble on Primitive Tradition, (compare the German work of Weaver- Amthor, ubi supra, p. 10 sq., 40 sq.) The tradition of the first six centuries was assumed as untroubled. Among the German theologians Daniel in his “ Kontroversen,” Halle, 1843, approximates most closely to the Oxford school : in reply, see Jacobi, Die Kirehliche Lehre von der Tradition und heiliger Schrift, Berk, 1847. [On the Oxford view, see W. Goode, Div. Rule of Faith, 2d ed., 3, 1843 ; Palmer on the Church, ii. 11-93 : E. H. Pusey, The Rule of Faith: Peck, Appeal from Tradition to Scripture, New York, J844; Tracts for the Times, 78.] 6 Wislicenuq, Ob Schrift, ob Geist? 2 Aufl., 1845, and the writings in this controversy (Comp. JBruns und Hafner's Repert., vi., etc.). — Scherer iu § 292. Miracles and Prophecy. 467 yeral articles in the Rev. de Theol. (see § 285, note 11). Tholuck in the Zoitschrift f. Christl. Wissenschaft, 1850, No. 16-18, 42-44. In reply, S tier, in the same journal, 1850, No. 21. [Tholuck’s Essay translated in Journal of Sacred Lit., July, 1854 ; his reply to Stier in Zeitschrift f. Christl. Wiss., 1851. — Scherer first wrote La Critique et la Foi, 1850 ; replied to Malan in Rev. de Theol., 1850 ; to Merle d'Aubigne , Gasparin, Cheneviere (De 1’ Au¬ torite du Nouveau Test.), and others, 1850-1. Gasparin , reviewed Scherer in Les Archives du Christ., 1850 ; his work on Plenary Inspiration, transl. by J as. Montgomery , 1851. On this controversy, see S chaff h Kirchenfreund, Aug., 1851 ; Princeton Review, July, 1851.] § 292. INSPIRATION OP SCRIPTURE. INTERPRETATION. MIRACLES AND PROPHECY. The critical treatment of the sacred Scriptures gradually under¬ mined the authority of the former rigid theory of inspiration.1 For a time commentators sought to remove all difficulties by the appli¬ cation of the principle of accommodation,2 or by an arbitrary exege¬ sis ;3 but at last the rationalists found themselves compelled by a more unbiassed system of interpretation to acknowledge that Christ and his apostles might have erred, at least in those things which do not constitute the essential parts of religion. This was the case especially with the miracles and prophecies, to which the former apologists had appealed in support of their views. After they had in vain endeavored to explain them away by artificial modes of in¬ terpretation, they were compelled to assert that the sacred writers had a different point of view from that of modern theologians ; thus renouncing the absolute authority of their writings.4 The adherents of the mediating theology sought to avoid these difficulties, by affix¬ ing to the idea of inspiration ,5 as well as to that of miracle >6 and of prophecy ,7 a more comprehensive and spiritual sense. But at the same time they introduced much that was indefinite, which is not yet fully cleared up. 1 The theory of accommodation was principally applied to the demoniacal and miraculous ; Christ and his apostles accommodated themselves to the weakness and the prejudices of their contemporaries. Comp. Senf, Versuch fiber die Herablassung Gottes in der christlichen Religion, Halle, 1792. P. van Hemmert , fiber die Accommodation im N. Test, translated from the Dutch, Dortm. u. Lpz., 1797. Vogel , Aufsatze theologischen Inhalts, Niirnb., 1799. 2d part; and several others. This theory was combated by Susskind , fiber die Grenzen der Pflicht, keine Unwarheit zu sagen, im Magazin St. 13. Heringa, fiber die Lehre Jesu und seiner Apostel, translated from the Dutch, Offenb. 1792. For more particulars as to the literature, comp. Jdretschnei - der , Entwickl., p. 138 ss. [ Hugh Farmer , b. 1714, d. 1787, maintained that 468 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. the demoniacs were simply affected by disease, Essay on Demoniacs, 1775; Letters to Dr. Worthington, 1778 ; Worship of Human Spirits in the An¬ cient Nations, 1783. John Fell (d. 1791), also replied to Farmer. Farmer’s views had been previously in part maintained by Dr. Mead , Jos. Mede} Lard - ner and Sykes a The Rationalists are sometimes unjustly blamed, as if they alone had made use of that arbitrary mode of interpretation (explaining Christ’s mira¬ cles as natural events, by Paulus and others). There were also supernatu- ralistic theologians, as Storr , who, had recourse to a most artificial exegesis, in order to remove differences in the various accounts of one and the same event, etc., which appeared contrary to the theory of verbal inspiration. (For example to take Iva as 8Kj3arucd)g, in the appeal to Messianic passages, which are not strictly such. — Kant introduced the system of moral interpreta¬ tion [Davidson, Sacred Hermeneutic, p. 193 ss.], according to which preach¬ ers and schoolmasters ought to explain Scripture, untroubled by its original historical meaning, in such a manner as is likely to prove useful to the moral condition of the people; and also to put such useful matter into passages which do not contain it ; See his Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Yernunft, p. 149 ss. His theory was opposed by Rosenmuller (Erlangen, 1794, 8.) In addition to the grammatico-historical system of interpretation which has been adopted by most modern commentators, Germar made use of the panharmonic, Olshausen and Stier of the allegorical, mode of interpre¬ tation. 3 Henke , Lineamenta, c. 15. Wegscheider , Institutiones, § 44. Tzschir- ner , Dogmatik, c. ii., § 6. Different from this is the hypothesis, so much favored in recent times, on the alleged tendencies and aims of the bibli¬ cal (particularly the New Testament) writers, as carried out in all its modu¬ lations especially by the school of Tubingen. See in opposition I Veisse, Phil. Dogmatik, p. 151. 4 Supernaturalists also admitted that the sacred penmen in writing con¬ cerning things not essential (i. e. not referring to religion), represented them according to their best knowledge and ability : see Reinhard, Dogmatik, p. 59 (56) ; Storr , I^ogmatik, § 11. In the same way the adherents of modern theology agree with the rationalists in opposing the theory of verbal inspiration. This was the case especially with Herder , who on the other hand, expressed himself with enthusiasm in favor of that which is truly inspired ; comp, his Essays, Vom Geist des Christenthums, Von der Gabe der Sprachen, etc. (Dogmatik, p. 91 ss.) ; Twesten, i., pp. 414, 415. Rationalism not only gave up the unconditional authority of the Scriptures, but also the belief that the Scriptures have normal authority in respect to religious truth j the mediating theology upheld their authority in this later aspect, by regarding the New Testament writings as the primitive productions of the Holy Spirit under the Christian dispensation, to which all later works stand in the same relation in which copies stand to the original. Comp. Schleiermacher , Christlicher Glaube, ii., p. 340 ss. According to De Wette , Dogmatik, p. 40, the essen¬ tial part of interpretation is : “ the religious sense of the divine working, or of the Holy Spirit in the sacred writers, solely in regard to their belief and elevation of soul, not having respect to the formation of their ideas,” etc. § 292. Miracles and Prophecy. 469 Comp. Hase, § 455 ss. Hillroth , wlio belonged to the speculative school expressed himself as follows (Preface to his Commentary on the Corinthians, p. vii.) : “ It is the object of systematic theology, to comprehend that which is truly rational, even the Spirit which manifests itself in the Christian reli¬ gion. But since this Spirit has assumed a temporal form in the revelation of God, it was of course received by meu whose education was influenced by the peculiar circumstances of their age. These men were, in the first in¬ stance, the apostles,” etc. Comp. Marheineke , Dogmatik, p. 358 ss. — Who¬ ever with Strauss (Glaubenslehre, i. 179, note), looks upon such a recurrence to the first times of Christianity, as a sinking back into the unspiritual, will of course see in this the end of the history of the dogma of inspiration. Comp. Schelling , Methode des akad Studiums, p. 198. [Schelling here speaks of those who would thus reduce Christianity to its first, simple elements, and adds : “ One might think that the teachers of the Christian religion would be thankful to those in later times, who have derived so much specu¬ lative material from the scanty contents of the first religious writings, and shaped them into a system.” Hegel , Phil. d. Relig., iii. Ill : “ The biblical text contains the mode in which Christianity first appeared, this it describes : yet this cannot give us in an explicit form what is latent in the principle of Christianity, but only a presentiment thereof :” cited by Strauss, u. s. For a review and criticism of the whole subject in its present aspects and bear¬ ings in German theology, see Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, in the Studien uud Kritiken, 1858, on Revelation and Inspiration. Comp, also Roster , Das Verhaltniss der freien Thatigkeit zur gottlichen Oflenbarung, in the Stud, und Krit., 1852 ; Richm, Der gottmensliche Character d. heiligen Schrift, ibid., 1859. Philippi, Glaubensl. i. 184, defends “word-inspiration,” not inspira¬ tion of words.] The French orthodoxy has as yet adhered more strictly than the German to the theory of verbal inspiration. Gasparin and Gaus- sen are its chief representatives. \Gasparin, Plenary Insp., transl. by Montgomery ; Gaussen, Theopneustia, transl. by Kirk^\ In opposition thereto in recent times we find not only the rationalistic tendency of Scherer and the Revue Protestante [see § 29, note 6], but also more liberal views from the camp of the “ believers.” Comp. Fred, de Rougemont, Christ et ses Temoins, Paris, 1856, 2 Tom. Thus in Tom. i., p. 426 : La Revelation de Jesus Christ qui est la vie, et dont l’Esprit vit dans PEglise, ne suppose point necessairement un document ecrit. ii., p. 161 : On detruit la Reve¬ lation quand on la transforme en un systeme de verites abstraites. . . . Vou- lons-nous nous faire une idee d’une religion d’abstractions : prenons le Koran.” Yet still he teaches the strictest subordination of reason to revela¬ tion, which he distinguishes from inspiration. [In the English and American theology, the strict theory of verbal inspi¬ ration is defended by John Dick, Essay on Inspiration, 4th ed., Glasg., 1840 ; Alexander Carson (against Pye Smith ) ; Jas. A. Haldane, 1845 ; Elea.zar Lord, Plenary Insp., New York, 1857 ; L. Woods , Lectures on Theology, vol. 1. See also E. Henderson, on Divine Insp. (in Congregational Lects., vol. 4) ; R . S. Candlish, Authority and Insp. of Script., 1851 ; Chr. Words - worth, on Insp., 2d ed., 1851, and Lectures in Westminster Abbey, 1861. Coleridge, iu his Confession of an Inquiring Spirit, 1831, opposed the verbal 470 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. accuracy of the Scriptures. Morell , in his Philos, of Religion, restricted in¬ spiration to intuitional truth (comp. Thornutll, in South. Presb. Quart., April, 1856). — F. W. Newman , Gregg, and Theod. Parker , indentify inspi¬ ration with the elevation of the soul by spiritual truth. J. Macna, ught, The Doctrine of Inspiration, opposes the infallibility of the Scriptural record. Comp, on these later views the North British, Nov., ’52, Aug., ’57 ; British Quart., Jan., ’57 ; Kitto’s Journal, Oct., ’53, Oct., ’54, July, ’56; Princeton Rev., ’51, ’57 ; Church Rev., ’56; Church Eng. Quart., ’54 ; Fitch in Bib. Sacra, ’55 ; Torrey in Bib. Sac., ’58 ; Ellis in Christ. Exam. (Unit.), Sept., ’56; Lord A. Hervey , Sermons, Univ. Cambr., ’56 ; Heurtley, Lect. Univ. Oxf., ’61 ; B. F. Westcott , Introd. to Gospels, ’60, pp. 5-37, 383, sq. — See also Pobt. Whytehead , Warrant of Faith, Lond., ’54 ; and especially Wil¬ liam Lee , The Insp. of Holy Scripture, its Nature and Proof (Lects. before Univ. of Dublin), 1854, reprinted New York, 1856.] 5 From the time of Spinoza (Tract. Theol. polit. c. 6, De Miraculis) and Hume, the rationalists did not cease to oppose the reality and credibility of miracles, while the adherents of the modern (formal) supernaturalism rested belief in revelation especially on that branch of evidence ; in this they differed, e. g ., from Luther, comp. Phase, Dogmatik, p. 207. The theory of preformation advanced by Bonnet (according to which God has a priori in¬ cluded the miricles in the course of nature), did not meet with general ap¬ probation, see his “ philosophische Untersuchungen,” etc., edited b y Lavater, Zurich, 1768. [See Due de Caraman , Chs. Bonnet, Philosophe et Natural- iste, Paris, 1859.] The modern theory of Olshausen , who regards the miracles as a quickening of the processes of nature, bears some resemblance to the preceding. Lavater believed that miracles are still taking place. Ac¬ cording to the philosophy of Kant, it is neither possible absolutely to prove the reality of miracles, nor can their possibility be absolutely denied (a dif¬ ference is made between logical, physical, and moral possibility) ; see Tief- trunk , p, 245, ss. (Kant, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, p. 107, ss.) The rationalists endeavored to explain the miracu¬ lous as something natural, while the natural philosophers asserted that nature transfigured by spirit (the blending of the two in one) is the only true miracle. But thus the reality of the miracle (in the Scriptural sense) was destroyed, and it was regarded as the symbolical expression of a specu¬ lative idea. See Schelling , Methode, p. 181, 203, and comp. Bockshammer and Rosenkranz , cited in Strauss, Dogmatik, p. 244, ss. [ Bockshammer (Freiheit der Widens, transl. by Kaufman, Andov., 1840) says, that what is willed in the spirit of truth and purity with a mighty will, is willed in the Spirit of God, and it is only a postulate of reason, that nature cannot with¬ stand such a will. Hence Christ is the great miracle-worker. Rosenkranz (Encycl. d. Theol. p. 160), defines miracle, as nature determined by spirit; spirit is the basis of nature, and hence nature cannot limit it. This power was fully concentrated in Christ.] The natural interpretation of miracles rather served the purposes of rationalism, while the adherents of modern speculative philosophy gave the preference to the hypothesis that the mira¬ cles related in Scripture are myths, because it is more agreeable to the nega¬ tive tendency of that school. This hypothesis was most fully developed by § 292. *Miracle and Prophecy. 471 Straubs, in his Leben Jesn. [Strauss’s Life of Jesus, transl., 3 vols., 1836; reprint. N. Y., one vol. — SeQ, in reply Mill's Christ. Advocate Publications, 1841-44 ; Norton's Genuineness of Gospels, ’55 ; Alexander's Christ and Christianity; Christ. Rev., July, 1856; Brit. Quart., 5; For. Qu., 22; Bibl. Sacra, 2, 8; North American, July, 1860. J. R. Beard , Voices of the Church, in Reply to Strauss, Loud., 1845.] The adherents of the mediating theology used a more liberal, but also considerate and cautious mode of reasoning, in defending the credibility of the historical relations of the sacred writers. But some of them, e. g. De T Vette and Schleiermacher , also admit mythical elements. As regards the idea of miracle itself, they make a distinction between the objective and the subjective, and, generally speaking, adopt the principle of Augustine, who did not regard a miracle as something absolutely supernatural (comp. Vol. i., § 118, note 1.) See Schleiermacher , i. p. 120 ; De Wette , p. 34 ; Twesten, i. p. 357, ss., and Nitzsch , p. 64, are more inclined to admit real miracles. [Also Julius Muller , see his De Miraculorum Jes. Christ. Natura et Necessitate, 1839.] The literature is more fully given by Bretschneider , Entwurf, p. 235, ss. Comp, also the views of Herder on this point, Dogmatik, p. 60, the poetical view of miracles. — A new construction of the idea of miracles in Weisse, Phil. Dogmatik, § 119-127. [He says, that the general notion of miracle comprises all the acts by which God revealed himself to his people, and guided their destinies ; the giving the law was the great miracle under the Old Testament. He admits, however, that there are mythical elements in the history. See also Lange's Dogmatik, i., and Schenkel, i. — Wardlaw, on Miracles (1852, N. Y., 1853), and Trench , take different views as to the rela¬ tion of miracle and doctrine : according to the former the miracle proves the doctrine ; the latter is inclined to the converse position. (Comp. Jour¬ nal Sac. Lit., April, ’54; Thornwell , in South. Presb. Rev., 1856, and South. Qu. Rev., July, 1857 ; Princeton Rev., Oct., ’53, April, ’56.) — Alex¬ ander in his Christ of Christianity, classifies the definitions of miracle. On the general questions, see L. Woods, Works, vol. iv. ; N. W. Taylor , Lects. on Theology, 1858. — Baden Powell in his Order of Nature, 1859, and his essay on the Evidences (in the Essays and Reviews, 9th ed., 1861), attacks the whole argument from miracles ; comp. D. R. Goodwin in Am. Theol. Rev., July, ’61; and Christ. Remembr., July, ’61.] * Among orthodox theologians, Bengel and Crusius in particular treated of prophetic theology, and attached great importance not only to the prophecies, but also to the types of the Old Testament (comp. § 277). The latter supernaturalists did not go quite so far. After the antiquity of some prophecies ( e . g. those of Daniel) had been impugned, and the Mes¬ sianic prophecies had been referred to other historical events, the rationalists at last maintained that in the Old Testament there are no prophecies at all referring to Christ, to say nothing of the types. See Echermann, Theolo- gische Beitrage, i. 1, p. 7, ss., and comp, the literature given by Bretschneider, Entwurf, p. 207, ss. The adherents of the modern moderate orthodoxy did not pay so much attention to the announcement of particular and more in¬ cidental events as to the internal necessity of the historical development of the kingdom of heaven, in which the earlier periods are prophetic of those 472 Fifth Period. The Age op Criticism. which take place in later times, and according to which everything finds its higher fulfilment in Christ, who is the centre of the history of the world. See Herder , Dogmatik, p. 196, ss. Schleiermacher , Darstellung des theo- logisclien Studiums, § 46 ; Glaubenslehre, i. p. 105. There is, however, a difference of opinion between Twesten , i. p. 372, ss., and Nitzsch , p. 66, on the one haud, and De Wette , p. 36 (§ 24, 5), and Hase, p. 209, on the other. — Hofmann in his Weissagung und Erfiillung (Nordlingen, 1841-4, 2 Thle. and in his Schriftbeweis, 1852 [new ed., 1859], endeavors (in the sense of a speculative mysticism) to give a profounder view of the idea of prophecy. Lutz (1849), represents a cautious hermeneutics; see particularly 2 Divis. C. 1 and 2. [On Hofmann , see Princeton Rev., April, 1859. Comp, also Delitzsch, Bibl-proph. Theologie, 1845. Havernick , Tlieol. des alten Test., 1848. Reinke, Messianische Weissagungen, Giessen, 2, 1860. G. Baur , Geschichte der- alttestamentlichen Weissagung. Giessen, 1861, Tholuck , Die Proplieten und ihre Weissagungen, 2te. Aull., 1861. Hengstenberg' s Christology, transl. by Reuel Keith , 3, 1836 ; new edition, with Hengsten- berg’s modified views, in Clark’s Foreign Theol. Library, 4 vols., 1854-8. The Messianic prophecies are also fully discussed in John Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony, 3 vols. Among the older works, see John Davison, d. 1834), Disc, on Prophecy, 5th ed., Oxf., 1845, delivered at the Warbur- tonian Lecture, 1825 ; in the same series, Lectures by Hurd , Hares , Pear¬ son , Nolan , McCaul , etc. — John Madaurin , Evang. Proph. relating to the Messiah (Works, Goold's ed., 1860, vol. 2). — The nature of prophecy is discussed by S. Lee , Cambr., 1849; S. H. Turner , Origin, Character, etc., of Proph., 1852; Moses Stuart , Hints, 2d ed., 1842; P. Fairbairn (of Glasgow), Nature and Functions, Edbg., 1856, Phila., 1857 ; W. Lee in his Lectures on Inspiration, Lect. iv. — Bunsen's views are rehearsed by Rowland Williams in the (Oxford) Essays and Reviews.] The views of Swedenborg concerning the nature and significance of the sacred Scrip' tares were peculiar ; see Hauler , Swedenborgs Ansicht von der heiligen Schrift (Tubinger Zeitschrift, 1840, part 4, p. 32, ss.) He regarded (like the supernaturalists) the Scriptures as the Word of God, but he differed from the latter in applying this appellation not to what we commonly call the sacred Scriptures, but to another Scripture antecedent to ours — viz., the Scripture of angels, which is both antecedent and superior to the terres¬ trial. As regards the empirical Scriptures, he has his own Canon (comp. Hauler , p. 80), and in the writings, which he admits as canonical, he makes a distinction between those passages in which God himself speaks (quando e cathedra loquitur), and those in which angels speak in his name. But even in these cases a new revelation is necessary, that the spiritual meaning of Scripture may be apprehended by all readers. This spiritual sense, too, is a sense before the sense, to which we cannot attain by rising from beneath up¬ ward, but which must be imparted from above downward. — Play with symbols and an¬ alogies. — Swedenborg’s doctrine about the Scriptures was closely connected with his christological views. — On Oetinger's “ massive” views of Scripture, see the Preliminaries to his Theology (Stuttg., 1842), and Auberten, p. 339, sq et passim. As regards the relation in which the Old Testament stands to the New, we find that those rationalists who, after the example of Kant, regarded the sacred Scriptures merely as a means of edification, made but a slight distinction between the one and the other, because there was in the Old Test. (e. g. in the book of Proverbs) much that was subser¬ vient to moral purposes. Nor did they concern themselves much about the difference between canonical and apocryphal writings (some even preferred the book of Jesus § 292. Miracle and Prophecy. 473 Sirach to the writings of Paul and John.) — But even some orthodox theologians were induced, by idealistic and poetical tendencies, to give the preference to the Old Testament. Thus Herder is manifestly more supernaturalistic in respect to the Old Testament, than to the New. De Wette , too, was inclined to concede to the Old Test, (so far as religion must assume an aesthetic form) on account of its sacred poetry, a higher rank than to the New (see his Religion und Theologie, 212). Umbreit also has this tendency in a special degree. — On the other hand, some rationalists attached greater importance to the New Testament. Comp. Wegscheider, T. i. c. 1. § 32. Schleiermacher, in harmony with his entire theological system, ascribed normative authority to the New Testament alone, as¬ serting that the Old Testament has only historical significance ; G-laubenslehre, ii. § 132. The advocates of modern supernaturalism have again attached special importance to the Old Testament, and written elaborate expositions upon its christology and eschatology (e. g. Hengstenberg , Haver nick, Auberlen, Hofmann , Kurtz , Delitzsch , Baumgarten). On the other hand, a more critical and historical point of view has been taken by Bleek , Hitzig , Vatke, Knobel, Stdhelin , and others ; while Ewald represents a peculiar tendency. SECOND DIVISION. THEOLOGY PROPER. ' CREATION AND PROVIDENCE. THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING ANGELS AND DEVILS. § 293. DEISM. THEISM. PANTHEISM. [ George Weissenborn , Vorlesungen iiber Pantheismus und Theismus, Marburg., 1859. Edward Bohmer, De Pantheismi Nominis Origine et Usu et Notione, Halse Saxo- num, 1851.] The contrast between Rationalism and the earlier Supernatural- ism manifested itself less distinctly in the doctrine concerning God, and the relation in which he stands to the world. The adherents of both systems retained the theistic distinction between God and the world, though they often degenerated into a dead and mechan¬ ical deism. There was, however, this difference, that the su¬ pernaturalist admitted occasional acts of interference on the part of God in the workings of the machine, which otherwise ran on of itself in its regular course,1 while this was denied by the more strict Rationalists. Of greater importance is the distinc¬ tion between this theistico-deistic theory and the pantheistic sys¬ tem.2 The latter in some cases has shown itself partly as pure pantheism (atheistic in fact), sometimes as theism, which has the appearance of pantheism only as contrasted with the dead deism, referred to.3 1 Thus in the case of answers granted to prayer, and of' miracles. Compare the mechanical theory of miracles propounded by Reinhard , p. 230, ss. 2 Pantheism has been very differently defined. According to Wegschei- der , p. 250, Pantheism is : Ea sententia, qua naturam divinam mundo sup- ponunt et Deum ac mundum unum idemque esse statuunt. Both rationalists and supernaturalists have on moral grounds combated this kind of panthe¬ ism, even the mere appearance of it ; the adherents of the speculative phil¬ osophy, however, rejected this definition : see Hegel , Encyclopaedic, 2d edit., p. 521. [Rohmer, De Pantheismi Nom. etc., ubi supra, says, that the word pantheism was first used in the title to one of Poland’s books, 1705 § 293. Deism. Theism. Pantheism. 475 (Soeinianisme truly stated. . . .to which is prefixed Indifference in Disputes recommended by a Pantheist to an Orthodox Friend) ; also in his Pantheis- ticum, s. Formula celebranda Societatis Socraticae, 1720. It is not alluded to by Bentley or Bayle. — Weissenborn , ubi supra, defines pantheism as the system which identifies God and the all of things , or the unity of things. There have been six forms : 1. Mechanical, or materialistic — God the mechan¬ ical unity of existence. 2. Ontological (abstract unity) pantheism — the one substance in all ; Spinoza. 3. Dynamic pantheism. 4. Psychical pan¬ theism — God is the soul of the World. 5. Ethical pantheism — God is the universal moral order; Fichte. 6. Logical pantheism: Hegel.] 8 Thus Herder said concerning Spinoza : he was an archtheist before all theists (Dogmatik, p. 129, comp, his discourses, especially that on God.) A controversy was carried on respecting the Pantheism of Schleiermacher (as seeu particularly in his : Reden uber die Religion) ; he was charged with holding pantheistic principles by Rohr , but defended by Karsten (Rostock, 1835). Henke pronounced a more favorable opinion respecting the theis- tico-pantheistic tendency: — Lineam. § xxvi : Summa autem injuria omnes illi Atheorum numero accensentur, qui summum Numen ab hoc universo secretum ac disparatum cogitare nesciunt, maluntque Deum rerum omnium causam immanentem quam transeuntem dici, nec tamen id, quod perpetuo est , commiscent cum illo, quod perpetuo fit. Quorum error, profecto magis fanaticus quam impius, Pantheismus et Spinozismus vocatur, si modo error est JSTuminis, omnibus rebus prgesentissimi cogitatio, a qua neque ipse Paulus admodum abhorruisse videtur (Act. xvii. 27-29) et quae amice satis con- ciliari potest cum Numinis moribus intelligentium naturarum providentis notione. Comp. Hase, Dogmatik, p. 150. — Modern orthodox theologians and philosophers are laboring so to represent the doctrine of a personal God, that we may apprehend him neither (in the manner of the deists) as existing without and separate from the world ; nor (in the manner of the pantheists) as existing merely in and wholly connected with the world ; but (in the man¬ ner of the theists) as a being that exists at the same time in arid above the world, and yet distinctly separated from it. Atheism comes out, naked and unveiled in Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, p. 20 : “ The divine essence is nothing but the human essence, or, better still, the nature of man purified, freed from the limits of the individual man, and viewed objectively, i. e. contemplated and reverenced as another nature, distinguished from man. All determinations (definitions) of the divine nature are therefore human determinations.”* * The materialism represented by Vogt, Moleschott , Buchner , and others, lies of course outside of the history of doctrines. [The chief work of Moleschott is his Kreislauf des Lebens, 1852. Rudolf Wagner, against materialism in his Menschenschopfung und Sec- tensubstanz, 1824, and, Ueber Wissen und Glauben, 1854. Vogt replied in his Kohler- glaube und Wissenschaft, 4te. Aufl., 1856. L. Buchner, Kraft und Stoff, 2te. Aufl., 1858 : and, Natur und G-eist, 1851. H. Czolbe, Neue Darstellung des Sensualismus, 1855. In reply to the materialists: SchaUer , Leib und Scele, 3te. Ausg., 1858; F Fabri, Briefe gpgen des Materialismus, 1856: R. Wagner, Kampf um die Seele, 1857: Frauenstadt , Der Materialismus (against Buchner) ; TJlrici in Zeitschrift f. d. Philosophie, 1860. — On the recent English atheism, “Secularism,” ( Rolyoake , Holdreth ), see Christ. Exam., Nov., 1859 : on Rennet, see Isaac Taylor, in North British, Nov., I860.] 476 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. § 294. THE EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. Up to the time of Kant, theologians continued to prove the exist¬ ence of God much in the same way as had been done in former periods, some laying greater stress upon one mode of argumentation, others endeavoring to demonstrate the superiority of another.1 But after Kant showed that the usual arguments do not establish what they are intended to prove,2 and had substituted the moral argument,3 these proofs gradually disappeared from the German scientific works on the subject. The jphysico-theological proof, however, was retained, be¬ cause of its adaptation to the wants of the people and the young.4 * Schleiermaclier returned to man’s original consciousness of God, which is antecedent to all proofs,6 and most modern theologians followed his example ; while the adherents of the speculative philos¬ ophy again pointed out the more profound significance of the former arguments.6 The same maybe said in reference to the divine attri¬ butes,7 which Schleiermacher regarded as subjective, i. e. as the reflex of the consciousness of God in man.8 On the other hand, the speculative philosophers ascribed to them reality, though in a differ¬ ent sense from that commonly attached to this expression.9 1 F melon , Demonstration de l’Existence de Dieu, Par., 1712. The Onto¬ logical argument was propounded by Mendelssohn, Morgenstunden, Berlin, 1785, and others; the cosmological by Baumgarten , Glaubenslehre, i. (Ap¬ pendix to § 13, p. 923) ; th q physico-theological by Derham , Physico-theology, or a Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God from his Works, Lond., 1714 ; Sander , Bonnet , and many others. 3 In his: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, iii. 3, p. 611, ss. (3d edit. Riga, 1790). In his opinion the existence of God can be proved on speculative grounds only in a threefold manner ; either by the physico-theological, or the cosmological, or the ontological argument. These are the only modes of argumentation, nor is it possible that there should be more.— The ontological proof is not admissible , because its advocates confound a logical predicate with a real. “ A hundred real dollars do not contain anything more than a hundred possible .... But in reference to my property a hundred real dollars are more than the mere idea of that sum (i. e. of its possibility.”) . . . . w The idea of a supreme being is in many respects a very profitable idea ; but be¬ cause it is a mere idea , it cannot by itself enlarge our knowledge of that which exists for a “ man might as well increase his knowledge by mere ideas, as a merchant augment his property by adding some ciphers to the sum total on his books.” (Comp. Gaunilo against Anselm ; ante, vol. i., p. 434.) In opposition to the cosmological proof he urged that “ its advocates commit an Ignoratio elenchi, i. e. they promise to show us a new way, but § 294. The Existence and Attributes of God. 477 bring ns back to the old (ontological) proof, because their argument is also founded on a dialectic fiction.” In reference to the physico-theological proof he said : “This argument is always deserving of our respect. It is the earliest, clearest, and most adapted to common sense. It enlivens the study of nature, from which also it derives its existence, and through which it obtains new vigor. It shows to us an object and designs where we should not have discovered these by independent observation, and enlarges our knowledge of nature by making us acquainted with a special unity whose principle is above nature. But this knowledge exerts a reacting influence upon its cause — viz. the idea from which it derives its origin ; and thus it confirms the belief in a supreme creator, so that it becomes an irresistible conviction. — Nevertheless this argument cannot secure apodictical certainty : at the utmost it might prove the existence of a builder of the world , but not of a creator of the world I 8 Comp. Raymund of Sabunde, vol. i., p. 437. Kant , Kritik der reinen Vernunft, p. 832 ss. ; Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, p. 233 ss. Morality, and a degree of happiness befitting it, are the two elements constituting the supreme good. But the virtuous do not always attain it. There must, there¬ fore, be a compensation in the world to come. (Thus the same argument is used to prove the immortality of the soul.) At the same time there must be a being that possesses both the requisite intelligence and the will to bring about this compensation. Hence the existence of God is a postulate of prac¬ tical reason. 4 Especially in England ; see W. Palsy , Natural Theology, or Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity, 16th edit., 1817 ; translated into German, Manh., 1823; with additions by Lord Brougham and Sir Charles Bell , translated into German by Haujf \ Stuttg., 1837. The Bridge- water Treatises, 1836 ss., comp. W. Muller, Kritik des physico-theologischen Beweises in Rohr's Magazin, vol. iv., part 1, 1831* p. 1-35. 6 Glaubenslehre, i., § 32 ss. 8 Hegel, Vorlesungen fiber die Beweise vom Dasein Gottes ; Appendix to the second volume of his Philosophy of Religion. Strauss, Dogmatik, i., p. 400 : “ The cosmological argument proves God to be the being existing in all beings ; the physico-theological shows him to be the life existing in all that lives ; the historical and moral arguments prove that he is the moral governor of the world; and lastly, the ontological shows that he is the Spirit existing in all spirits, the Thought in all thinking beings.” Comp. Weisse, Phil. Dogmatik, i., § 296-366. 7 Reinhard, Dogmatik, p. 90 ss., divided the attributes of God into quies¬ cent and active attributes, etc. Bruch attempted a new revision of the theory of the attributes in his Lehre von den gottlichen Eigenschaften, Hamb., 1842. For further statements see Nitzsch, in the article God, in Herzog’s Reale ncy clop.,' v. 261 sq. [On the immutability of God, see partic¬ ularly Dorner , in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1859-60.] 8 Glaubenslehre, i., § 50. 0 Hegel, Encyclopaedic, i., § 36, p. 73 (see Strauss, Dogmatik, i., p. 542.) Comp. J. P. Lange , ii. 60 sq. ; Ebrard, i. 219 ; Weisse, § 482-537. 478 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. § 295. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. Litclce, Die immanent© Wesenstrinitat, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840 ; in reply, Nitzsch, ibid., 1841. [ Twesten , Dogmatik, i., transl. in Bibliotheca Sacra, iii., iv.] Although the church doctrine of the Trinity had not been mate¬ rially altered during the period of the Reformation, it was now at¬ tacked by numerous opponents. Not only did Arianism make its appearance in England, as an isolated phenomenon, but various modifications of Socinianism also found their way into German the¬ ology.1 The rationalists, were properly speaking, pure Unitarians ;2 on the other hand, some supernaturalists the more they planted them¬ selves on the Biblical standpoint, yielded somewhat of the strict doctrine of ecclesiastical orthodoxy.3 Swedenborg found the Trin¬ ity in the” person of Christ.4 The adherents of the school of Zinzen - dorf exposed themselves to the charge of destroying the relation in which the persons stand to each other, by paying excessive hom¬ age to the Son.5 Modern theologians have again apprehended the more profound speculative basis of this doctrine ; but while some (after the example of Schleiermacher) refer the Trinity, after the manner of Sabellius, to the revealed deity ;6 others (both the specu¬ lative, and the strict orthodox) think that it has respect to the essence of the deity.7 The place which they assign to the doctrine of the Trinity, in their systems, and the degree of importance which they attach to it, depend upon their views in these respects.8 1 Samuel Clarice was dismissed from his post as court preacher (I'll 4) in the reign of Queen Anne, on account of his work concerning the Trinity (1712). He maintained that the Son was subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son ; nor did he afterwards alter his opinion. Comp. Schlegel , Kirchengeschichte des 18 Jahrhund. ii. p. 746, ss. [See above, § 225, b, note 51, and § 234, note 11.] J. J. Wettstein compared the Son of God to a prime minister, and his rela¬ tion to the Father, to that of a prime minister to his monarch, or of a curate to his rector; see Hagenbach , Ueber Wettstein in Illgens Zeit- schrift fur historische Theologie. The theory of subordination was also adopted by other German theologians. See Tollner , Theologische ITn- tersuchungen, 1762, vol. i. part i. He combated the opinion that the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental doctrine; see his Yermischte Aufsatze, ii. 1. 2 According to Wegscheider , Institut. § 93, the doctrine of the Trinity belongs to those doctrines — quae justa auctoritate certoque fundamento des- tituta sunt ; comp. Henke , Lineam. Ixix. 8 Thus J. A. Ulsperger , kurzgefafstes System seines Yortrags von Gottes Dreieinigkeit, Augsb., 1777. The author of this work maintained, that the § 295. The Doctrine of the Trinity. 479 divine predicates, Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , have reference only to the work of redemption (Trinity of revelation) ; he did not deny a Trinity of nature, which he was willing to adore as a mystery, but he rejected the idea that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are its necessary and personal pre¬ dicates. 4 He taught that, instead of a Trinity of persons (set forth in the symbols of the church), we must hold a Trinity of the person , by which he under¬ stood, that that which is divine in Christ is the Father , that the divine united with the human is the Son , and the divine which proceeds from him is the Holy Spirit. The first Christians, in their simplicity, believed in three persons because they understood everything in its literal sense. The orthodox Trinitarians may also go to heaven, where they will be enlightened on this subject. But no one can be admitted into heaven who believes in the existence of three Gods , though with his mouth he may confess only one ; for the entire life of heaven, and the wisdom of all the angels, is founded on the recognition and confession of one God, and on the belief that that one God is also man ; and that hey who is at the same time God and man, is the Lord (Jehovah, Zebaoth, Shaddai.) See his Divine Revelation, i. (die Lehre des neuen Jerusalem vom Herrn, edit, by Tafel, 1823), p. 118, ss. 6 See JBengel , Abriss der sogenannten Brudergemeinde, pp. 74, 75 : “Can any one approve of the doctrine of Zinzendorf, who refuses to attribute the work of creation to the Father, and maintains that he (the Father) was either ministering to and assisting his Son, or looking at his work, or enjoy¬ ing divine rest, while the latter was creating the world? who further ascribes so many other things which also belong to the Father , to the Son alone ? who also ascribes to the Holy Ghost *a kind of motherhood as a personal characteristic? and, lastly, who treats, in so presumptuous a way, the divine doctrine of the ever-blessed Deity?” p. 119 : “We ought not to slip over the Son, but neither also the Father, as if he were of no account. The latter, compared with the former, is a new, and hence a great pleasure for the devil.” — Bengel also finds fault with the familiar style in which Zinzen¬ dorf treats these mysteries. Comp. p. 78, ss. [and Von der Goltz , in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie,' 1861.] Wackernagel , Lesebuch, iii. p. 1063. In the Idea Fidei Fratrum is no particular locus de Trinitate, but a section concerning the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (§ 84). The doctrine in question is there simply treated in its scriptural aspects, to which is added : “ It is not only vain and foolish, but also dangerous, to descend into the depths of the Deity, and that incomprehensible eternity, of which nothing is revealed to us. There¬ fore we do not inquire into those things which belong to the depths of the Deity, because we hold such a course to be better than to endeavor to deter¬ mine that which Scripture has not determined. It clearly teaches us : God has an only-begotten Son whom he has offered for us ; there is also one Holy Ghost who is uncreated, but proceeds from the Father, and is sent to us through Christ.” 8 Schleiermacher , Treatise on Sabellius in the Berliner Zeitschrift [trans¬ lated by Moses Stuart , in Biblical Repos. (Andov.), first series, vol. v.] : Glaubenslehre, ii. § 170, ss. p. 574, ss. De Wette , kirkliche Dogmatik, 480 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. § 43, 44 (pp. 81, 82). Twesten , Dogmatik, ii. p. 179, ss. Lucke , in the Studien und Kritiken, 1840, part 1, p. 91. On the other side: Nitzsch , in the Studien und Kritiken, 1841, part 2. 7 Lessing (Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes, § 73) had already said : * What if this doctrine (of the Trinity) should lead human reason to ac¬ knowledge, that God cannot possibly be understood to be one , in that sense in which all finite things are one? that his unity must be a transcendental unity which does not exclude a kind of plurality.” Schelling , Methode des akademischen Studiums, p. 102 : “ It is clear that the idea of a Trinity is ab¬ surd, unless it be considered on speculative grounds. . . .The incarnation of God is an eternal incarnation.” .... Comp. p. 184. Comp. Hlasche, Das Bose, etc., pp. 106, 107. Hegel, Religionsphilosophie, vol. ii., p. 230, ss. : “ By God being a living spirit, we understand that he can distinguish him¬ self from himself, produce Another, and in this Other remain identical with himself. This becoming Another, is the eternal absorption and yet production * of himself.” P. 261 : “That which first existed was the idea in its simple universality, the Father . The second is the particular, the idea in its manifes¬ tation, the Son — viz., the idea in its external existence ; so that the external manifestation is a reflex of the first, and is known as the divine idea, the identity of the divine with the human. The third is this consciousness, God as the Holy Spirit; and this spirit, as existing, is the church. — Daub makes a distinction between Deus a quo , in quo , et cui satis est Deus ; Theolo- gum. p. 110. Marheineke, Dogmatik, p. 260: “In a direct and abstract sense God is only the identity, the beiug which is not yet Thought, but only Spirit, per se (an sich) — the Father. In order to be this in reality, he distinguishes himself from himself, sets himself as another in distinction from himself ; and in so far as he exists for himself in this separate existence, he is the Son. But inasmuch as he refers himself to himself, and abrogates this separate existence, he is a being existing in and for himself [Germ. An und fur sich seiender], or Spirit.” — Concerning the relation in which this speculative Trinity stands to the ecclesiastical doctrine, see Strauss , Dogmatik, i. p. 492 ; and Weisse , Phil. Dogmatik, § 394-481, especially § 409. The latter, from the speculative point of view, resolves the Trinity thus : the divine Reason— -the Father ; the divine heart (Gemuth), and the nature-in-God — the Son ; the divine will — the Holy Ghost. 8 Schleiermacher and Hase assign to it the last place in their systems (Hase makes it the sum and conclusion of the Christology) ; the adherents of Hegel the first; the former consider it the topstone, the latter the foun¬ dation of the building. This is still further connected with their views about the nature of religion. JRothe is nearest right, when he designates the Trini¬ tarian idea of God, as set forth in Christian speculation, as entirely different from the Trinitarian idea in the church doctrine ; and he openly grants that the Biblical terms, Father, Son, and Spirit, designate wholly different rela¬ tions of God from those of his immanent mode of being (Theol. Ethik, i. 77, sq.) Compare among the recent divines, Lange , ii. 123, sq. Liebner , i. 67 (criticising the latest discussions). Martensen , 95, sq. Ebrard , i. 141, sq. § 296. Creation and Preservation of the World. 481 § 296. CREATION and preservation of the world, providence. THEODICY. After the followers of the Wolfian philosophy, and the like, had in vain endeavored to reconcile the Mosaic account of the creation with the results and hypotheses of their natural philosophy and metaphysics,1 Herder , by his genial interpretation rescued this story from their hands, and brought it back to the sphere of sacred poetry, recognizing its internal truthfulness.2 Since that time only a few writers have defended its literal meaning.3 The definitions concern¬ ing the idea of creation itself ’ and the cognate ideas of ‘preserva¬ tion ■, providence , and the government of the worlds are closely connected -with the systems of Deism , Theism , and Pantheism 4 (comp. § 293). The so-called Theodicy (i. e. the mode of ex¬ plaining the existence of evil in the world)5 is also connected with these fundamental views, and at the same time passes over into the doctrines respecting demonology and anthropology (see below). 1 Comp, the views entertained by Michaelis and others, in the work of Herder (note 2) ; for further particulars see Bretschneider Entwicklung, p. 450, ss. Silberschlag , Geogonie, oder Erklarung der mosaischen Schop- fungsgeschichte, Berlin, 1780-83, 3 volh, 4to. New attempts to save the record from the standpoint of the natural sciences, by Bucklnnd , Wagner, Pfaff, Fabri , and others. [ Hugh Miller , John Pye Smith, Lyell , President Hitchcock ; Dawes' Archaia, etc.] Comp. Ebrard , Die Weltanschauung der Bibel und die Naturwissenschaft, in the “Zukunft der Kirche,” Jahrg., 1847. \Keil, Die biblische Schopfungsgeschichte und die geologische Erdbildungstheorien, in Theol. Zeitschrift, 1860, Aug. Keerl , Der Mensch, das Ebenbild Gottes, i. I860.] 3 Herder in his work, Die alteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlects, eine nach Jalirkunderten enthtillte heilige Schrift., 1774, ss. (Comp, the review in the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek xxv. p. 24, xxx. p. 53) ; Ideen zur Philosophic der Geschichte der Menschheit, vol. ii. p. 303, ss. ; Geist der hebrseischen Poesie, i. p. 139, ss. 3 Comp. Bretschneider, p. 451. Supernaturalists also, such as Reinhard (p. 167, ss.), and others, conceded something to modern criticism. In more recent times, however, the theory of six periods (instead of days) has had earnest advocates. [See Tayler Lewis, Six Days of Creation, and Bible and Science, or the World-Problem, 1856.] 4 The idea of a creation out of nothing is founded on theistic views of the world. These views are deistic, when the creation and preservation of the world are too much separated from each other, and the connection ex¬ isting between them is destroyed ; they become pantheistic, when creation 482 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. appears as a mere part of preservation. Comp, the passages from the works of Fichte, Hegel, and MarheineJce, collected by Hase , p. 179 ; and Schleier - maclier, christliche Glanbenslehre, i. §40; and Weisse, Phil. Dogmatik, § 538-556. — Further, the idea of providence is theistic, and intimately con¬ nected with the idea of a personal God; it is wanting in the schemes of deism and pantheism, which run into fatalism on the one side or the other. 6 C. II. JBlasche, das Bose in Einklange mit der Weltordnung dargestellt, Leipz., 1827. He has revived the earlier notion, that evil is necessary in order to form a contrast with good, etc. So, too, with the adherents of the latest school. Among the more recent, see Roihe, iii. 170 ; Martensen, 107 ; Ebrard, i. 201. [Comp, particularly the New England discussions, on Sin as the necessary means of the greatest good : above, § 285, d. J § 297. THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING ANGELS AND DEMONS. During the prosaic age the belief in the existence and agency of angels had almost wholly disappeared, and supernaturalists them¬ selves, who, on the authority of Scripture, continued to believe in their existence, knew not what to do with them.1 On the other hand, the enthusiastic Swedenborg looked only the more boldly into the angelic world, hut most arbitrarily substituted the notion of glorified men for the Scriptural idea of angels, and denied the personal existence of the devil.2 The devil was the subject of chief derision with the advocates of what were called the enlightened views of the age. Semler explained (after the example of Belcher) the demoniacal possessions by a reference to emjDirical psychology.4 But even those super naturalists who, on exegetical grounds j believed in the reality of the demoniacal possessions recorded in the New Tes¬ tament, were far from asserting their possibility in our age.4 In the present century, however, the belief in demoniacal possessions as affecting the body, which had continued to obtain among the lower orders of the people notwithstanding the progress of rationalism, was revived among the educated classes of -Protestants themselves, for the most part in connection with the phenomena of animal mag¬ netism and clairvoyance.6 The doctrine concerning the devil too, assumed a new dogmatic significancy. Sclileier macher vindicated its poetic rights — viz. as regards sacred poetry ;6 while Daub endeav¬ ored to assign a kind of personal existence to the author of evil : the latter, however, introduced some Manichean elements into this doctrine.7 Most of our theologians are now of opinion that where the doctrine concerning sin is rightly understood, the belief in the metaphysical existence of the devil is of subordinate importance ; inasmuch as, according to the strictness of Scripture, he belongs at 29T. The Doctrine Concerning Angels .vnd Demons. 483 any rate to the order of finite beings, over whose temptations (how¬ ever they may show themselves) the Christian man is bound to have the victory.8 — The doctrine respecting angels has also again come to honor among the latest writers on systematic theology, by some considered rather in a philosophic and idealizing sense,9 by others simply referred to the Scriptural declarations.10 1 Thus e. g. Reinhardt, p. 176 ss. He does not venture to decide which office they have in the present time (p. 191). jStorr, § 49 (quoted by Hase , Dogmatik, p. 237). 2 Divine Revelation, i., p. 87 : “ Men are always surrounded by spirits and angels of God, who understand everything spiritually, because they them¬ selves possess a spiritual nature. After death men are also instructed by angels,” p. 102; comp, ii., p. 102, 126, 178, 226. In man}7 places Sweden¬ borg relates his discourses with angels who, in his opinion, are human beings. Angels breathe as well as men, their hearts also beat ; they breathe accord* ing to the measure of Divine wisdom which they receive from the Lord ; their hearts beat according to the measure of Divine love which they receive from the Lord, p. 112, comp. p. 220. Angels and spirits are also men; for all the good and true which proceeds from man is human in its form ; but the Lord is the Divine-Good, and the Divine-True itself, hence he is man himself, from whom every man is man, i., p. 112. Because angels are angels on account of the degree of love and wisdom which they possess, and the same is the case with men, it is evident, that on account of the good con¬ nected with the true, angels are angels of heaven, and men are men of the church, p. 157. The wisdom of angels consists in the power to see and to apprehend what they think, p. 213. All that takes place in the spiritual world, is correspondence ; for it is in correspondence with the inclinations of angels and spirits ; p. 250. — In opposition to the doctrine of the church, that the angels were first created, and that the devil is a fallen angel, Swedenborg professes (p. 180) that he was taught by the angels themselves, that in the whole heaven there is not one single angel who was created at first, nor in the whole of hell one single devil who was created as an angel of light, etc. but that all angels , both in heaven and in hell, derive their origin from the human race. — Hell and devil are one and the same, and angels and heaven are one and the same ; comp. p. 303. That which is in man — viz. his spirit — is, according to its true nature, an angel, p. 281, therefore man is created to become an angel, p. 289. In some places Swedenborg understands the Scriptural term angel in a symbolical sense. Comp. vol. ii., p. 6, 16, 18, 52, 307. 3 De Daemoniacis, 1760 (4th ed., 1779.) — Versuch einer biblischen Daemo- nologie, Halle, 1776. 4 Reinhard , p. 185 ss., p. 206, speaks only of those diseases which the devil is said to have caused in the times of Christ and his apostles. Comp. p. 211. “We admit such corporeal possessions in the narratives of the gospel only on the testimony of Christ and his apostles. Accordingly, as long as such an authentic testimony is wanting in modern times, no man is justified 484 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. in maintaining that a diseased man is truly possessed with a devil.” Comp, Storr, § 52 (quoted by Ilase, p. 238.) [On Farmer , see § 292, note 1.] 6 The exorcisms practised by Gassner , a member of the Roman Catholic Church (from the year 1773). See Walch , neueste Religionsgeschichte, vol. vi., p. 371, p. 541 ss. Justinus Kerner (who belongs to the Protestant Church), Die Scherin von Prevorst, Stuttg., 1832, 2 vols. ; Ueber das Bes- essensein, Heilbr., 1833. Geschichte Bessessener neuerer Zeit, nebst Rcflexi- onen vo nEschenmayer, Karlsruhe, 1836. 8 Glaubenslehre, i. § 45, p. 243. 7 Judas Ischariot, oder das Bose im Verhaltnisse zum Guten betrachtet, 2 parts in 3 sections. Heidelb. 1816-19. Comp. Kant , Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Yernunft, p. 99 ss. Among the recent divines Mar¬ tens cn has endeavored to prove the existence of the devil on biblical and speculative grounds; Dogmatik, 170 sq. LucJce , in reply in the Zeitschrift f. Christl. Wissenschaft, Febr., 1851. Ebrard (i. 392) shows the difference between the Biblical representations and the later perversions. See also Lange , ii. 559, sq. [Twesten on Doctrine respecting Angels, transl. from his Dogmatik, in Biliotheca Sacra, i. 768-793, ii. 108-140. Whately , Scrip¬ tural Doctrine of Good and Evil Spirits, Bond., 1851. Prof. Stuart , on Angelology, in Robinson’s Bib. Sacra, 1843. Analogues of Satan, Christ. Exam., July, 1860; Theory of Personal Devil, ibid., Sept., 1861. Letters to the Rev. W. E. Channing, on the Existence and Agency of Fallen Spirits. By Canonicus, Boston, 1828.] 8 Kant , 1. c., p., 66. Twesten , Dogmatik, ii., p. 331 ss., Comp. p. 358- 360. ' * 8 Martensen , Dogmatik, 119, conceives of the Angel-world, as the “ world of ideas ;” but “ not ideas as they stand before abstract thought, but ideas viewed as living powers, acting spirits.” The notion of personality he con¬ siders as changeable. “From the storm-wind that executes the orders of the Lord, to the seraph that stands before his throne, there is a manifold variety of angelic beings ;” and “ no speculation will ever be in a condition to decide how far there may be powers in creation, having such spirituality, that with personal consciousness they may serve or resist the Creator.” Lange thinks that the angels are the spirits of the primeval world, ii. 578 sq. Weisse (Phil. Dogmatik), tries in respect to the angels to “ steer clear of the Scylla of dogmatic superstition, as well as the Charybdis of materialistic unbelief ;” and he does this by recurrence to the Bohme’s idea of “ nature-spirits , and fountain-spirits ,” and bringing them into connection with the attribute of God’s glory. 10 Ebrard , Dogmatik, i. 276 sq. THIRD DIVISION. ANTHROPOLOGY. CHRISTOLOGY. SOTERIOLOGY, AND THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. § 298. THE DOCTRINES CONCERNING MAN, SIN AND LIBERTY. We should expect, as a matter of course, that in an age in which philosophical and theological works were full of “ Philanthropy and humanity ” much would be said concerning the nature, dignity and destination of man.1 In opposition to Augustine's views, the excel¬ lency of the human nature was extolled, and (after the example of Rousseau) many indulged in fanciful representations of the ideal state of man.2 While enlightened theologians erased the doctrine of original sin from their systems,3 Kant on the contrary, himself pointed out the radical evil in man, but did not understand by it original sin in its ecclesiastical usage.4 The adherents of the later speculative philosophy were also far from believing that the natural state of man was the normal one : they admitted that he had fallen from his original state, that a reconciliation had become necessary, and attached little importance to the Pelagian idea of liberty, upon which the rationalists had laid great stress. But a closer examina¬ tion of their theory showed that this kind of original sin was identi¬ cal with the finite character of human nature and human con¬ sciousness, and was a mere matter of natural necessity : so that the idea of sin and responsibility was destroyed, and a doctrine intro¬ duced which would prove fatal to the ethical standpoint, which .rationalism had maintained from regard to practical morality.5 In opposition to both these tendencies (the rationalistic and the specu¬ lative) the Pietists, and those theologians who returned to the old faith of the church, revived the doctrine of Augustine in its essential points,6 to which the followers of Schleiei'maclier and those of like tendencies also adhered, though with various modifications.7 On the other hand, the idealistic view of man, as God awakening to consciousness, was pressed with all its energy by the left side of the Hegelian school ; and of course sin was regarded as only a vanishing 486 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. factor." But thus it became only the more apparent, that at pres¬ ent the regeneration of the church and of theology are chiefly to be expected from a right understanding of the doctrine concerning sin.9 J 1 It is worthy of notice, that physical and psychological anthropology, which had formerly been treated in connection with systematic theology, was now separated from it. Man was made the subject of philosophical trea¬ tises written in a popular style. See Pope , Essay on Man, 1733. Spalding , Bestimmung desMenschen, Lpz., 1748. J. J. Zollikofer , Predigten tiber die Wtirde des Menschen, Lpz., 1783. J. Ith , Anthropologie oder Philosophie des Menschen, vol. i. Winterthur, 1803. (For further particulars Hret* schneider , Entwurf, p. 493, ss.) Herder has most ably represented man in his purely human aspect. 2 Comp. § 275. The modern system of education was, in particular founded on the doctrine of the excellency of human nature. Comp. Campe , Theophron, 1806, p. 234, ss. 3 Steinbart (in the 5th section of his : System der reinen Philosophie). Henke, Lineamenta, lxxxi. : Cavendum est, ne hanc peccandi facultatem, hunc vitiorum fomitem cum ipsis vitiis, ignis materiam cum incendio permis- ceamus, atque propterea totum genus humanum perditum, corruptum, prop¬ ter hanc suam indolem displicere Deo, vel parvulos adeo recens in lucem editos indignationi divinae obnoxios esse dicamus, quod ne de catulis quidem sanus quisquam ausit dicere, etc. Quae omnia (he then continues, p. lxxxi v.) ambiguitatis et erroris plena commenta sunt, pro lubitu arrepta, et prseter sanse rationis ac scripturse sacrse assensum. 4 Vom radicalen Bosen in der menschlichen Natur (Berliner Monatsscrift, April, 1792) ; Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, etc. (against the fantasies of pedagogues, pp. 4 and 5). The natural tendency to evil manifests itself in three different ways: 1. As frailty (fragilitas) ; 2. As impurity (impuritas, improbitas) ; 3. As malice and perversity (vitiositas, pravitas, perversitas). The proposition : Man is evil, means, that he is conscious of the moral law, but he thinks it consistent with his princi¬ ples of action, occasionally to deviate from it. The proposition : lie is by nature wicked, means, he is wicked as belonging to the genus humanum.' (Vitiis nemo sine nascitur, Horat.) This tendency (to evil) has not its origin in the sensuality of man, but in his liberty, hence he is responsible for it. There are also different degrees of innate guilt (reatus). The culpa corresponds to frailty and impurity ; the dolus (dolus malus) corresponds to malice. — Nevertheless Kant maintains (p. 37) that of all theories respecting the propagation of this original evil, that is the most incorrect, which repre¬ sents us as having inherited it from our first parents ; for what the poet says in reference to good, may also be applied to moral evil : Genus et proavos, et quce non fecimus ipsi , vix ea nostra puto. — In his opinion the narrative of Adam’s fall is only a symbol, which he explains according to his principles of moral interpretation, p. 40-44. Therefore the doctrine of innate evil is not of importance for moral theology, but only for moral discipline (p. 55). On this account Kant’s theory of original evil does not lead to the doctrine § 298. Doctrines Concerning Man; Sin, and Liberty. 4S7 of redemption (in its ecclesiastical sense), but he comes to the conclusion : “ That which man, considered from the moral point of view, is or is to be, whether good or evil, depends on his oiun actions ” (p. 45). Comp, also § 298, on the economy of redemption. Herder therefore said : “ Nobody knows how this original evil entered into the human nature, nor how it may escape from it.” (Von Religion, Lehrmeinungen und Gebrauchen, pp. 204, 205.) For the further development of Kant’s theory, see Tief trunk , Censur, iii. p. 112, ss. The later rationalists rested satisfied with regarding * evil as something which experience proves to exist among men, without tracing its origin to the sin of our first parents ; nor did they deny that those who aspire after higher moral perfection may rise above sin. Wegscheider , § l18- 6 Schelling , Methode des akademischen Studiums, p. 176. The new (Christian) world commences with a general fall, a breaking away of man • from nature. The surrender to nature itself does not constitute sin, for, as long as it is not conscious of the opposite, this forms rather the golden age. The consciousness of this surrender destroys innocence, and therefore de¬ mands reconciliation and voluntary submission, in which liberty comes off both conquered and a conqueror. This is more fully developed by Blasche , 1. c. p. 224 : “ Original sin did not propagate itself, because our first parents accidentally sinned, and all other men are their descendants, but because the first conscious life of man, and the continuance and growth of this con¬ sciousness, are an original act of sin. The propagation of sin does not take place so much by physical , as by psychical generation, by which we under¬ stand education,* on which the development of man’s consciousness, in a social point of view, depends. The biblical narrative of the fall is an alle¬ gorical representation of the development of this consciousness on the part of our first parents. Their condition antecedent to this event, the life in paradise, the state of innocence, was (like the state of earliest infancy in general) an unconscious life of instinct ; for all mental development com¬ mences with consciousness. From this it is evident, that as, in the physical creation, it is not good, but evil,f which is first, or primary, the same must be the case in the higher spiritual creation (the culture of the mind), which commences with consciousness. In the world of spirits good must first come into existence, and is based upon evil.” (Comp, the theory of the Ophites, vol. i. § 62.) — Hegel defined original sin as the natural state ( das natur- liche Ansichsein ) of man, so far as he is conscious of it. Philosophic der Religion, vol. i. p. 194, ss., ii. p. 208, ss. Strauss , Dogmatik, ii. p. 69-74, 6 The Pietists and Methodists laid great stress upon the consciousness of sin (comp. § 277, 278). In the Idea Fidei Fratrum, § 50, ss., the doctrine of the deep natural corruption of mankind is treated of earnestly, yet not without suggestion of hope, with all the seriousness appropriate to this sub* ject. — Concerning Oetinger's views of the nature of evil, see Horner , Chris* * “ Education must necessarily first lead man astray, in his course towards spirituality, before it can lead him to virtue.” (?) f The word “ sin” is here used in such a sense, that it may be applied even to physical diseases. Kieser in Blasche, ubi supra. But where all is sin, sin loses its signifi.cancy 488 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. 4 tologie, pp. 310, 311. — Swedenborg departed from the church doctrine, inasmuch as he did not believe in original sin, properly speaking, but represented man as a free agent, who is placed between heaven and earth, and exposed to the influence of good and evil spirits. But still man derives from God alTthe good which he possesses. Comp, his Divine Revelation, ii. p. 147, ss. ; Heaven and Hell, No. 589-596, and 597-603. — Among modern theologians, Tholuck first save a more orthodox definition of sin in his wrork : Die Lehre von der Siinde und vom Versohner, odor die wahre Weihe des Zweiflers. Hamb., 1823, 7th edit., 1851 [translated and publ. in Boston.] Comp. Steudel, Korn , and Klaiber (see Bretschneider, p. 530). 7 These modifications chiefly consist in a renunciation of the strictly his¬ torical interpretation of the fall, which is also abandoned by Tholuck (Die Lehre von der Siinde, etc. Append. 3*) and the want of more precise de¬ finitions concerning the justitia originalis. Respecting the latter, Schleier - macher (Christliche Glaubenslehre, i. p. 336), gives it as his opinion, that idea of the justitia originalis cannot be demonstrated dialectically. On the other hand he maintains (1. c. vol. i. p. 412, ss.) the original depravity, and entire inability of every man to perform virtuous actions ; this inability ceases only in connection with the work of redemption. De Wette asserted that the representations of (orthodox) Protestant writers were founded upon exaggerated views, but still defended them in opposition to the superficial theories of the rationalists : see Dogmatik, § 56. Comp. Hase, Dogmatik, pp. 102, 103. 8 Feuerbach , Wesen des Christenthums, s. 49 : “ The incarnate God is only the manifestation of man become God — which, in fact, lies in the background of the religious consciousness ; for the elevation of man to God necessarily precedes the condescension of God to man. Man was already in God , was God himself, \ before God became man . How otherwise could God become man. Ex nihilo nil fit.” 9 Julius Muller , die christliche Lehre von der Siinde, vol. i., New edit., Berk, 1844, vol. ii. ibid., 1844. Comp, with it, G. Ritter, fiber das Bose, etc., Theologische Mitarbeiten, ii. part 4), Breslau, 1839. Rothe, Etliik, ii. 170, sq., partly against Muller. [Rothe puts the essence of sin more in the physical constitution.] Martensen , p. 144, sq. Schenkel , Gespriiche iiber Protestantismus und Katholicismus, Heidelb., 1852, s. 128, sq. Tholuck,- ubi supra. [Muller's theory of preexistence is also, under other relations, advocated by Edward JBeecher, Conflict of Ages, Boston, 1853. See also Prest. Marsh , Three Discourses on Nature, Ground and Origin of Sin, in his Remains (1845), pp. 439-502. Shedd, Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt, in his Essays and Reviews.] The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has also been awak¬ ened from the slumber in which it seemed to have sunk, and brought to a definitive decision by the Papal Bull of Dec. 8, 1854, yet not without weighty objections and opposition from Catholic quarters : see the Brief of * Beinhard advocated the historical reality of the fall bat thought the forbidden fruit venomous, on which account it caused the death of our first parents. (?) Dogmatik (3d edit.), p. 213. § 299. Christology. 489 Pope Pi us IX., Feb. 2, 1849, and tbe answer of the Prussian bishops in GelzeFs Protest. Monatsblatter, ix. 2, s. 69, sq. The papal decision was pre¬ pared for, dogmatically, in particular by the works of Per rone, De immacul. B. Virg. Marias Conceptu, and of Passaglia (§ 178). Protestant polemics were also aroused against the doctrine; see Julius Muller (§ 178), and G. A. Wimmer , Ehrenrettung der seligen Jungfrau Maria gegen die papst- lichen Verunglimpfungen, Bremen, 1855. [Comp. Christ. Remembrancer, April, 1852; Methodist Quarterly, April, 1855. Denzinger , Lehre d. un- befleckten Empfangniss, 2d ed., 1855. Bp. Malou (of Bruges), L’immaculee Conception. ... comme Dogme de Foi, 2 Tomes, Bruxelles, 1857. — Balle- rini , Sylloge Monumentorum ad Mysterium Cone, immacul. Yirginis, etc., Rom., 1855.] § 299. CHRISTOLOGY. JDorner , uber die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, besonders in neuern Zeiten , Tdbinger Zeitschrift, 1835, part 4, p. 81, ss. ; Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, p. 250, ss. Liebner , Christologie, oder die christQl. Einheit des dogmat. Systems, i. Gott., 1849. [ Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 3 Bde. 2te. AufL, 1859. W. F Gess , Die Lehre d. Person Christi, 1856. H. G. Basse, Leben des verklarten Erlosers, 1854. E. W. Gr infield, The Christian Cosmos : the Son of God the revealed Creator, 1856.] The more the doctrine of the natural depravity of mankind was lost sight of, and the nature of man elevated, the more did specific dif¬ ference between Jesus of Nazareth and the rest of mankind disap¬ pear. Thus Socinianism and Ebionitism were re-introduced into the Church, along with the Pelagian tendencies of the so-called period of illumination.1 But there was still a deep interest in con¬ sidering the human nature of Christ, i. e., his character as a histor¬ ical person, which was represented sometimes in noble, sometimes in trivial aspects, by different writers.2 This led to a new historical estimate of his life,3 which was best adapted to prepare the way for the revival of a belief in his higher nature, as surpassing the bounds of humanity. The views of Kant had given rise to an arbitrary dis¬ tinction, unknown to the doctrine of the church, between an ideal and a historical Christ.4 Only a small number of pious men (to which belonged some of the most eminent writers of the present period) retained the doctrine of Christ's divinity, with all the ardor of fervent love, amidst a gainsaying generation.5 Some, e. g ., Emmanuel Swedenborg ,8 even went so far as to adopt notions bor¬ dering on enthusiasm and heresy. The Christian rationalists de¬ clared their belief in the historical Christ (the man Jesus), founded upon the critical interpretation of the accounts given by the evange* lists (especially in the so-called synoptical gospels). They differed 490 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. most distinctly from the anti-Christian naturalism, in admitting that the founder of the Christian Church must have been possessed of the highest moral perfection, without directly asserting the dogma of the absolute sinlessness of Christ. The better class of the ra¬ tionalists did not deny that Christ possessed miraculous and myste¬ rious powers with the view of detracting from his honor, but in order to render him more accessible to men, to make his doctrine more intelligible, and his example more profitable.1 * 3 * * * 7 On the other hand, the adherents of the speculative philosophy exerted them¬ selves to the utmost in the defence of the idea of an incarnate God (which had been rejected by the rationalists), or of the unity of the divine with the human ; and they thus exposed themselves to the danger of renouncing the historical manifestation of Christ, or even of converting his history into mere myths.8 The advocates of modern theology, since Schleiermacher , consider it their task to show, that the divine and the human in Christ (the ideal and the historical), are most intimately connected with each other. Though they widely differ from each other in reference to particular points, as well as in the modes of argumentation which they use,9 they all agree in admitting that the received ecclesiastical terms of person and nature are not sufficient to express the real relation.10 It is also now generally acknowledged, that only more profound philosophical and historical investigations can justify to thinking minds the idea of a God-man, or prove, with the highest degree of historical evidence, that this idea is realised in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.11 1 Dorner , Christologie, p. 255. a The phrase, “ Jesus of Nazareth was a mere man,” can be very, differ¬ ently interpreted ; there are all the grades between an impostor and an en¬ thusiast, between the latter and an extraordinary messenger of God, a prophet, a worker of miracles, and, lastly, the Son of Man, after his resurrection raised to the heavens. All these terms have been applied to Christ (in an inverse order) from the period of Socinianism down to the publication of the “ Wolf-' enbtittler Fragmente,” and the “ Naturliche Geschichte des Propheten von Nazareth,” Bethlehem [Kopenhagen], 1800. • 3 Bringing the person of Christ into the sphere of history, and the en¬ deavor to understand him like every other man in historical relations, could only in the end be subservient to the advancement of truth (hence the Life of Jesus is now so often described) ; for the ecclesiastical doctrine of the true humanity of the Redeemer must lose its significance without what may be called the human treatment of his history. In this respect Herder has distinguished himself above all other writers. Comp, his “ Christliche Schrif- ten,” and the passages quoted in his “ Dogmatik,” p. 134, ss., 190, ss., 212, ss. And yet, while emphasizing what Christ has in common with the race^ he has overlooked what raises him, as the Holy One, above the race. § 299. Christology. 491 In connection with his doctrine of original evil, Kant maintained the necessity of a restoration of man by means of his freedom. To attain unto this end, man stands in need of an ideal — viz., a human ideal which is pre¬ sented to him in the scriptural doctrine concerning Christ (the personified idea of the good principle). The idea has its seat in our reason ; for the practical purposes of an example, etc., a character is sufficient which resem¬ bles the idea as much as possible. It is not necessary to suppose a superna¬ tural generation, though it cannot be absolutely denied that such may take place; see Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, p. 67, ss., and comp. p. 183, and Dorner , 1. c. p. 258, ss. “ The incongruence between the historical and the ideal Christ is here indeed only hinted at in the most forbearing manner ; but in point of fact this want of correspondence between the manifestation and the idea is a fundamental point in the Kantian phil¬ osophy Strauss , ii. 292. 5 Zinzendorf and the Society of the United Brethren. Spangenberg Idea Fidei Fratr. § 63-84. JBengel , comp. Buric, p. 353, ss., p. 541. [Comp. Von der Goltz , Die theologische Bedentung Bengels und seiner Schule, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1861, pp. 460-507.] Oetinger (comp. Dorner, 1. c. p. 305, ss.) Haller , Gellert, J. C. Lavater , Hamann ( Dorner , p. 305), Stilling , Claudius , KlopstocJc , Kovalis (. Dorner , p. 323, ss.) Respecting Lavater, see the biographies by Herbst , Gessner , and others : Hegner (Bei- trage, Lpz., 1836), p. 260, ss. “My grey hair shall not descend into the grave, until I have addressed these words to some of the elect : He is more certain than I ails'1 (Handbibel, 1791). “ The divinity of Christ , this su- vreme power in heaven and on earth , was in all its aspects the only theme ivhich he everywhere announced , taught in his writings , and treated at length Hegner , p. 267. Comp, on the other hand, the remarkable letters of Gothe addressed to Lavater in the year 1781, pp. 140, 141. 8 The christology of Swedenborg bears close resemblance to that of Swenckfeld. Jesus is born of the Holy Ghost and of Mary. Inasmuch as his divinity is the divinity of the Father, his body was also divine. That which was human was made divine by sufferings and temptations. The human which he received from Mary was gradually laid aside, and the heav¬ enly divine body substituted for it. It is the divine body which he took with him to heaven. (Comp, his views concerning the Trinity, § 292 ; Dorner, p. 208, note.) — On Oetinger's Christology, see “ Theologie aus der Idee des Lebens,” p. 245, sq. ; Auberlen , pp. 152, 163, 231, 239, sq ., and other passages. 7 Rohr , Briefe fiber den Rationalismus, xi., and Christologische Predigten, Weimar, 1831. Wegscheider , Institutiones, § 123, 128. Paulus , das Leben Jesu. — Dorner , 1. c. pp. 278, 279. (Rationalists speak only of a doctrina Christi, but not of a doctrina de Christo.) — On the controversy respecting the adoration of Christ, which was carried on in Magdeburg in the year 1840, see Hase , Church History, New York ed., p. 565. 8 On the origin of these speculative views of Christ’s nature as traced to the works of Spinoza, see Strauss , ii. p. 199. — Fichte (Anweisung zum seli- gen Leben, p. 166, ss,) makes a distinction between the absolute and the empirical point of view. From the absolute point of view the eternal word 492 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. becomes, at all times, and in every one, flesh, in the same manner in which it became flesh in Christ, and manifests itself to every man who has a clear view of his unity with God. Fichte, indeed, admits that the knowledge of the absolute unity of the human existence with the divine (the profoundest knowledge to which man can attain), had not existed previous to the time of Christ; but he also imagines that the philosopher may not only discover these truths independently of Christianity, but also take a more comprehen¬ sive and clearer view of them, than has been transmitted by Christianity. On the one hand he professes to believe (p. 172) that all truly rational men will, to the end of time, render profound homage to this Jesus of Nazareth, and acknowledge the incomparable excellency of this highly exalted person with the greater humility the more they know themselves; though he also thinks (p. 172) that if Jesus were to return to our world, he would rest satis¬ fied at finding Christianity established in the minds of men, without claiming adoration for himself. But on the other hand (p. 173), he maintains that it is the metaphysical alone, and not the historical , which will save a man (the latter only makes the thing intelligible). “ If any one be truly united with God, it is altogether indifferent in what manner he has attained unto this state, and it would be a most useless and perverse occupation to waste much time in the recollection of the manner, instead of enjoying that union itself.” — Schelling , Methode des akademischen Studiums, p. 175 : “ The highest sense for religion which expressed itself in Christian mysticism, regarded the mys¬ tery of nature, and that of the incarnation of God , as identical.” Ibid., p. 192 : “Theologians interpret the incarnation of God in Christ empirically, as if God assumed the nature of man at a certain moment of time. But it is impossible to attach any meaning to this idea, since God is eternally aloof from all time. Hence the incarnation of God is an incarnation from eternity. The man Christ forms in his historical appearance only the crown, and there¬ fore also the beginning of that incarnation ; for beginning with him, it was so to be continued that all his followers should be members of one and the same body of which he is the head. History testifies that God truly mani¬ fested himself first in Christ : for who that preceded him revealed the infi¬ nite in such a manner?” On the other hand, comp. pp. 194, 195, where he maintains that the numerous incarnations in which the East Indians believe, are more rational than the single incarnation of God taught by Christian missionaries; and p. 206 : “Whether the writings of the New Testament are genuine or not, whether the narratives contained in them are real and unadulterated facts, and whether their contents are in accordance with the idea of Christianity, or not, cannot affect the reality of that idea, inasmuch as it does not depend on this single phenomenon , but is universal and abso¬ lute.” For further particulars, comp. Dorner , p. 339 ss. — Blasche (Ueber das Bose, p. 300) regards the matter rather from the historical point of view : . . . Christ is the representative of the acme to which the world-historical work of redemption had attained. The incarnation of God was completed in him. He has therefore the significance of a personal moral creator of the world ” (p. 301). “He was the highest product of the universal moral creation in the history of the world ; this higher creation became personal particularly in him” (p. 303). — Concerning the christological views of Hegel § 299. Christology. 493 (Religions Philosophie, vol. ii., p. 204 ss., especially p. 233-256), see Dor- ner , 1. c., p. 397 ss., and his remarks respecting them, p. 406 ss. According to Dorner it is difficult to decide whether the historical Christ (in the system of Hegel) possesses any specific dignity,* or whether Hegel does not believe in the unity of the divine with the human in the person of Christ, merely as a means of comprehending it in himself? (Dorner, p. 414.) The adherents of the two schools of Hegel differ in their views concerning the nature of Christ. Some (as Marheineke , Rosenkranz , and Conradi , see Dorner , p. 366 ss.) endeavor to unite the historical Christ with the ideal. Others do not consider him as a purely mythical person, but as the accidental representa¬ tive of a certain idea ; this idea gave rise to the development of a body of myths, which were thrown around the name and person of Jesus. Thus Strauss , in his Leben Jesu, and in his Dogmatik, ii., p. 209 ss.f 9 De Wette (comp. Dorner , p. 281 ss., who classes him with Fichte and Jacobi, but he ought rather to be compared with Herder ), is not to be con¬ founded with those who, rejecting the historical, attach importance only to the idea. On the contrary, he regards the historical Christ as the realized idea ; although it must be confessed, his eye is rather turned toward the aspiring, subjective heart, seeking what may satisfy its wants-, than to the in¬ vestigating and argumentative intellect. He combats the my thico-speculative theory in decided terms; Religion und Theologie, p. 184. He was also the first who again treated Christian ethics (which orthodox theologians had been accustomed to discuss in the most abstract manner), on the foundation of the person of Christ; comp, his Lehrbuch der christlichen Sittenlebre, § 41 ss., § 53. See also his Yorlesungen iiber die Religion, Vorlesung 18 : “ All the rays of truth which came forth among men, are united in Christ, the light of the world. All the knowledge of the true and the good previous to his time is only a presentiment of that which he has revealed.” Ibid., p. 444 : “The personal character , life and d%ath of Christ, and belief in him, form the centre of Christianity. The spirit of religion became personal in him, and, proceeding from him, exerted an influence upon the world which stood in need of a new religious life in order to regenerate it.” Comp, his Kirchliche Dogmatik, § 63; Religion und Theologie, p. 115 ss. ; Vorwurt zum Com- inentar des Mattkaeus (1 edit., p. vii.) ; and the last chapter of his historical review of the narratives of the gospels (on John) ; the two latter are written * * Hegel rejected the rationalistic theory, p. 240 : “ If we regard Christ in the same light as Socrates, we regard him as a mere man, like the Mohammedans, who consider Christ to have been a messenger of God, in that more comprehensive sense in which all great men may be called ambassadors or messengers of God. If we merely say that Christ was a teacher of mankind, and a martyr for truth, we express ourselves neither from the Christian point of view, nor from that of true religion.”* — But compare what follows. | However much Jacobi differed from the speculative philosophers on theological points, he was equally indifferent as to the historical person of the Redeemer, and rested satis¬ fied with subjective religious feelings, while they contented themselves with tho specula¬ tive idea. See the words addressed to Claudius, in the introduction to this treatise: Yon den gottlichen Dingen (reprinted in Strauss , Dogmatik, ii., p. 203). In this Herder forms a partial contrast with Jacobi , or rather a complement to him (as Jacobi writes to Clau¬ dius, so does Golhe to Lavater, only in stronger terms ; see note 5.) 494 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. in opposition to Strauss. — Schleiermacher has treated this doctrine in a more dialectic manner, and thus “ exerted more influence than any other modern theologian upon his contemporaries ( Dorner , p. 488 ss). But at the same time, he has given rise to new doubts (Strauss, Dogmatik, ii., p. 180 ss.) Compare his \Veih nachtsfeier ; der Christliche Glaube, ii. § 92-105 ; Reden tiber die Religion, 1829; Sendschreiben an Lticke (Studien und Ivritiken, 1829, parts 2 and 3); several of his sermons; and the representa¬ tions of his system given by Dorner and Strauss, 1. c. Schleiermacher (like De Wette) differs from the adherents of the speculative school in rejecting the notion of an ideal Christ apart from the historical Christ. The historical and the ideal (he substituted these terms for those of human and divine nature), are, in his opinion, united in Christ. The ideal does not consist in skill and dexterity in particular departments of life, but in the purity and vigor of the innate consciousness of God. Schleiermacher rests faith in the divine authority of Christ on the idea of his sinlessness, and in connection with it, on the impossibility of his having erred. The church, as well as every believer, possesses the consciousness of this (an inference from the effect to to the cause). Christ came into existence — (viz. in his human nature) with¬ out sin. This generation does not necessarily exclude the idea of parti¬ cipation on the part of man, but is still to be regarded as a supernatural event, which does not stand in connection with what is sinful, but is a new creation. In opposition to Strauss , who asserts that the divine love could not have been wholly expended upon one individual, Ull~ mann , Schweizer , and others have carried the question back to the religious point of view, from which alone Schleiermacher proceeded. Others have endeavored, on speculative grounds, to determine the relation of the individ¬ ual to the genus, and thus revived the old scholastic controversy (concerning Nominalism and Realism). — Hase agrees with Schleiermacher in maintaining (in opposition to the orthodox ecclesiastical, as well as the historical theory), that the divinity in Christ consisted in his blameless piety (Dogmatik, pp. 286, 287), and connects with this the idea, that after the example of Christ, every son of man, as far as is possible for him, ought to develope himself as a son of God, and every man to a God-man. Comp. Dorner , pp. 289 ss. 10 The orthodox doctrine of the church has again found defenders in mod¬ ern times with various modifications ; see Steffens , von der falschen Theolo- gie, p. 127. Sartorius , die Lehre von Christi Person und Werk, Ilamb., 1831, ’34, [transl. by Stearns , Boston]. — Schleiermacher limited the specific difference between Christ and other men to his sinlessness — an idea brought •• •* •• , ^ out in its sharpest light by Ullmann, in his Siindlosigkeit Jesu, Hamb., 5te. Aufl., 1846 [transl. by Prof E. A. Park in German Selections, Andov., 1830, pp. 388-452]. In contrast with this preponderance of the anthropological method of constructing the person of Christ, the metaphysical and theologi¬ cal method has been revived and enforced, in the interest of the orthodox doctrine of the church. Besides Dorner' s Christology, see in particular Lieb- ncr's Christology, 1849, p. 12 sq. [Liebner’s view is that of the necessity of the incarnation — presupposing creation as a free act — as the essential basis of Christianity, and the clue to all its mysteries.] See also Ebrard , Die Gottmenschlichkeit des Christenthums, Zurich, 1844 ; and his Dogma- § 299. Christology. 495 lil<; ii. 1 sq. Lange , Dogmatik, ii. 109 sq. : “ The idea of the God-man is the concentration of all knowledge of the divine in the human , and of the human in the divine , consequently the source of a truly divine, human life — hence it is the really f undamental idea of life? See also Rotlie, Ethik, ii., p. 2*79 sq. [When the necessary historical conditions were fulfilled, God, re¬ adopting as it were the fallen creation, by a creative act brought the second Adam into union with the old, natural humanity — in a supernatural way — not bv the forces contained in the race, but an immediate and absolute crea- tive energy.] According to Martcnsen , p. 221 ; “the Son has his life, not merely in the Father, but also in the world.” “ As the heart of the Father, he is also the heart of the world hence the significance of his pre-existence, W. F. Gess , in his Lehre der Person Christi, Basel, 1856 (partly in opposi¬ tion to Liebner, Thomasius and Dorner), has made a new attempt to devel- ope the Christology “ from the self-consciousness of Christ, and the testimony of the apostles.” — On the Christology of Thomasius (Christi Person und Werk), see the Zeitsclirift of Kliefoth and Mejer, iv. [See on the general subject, Liebner, Christologisch.es — a review of recent speculations, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1858. W. JBeyschlag, Die Paulinische Christologie, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1860 (against the Kenosis). J. Bodemeyer , Die Lehre von der Kenosis, Getting., 1860 : comp, his criticism of Richter’s representation of the Lutheran Doctrine, in the Deutsche Zeitsclirift, 1861, p. 60 sq. Dorner' s articles on the Unveranderlichkeit Gottes (proposing a revision of the doctrine of the divine immutability, in its relations to Christ- ology), bear upon the same speculations; see Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1856. Weizsacker, Das Selbstzengniss des johanneischen Christ us, in the same journal, 1857. — R. W. Wilberforce, Doctrine of the Incarnation in Relation to Mankind and the Church, 1850.] 11 “ In point of fact, we cannot look for a restitutio in integrum of any une of the earlier centuries of the church development, not even of the six¬ teenth century ; but a higher prospect is held out to us. Nor can any new, merely sharpened onesidedness (or even several such points) be the end [of these christological inquiries], but rather a higher unity, after the large ex¬ perience we have had in philosophy and theology :” Liebner, in the Preface to his Christology, p. 10. — “Our time has correctly declared the idea of the divine humanity to be the key to Protestant theology : its essential task must be, to grasp the two antagonisms of the divine and human in Christ as abolished and reconciled ; and to find the root of its theology in the unity of the divine and human natures, as personally realized in Christ. That is, it is its office to grasp the historical Christ as being equally the real ideal Christ, and the ideal as also historical :” Schenkel , Wesen des Protestantismus, i. 357, sq. [“The key to the whole christology, as Strauss says, is this — that an idea is made the subject of the predicates, which the church has ascribed to Christ; not a Kantian, unreal idea, but a real idea — hummity as the God- man.” “ Christ is God and man, as every man is in idea : what has been ascribed to him specifically and specially has been (by the Hegelian philos¬ ophy) resolved into the general essence of humanity.” Rauf, Dogmenges- chichte, pp. 380-4.] 496 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Menken (Tlomilien uber das 9 und 10. Capitel des Briefs a l die Hebraer, Bremen, 1831), and Irving (the Human Nature of Christ) revived the controversy, whether Christ assumed the human nature as it existed prior , or as it existed posterior to the fall ? Menken and Irving maintained the latter. Irving was, on account of this assertion, ex¬ cluded from the Scotch National Church. The subject in question also gave rise to dis¬ cussions among the theologians belonging to the evangelical school of Geneva. See Dor - ner , Appendix, p. 530 ss. ; Baur , Versohnungslehre, p. 684; and Preiswerk, Lettre addressee a MM. les membres du Comite de la Societe evangelique de Geneve, 1837 (Ger¬ man and French) ; Evangelisclie Kirchenzeitung, xxi. p. 433 ss. [On Menken, see Leben u. Wirken, von Dr. 0. II Gildemeister, 2 Thle., 1860, and comp. J. Muller's review in Deutsche Zeitschrift, Jan., 1861, p. 24 sq. A new ed. of Menken’s works, 1858-9 ; he was bom at Bremen, May 29, 1768, died June, 1, 1831.] The old scholastic inquiry, how far the incarnation was conditioned by the sin of Adam (see above, § 182, Note 2) has also been revived by the modern theology and investigated anew. See Julius Muller , (against Dorner ), whether the Son of God would have become man, if the human race had remained sinless, in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. Christl. Wis- senschaft, 1850, No. 40-42 [also 1853. Comp. Florke, Die Menschwerdung Gottes ab- gesehen von der Siinde, in Zeitschrift f. d. lutherische Theologie, 1854. — In England Trench has advocated the view of an incarnation even without the fall. See The Theory of an Incarnation without a Fall, in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, Jan., 1861.] § 300. THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. Baur, Lehre von der Versohnung, p. 478 ss. As the Pietists had, during the preceding period, lowered the juridical idea of satisfaction, so the doctrine of atonement was re¬ presented by Zinzendorf in its internal connection with the Christian life, as the essence of Christianity. At the same time he gave it a more sensuous aspect than it had, either in the theory of Anselm, or in the theological system of the old Lutherans, but which was im¬ plied in the phraseology of the mystics.1 On the other hand, Con¬ rad Dippel and Swedenborg rejected, on the basis of a free, critical mysticism, the ecclesiastical doctrine of satisfaction altogether.2 It was also attacked by the rationalist. After Tollner had called forth a spirit of inquiry in other directions, and also by combating the received doctrine of the active obedience of Christ (in opposition to Ch. W. F. Walcli ),3 the entire host of those who advocated the so- called enlightenment of the age, opposed the church doctrine as unprofitable and dangerous to true morality.4 Other theologians undertook its defence, some holding more, others less rigid opinions concerning it. Here too, Kant introduced a new series of discuss¬ ions, by pointing out, in connection with his doctrine concerning original evil, the necessity of a restoration of the human nature ; hut he assigned only a symbolical and moral significance to the death of Christ.6 The rationalists proper treated the subject from a more § 300. The Doctrine of Atonement. 497 negative point of view than Kant, losing sight of the symbolical in the' merely moral.7 On the other hand, De Wette brought the symbolical more prominently forward in peculiar aspects.8 Sclilei- ermacher connected the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings and per¬ fect obedience of Christ, with his sinlessness and the doctrine of his priestly office, hut separated between the substitution and the satis¬ faction, so as to represent Christ's sufferings alone as vicarious, hut not as making satisfaction, and his obedience as making satisfaction, but not as vicarious.9 The adherents of the speculative school re¬ garded the death of the God-man as the abolition of his existence in a different mode of being from his primitive state [ das Auflieben des Andersseins ], and the necessary return of the life of God, that had assumed a finite form, into the sphere of the infinite.10 Some of the strict supernaturalists, Hasenkamp , Menken , Stier , also found fault with the theory of Anselm, and endeavoured to substitute for it another scheme, which they thought more in accordance with the doctrine of Scripture.11 But other theologians espoused the cause of Anselm, and, so far from rejecting his doctrine as useless, sought to develope it more fully in the same spirit.12 1 Comp. 278. In opposition to Zinzendorf, Bengel, nbi supra, p. 81 ss., p. 89, expressed himself as follows .’/‘The United Brethren attach almost exclu¬ sive importance to imagination, and care little about the understanding.” P. 90 : “Therefore they do not cease to talk of blood, wounds, the prints of the nails, the holes in his side, the smell of his corpse, etc., and frequently use the word lamb in an indiscreet manner. .Such images of scourges, the cross, etc., are calculated to produce an impression upon the natural senses and affec¬ tions, especially in the case of the illiterate, but they constitute neither the whole thing, nor its principal part.” P. 123 : “ He who knows the nature of the human mind, cannot approve of those who, in their thoughts and dis¬ courses, select one single article from among the whole treasure of wholesome doctrine, upon which they constantly dwell, and expect others to do the same. This leads to vain and insipid talk. By means of arbitrary, forced, and ex¬ aggerated meditations about the blood of Christ, they would fain bring us back to mere nature.” P. 124 : “If any one had a watch and should take away from it, piece by piece, the parts which he thinks may be dispensed with, because they do not point out the hour, the hand itself would soon be¬ come of no use to him. He that takes away all the parts of any thing destroys the whole. To take in pieces is to destroy.” P. 126 : “ Many make of the blood of Christ an opium, by which they bring themselves and others into doubt as to what is right and wrong.” [Comp. Yon der Goltz, Bengel’s Theologische Bedentung in Jalirb. f. deutsche Theol., 1861. j 2 Dippel agreed with the mystics in regarding the internal life of Christ as containing the redeeming principle, in opposition to those who laid prin¬ cipal stress upon his external sufferings. In his view, the death of Christ is a type of that death which the old man must suffer in us. Christ did not deliver us from chastisements, but taught us how to bear them, that they 498 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. may serve to turn our minds from earthly things. Comp. Watch, Einleitung Religionsstreitigkeiten, ii. p. 718 ss., v. p. 998 ss. Baur , 1. c., p 473 ss. Concerning the relation in which this doctrine stands to that of the Socinians, see also Baur , 1. c. — According to Stvedenborg , Christ’s sufferings on the cross were the last temptation which he had to resist, in order to obtain the victory over the kingdom of Satan (i. e. hell) ; his human nature was, at the same time glorified by these sufferings, i. e. united with the divine nature of the Father. See Divine Revelation, i. p. 36 ss., and other passages. 3 Comp. Ch. G. F. Watch , De Obedientia Christi activa Commcntatio, Gott., 1755. J. G. Tollner , Der thatige Gehorsam Jesu Christi, Bresl., 1768 : this treatise is to be compared with his Vermischte Aufsatze, ii. 2, p. 273, in which he defends the orthodox doctrine of Christ’s passive obedience, and its practical utility, in opposition to Taylor and the Socinians. Comp. Baur , p. 478 ss. Ernesti , in the Neue Theologisclie Bibliothek, vol. ix., p. 914 ss. (this is rather about, than against Tollner). He also thinks that the distinction between obedientia activa et passiva, which is only calculated to produce confusion, ought long ago to have been given up ; but “ people do not like to tune an instrument in a different key, lest the strings should break .” He therefore undertakes to defend, at the sacrifice of philosophical exacti¬ tude, the assailed doctrine (p. 492). For further particulars, and the works in reply, see Baur , p. 504. 4 Steinbart , Eberliard , Bahrdt, Henke , Loffler , and others; see Baur , p. 505-530. 5 Among the advocates of the scriptural doctrine of redemption (but not of the theory of Anselm), Herder takes the most prominent place as regards truly spiritual views. (See his Erlauterungen zum Neuen Testament, p. 51- 56, and his Von Religion, Lehrmeinungen und Gebrauchen, Abhandlung 7 : comp, also his Dogmatik, p. 212 ss.). Herder endeavored especially to maintain the religious aspect of this doctrine instead of the juridical ; on the contrary, several modern advocates of the latter theory ( e . g. Michaelis, Stoi'r , and partly also Seiler ), adhered to the idea of Grotius, that the design of Christ’s death was to set before us an example of punishment (comp. § 268, note 9), with which however they connected some other representa¬ tions. Thus Storr supposed that the death of Christ exerted a reacting in¬ fluence upon himself, by elevating him to a higher state of moral perfection : Yon dem Zweck des Todes Jesu, p. 664, quoted by Baur, p. 544 ss. — Do- derlein, Morus , Knapp, Schwarz and Fein hard,* regarded the death of * All the various objects of Christ’s death are surveyed in their connection by Reinhard with logical precision, § 101. He admits that this doctrine has been corrupted by numer¬ ous false additions, by which thinking men might be induced to regard it with sus¬ picion; hence he does not approve of the opinion, that the wrath of God against sinful men rendered such a sacrifice necessary, and was, as it were, only appeased by the blood of Christ. He also rejects other ideas connected with the ecclesiastical doctrine and essential to its integrity. And at last he contents himself with the view, that the death of Christ was a solemn declaration that God will be merciful to sinners. “ God thus appears as a loving father, who is willing to grant pardon to sinners, but also as a just and wise father, who, far from exhibiting any unseasonable and improper tenderness, will im¬ plant in the minds of the children whom he pardons, a most vivid aversion to their former sins, and teach them by an example [Grotius], the dreadful consequences that attend the violation of his laws, and the misery which they themselves have deserved.” § 300. The Doctrine of Atonement. 499 Jesus as a solemn confirmation on the part of God of his willingness to par¬ don sin. Generally speaking these supernaturalists did not strictly adhere to the definitions of the symbolical books, and only admitted that which they thought could be proved by the plain words of Scripture. Nevertheless they did not wholly reject the theory of accommodation, especially as applied to God. See JBaur, p. 547 ss. 6 Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, p. 87 ss. Accord¬ ing to Kant, man must, after all, deliver himself. A substitution, in the proper sense of that word, cannot take place. It is impossible that liabilities should be transmissible like debts (p. 88). Neither does the reformation of the heart pay off former debts. Thus man would still have to expect an infinite punishment on account of the infinite guilt which he has contracted. Nevertheless the extinction of guilt is possible. For inasmuch as, in conse¬ quence of the opposition ( antinomy ) existing between moral perfection and external happiness, he who amends his conduct has to undergo the same sufferings as he who perseveres in his evil course, and the former bears those sufferings with a worthy heart for the sake of virtue, he willingly submits to them as the punishment due the old man for his former sins. In a physical aspect he continues the same man, but in a moral aspect, he has become a a new man ; thus the latter suffers in the room of the former. But that which thus takes place in man himself, as an internal act, is manifested in the person of Christ (the Son of God) in a visible manner, as the personified idea ; that which the new man takes upon himself, while the old man is dying, is represented in this representative of mankind as the death which he suffered once for all (comp. p. 89 ss.). Nor can, in the opinion of Kant, any external expiation (not even that of the Son of God as our ideal repre¬ sentative) supply the lack of our own self-improvement (p. 96 and 163). — Concerning those theologians who adopted the principles of Kant, such as Tief trunk, (Susskind), Staudlin , Ammon , and others, see Baur , 1. c. — The theory of Kant was modified by Krug , in his Widerstreit der Vernunft mit sich selbst, in der Versohnungslehre dargestellt und aufgelost, Ztillichau, 1802, (Gesammelte Schriften, i. Abtheilung : Theologische Scliriften, vol. i., 1830, p. 295 ss.). See Baur , p. 589 ss. 7 Wegscheider , p. iii., c. ii., § 142, reduces the design of Christ’s death to this : Per religionis doctrinam a Christo propositam et ipsius morte sancitam hominibus, dummodo illius praeceptis omni, quo par est, studio obsequantur, veram monstrari viam et rationem, qua, repudiatis quibusvis sacrificiis aliis- que caerimoniis placandi numinis divina caussa institutis, vero Dei ej usque praeceptorum amore ducti Deo probari possint. Attamen (continues he) ne animis fortioribus bene consulendo imbecilliores offendamus , sententiam de morte Jesu Christi expiatoria, ipsorum scriptorum ss. exemplo, etiam xymbo- lica quadam ratione adumbrare licebit, ita ut mors Christi proponatur vei tamquam symbolum, quo sacrificia qualicunque sublata sint, ac reconciliatio hominis cum Deo significata et venia peccatornm cuivis vere emendato so- lenmi ritu confirmata, etc. He uses very strong language in opposition to the ecclesiastical doctrine (which he caricatures) : Omnino vero doctores caveant, ne conscientine improborum, imprimis morti propinquorum, quasi veternum obducant nimium jactando vim sanguinis Christi expiatoriam, quo 500 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Deus Molochi instar, piaculi innocentis quippe sanguinem sitientis, placatui sistatur. (Comp. Bengel , above, note 1, and Reinhard , note 5). On the ra« tional supernaturalistic theory of Schott and Bretschneider , comp. Baur , p. 608 ss. 8 In his Commentatio de Morte Christi expiatoria, Berol., 1813 (reprinted in his Opuscula, Berol., 1830). The views propounded in that treatise are completed and corrected in the latter writings of De Wette (comp, the pre¬ face to his Opuscula). Religion und Theologie, p. 253 : “ We do not think like many modern theologians, that the doctrine of atonement is a useless or even pernicious remnant of Judaism in Christianity. . . .we regard it (as grasped by the feelings) as an aesthetic religious symbol which exerts the most beneficial influence upon the pious mind . The consciousness of guilt is the religious sentiment of submission, by which we humble ourselves be¬ fore God, and through which we obtain peace. As all ideas have their his¬ torical and personal manifestation in Christ, so too this idea of redemption, which surpasses all others, in order that the entire life of mankind might be reflected in him. . . .In the death of Christ, which is the greatest proof of his love, we see displayed both the magnitude of our depravity, and the victory over it.” Comp, his Dogmatik, § 73, a and b. The symbolical in¬ terpretation of Christ’s death adopted by De Wette differs from that of Kant (and Wegscheider), in addressing itself to the feelings of man, and thus making the appropriation of that event a necessary act on the part of every one, inasmuch as religion itself has* its root in those feelings. On the other hand Kant regarded the death of Christ as a symbol designed to assist the understanding (as a needful aid for those who require a symbolical re¬ presentation of abstract ideas). 9 According to Schleiermacher , the redeeming and atoning principle is not the single fact that Christ died, but a vital union with him. (In this union he recognizes a mystical element, which he distinguishes from the magical as well as the empirical, assigning to it an intermediate place.) By means of this vital union we appropriate to ourselves Christ’s righteousness (his obedience unto death) ;* this appropriation, however, is not to be con¬ founded with the mere external theory of vicarious satisfaction. But inas¬ much as this single being represents the totality of believers, he may be rather called our saiisfaction-maJcing substitute. Comp, his Christlicher Glaube, ii. p. 103, ss., p. 128, ss. Banr, 614, ss. [According to Schleier¬ macher our reconciliation consists in our reception into the common life of Christianity, and sharing its common spirit. But since this life exists only in the finite form of an historical process, there is no absolute reconciliation, no unity with God. Baur , Dogmengesch., 287.] In opposition to Schleier¬ macher, Steudel defended the orthodox doctrine, see Baur , p. 642. — Nitzsch , following Schleiermacher, endeavored (System der christlichen Lehre, p. 238-248), to assign a more definite significance to Christ’s passive obedience, which in the opinion of Schleiermacher, is only the crown of his active obe¬ dience. He made a distinction between reconciliation and expiation ( icaraX - Xayrj and iXaoyog). § « Schleiermacher rejected the phrase that Christ fulfilled the law ; he only fulfilled the Divine will, p. 134-136. § 300. The Doctrine of Atonement. 501 16 Fichte , Anweisung zum seligen Leben, especially the fifth Lecture, p. 124, ss. ; the ninth and tenth, p. 251, ss. Baur , p. 691, ss. Schelling , Methode des akademischen Studiums, § 299, note 8). Comp. Blasche, das Bose; etc., p. 304, ss. Hegel, Keligionsphilosophie, Vol. ii. p. 246, ss., p. 249 : “God is dead: this is the most dreadful idea, that all that is eternal, all that is true, is no more — that the negation itself is in God ; the highest sorrow, the consciousness of perfect inability to help oneself, the giving up of all that is higher, is connected with this idea. But the process does not stop here ; on the contrary, a change takes place — viz., God preserves himself in this process, which thus becomes the death of death. God rises again to life, and thus turns to the opposite.”. . . . P. 251 : “ It is infinite love, that God identifies himself with that which is foreign to him, in order to destroy it. This is the import of Christ’s death.” P. 253 : “ The phrase : God him¬ self is dead, occurs in a Lutheran hymn ; this means, that the human, the finite, the frail, the negative, itself contains a divine principle, is in God himself; that the being- Another [ das Andersein ], the finite, the nega¬ tive, is not without God, does not prevent the unity with God,” etc. — [What in Schleiermacher takes place only within the sphere of conscious¬ ness and history, becomes in Hegel the absolute process of God, or of the spirit. It is presupposed, that the antagonism in itself is abolished. This is what makes up the whole historic course of the Godman. In him, as in an individual, is represented what belongs to the very nature of God or of the spirit, viz., that it must become external to itself, become another, become nature, be individualised ; and also be one (united) with itself, in this dirern- tion. The transient, external history of the Godman, his death and resurrec¬ tion must be spiritualized, as the process of the finite spirit subduing the limits and frailties of its natural existence, and reconciling itself with its real nature. JBaur, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 387-8.] Comp. Baur , 1. c. p. 712, ss., and his Christliche Gnosis, p. 671, ss. — Daub, Theologumena (quoted by Baur, p. 696, ss.) : “ The world cannot by itself render satisfac¬ tion to God ; God alone possesses a nature which can make satisfaction, or reconcile. As God, rendering satisfaction to God, he is the Son ; as he to whom satisfaction is made, the Father ; but both are in themselves One ; the atonement belongs to the nature of God, and is as eternal as the crea¬ tion and preservation. God from eternity sacrifices himself for the world ; or, God the Father commands God the Son to sacrifice himself for him, and make satisfaction to him. Accordingly, inasmuch as God making satisfaction puts himself in place of the world, this satisfaction is vicarious, and active as well as passive. God making reconciliation elevates the world to absolute necessity, and is thus at the same time its creator and preserver, or the cause of its absolute reality and liberty.” — Marheineke , Dogmatik, § 227-247 (quoted by Baur, p. 718, ss.) : “By the reconciliation of the world with God through God, we understand that the Divine Being, one with himself and with the world, makes the transition through the corruption of the world, and destroys it. God, as the being who is from eternity sufficient to himself, is also the being who from eternity makes satisfaction to himself. But God can make satisfaction only as God-man, in whom reconciliation is possible, inasmuch as his human nature is not essentially different from the * 502 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Divine. The satisfaction made by the God-man is vicarious, since he, in making reconciliation, represents the world. This implies a twofold state¬ ment ; first, that the world, in its state of corruption, cannot make satisfac¬ tion to God ; and, secondly, that the world, in its truth and reality, as human nature, or in its true and holy principle, is represented by the person of the One Man who is the representative of all men, and thus the universal man, though he be but one individual.” — Us ter i, Paulinischer Lehrbegriff, p. 133 : “The incarnation of the Son of God, who is begotten of the original ground of all things (the Father), is the reconciliation of the finite with the infinite, the created with the primal ground of being, the temporal with the eternal. The incarnate Son of God, by his death, returns from the sphere of the finite, created, and temporal, to that of the infinite, uncreated, and eternal, as the Spirit which is now reigning in the finite, and unites it eternally with God.” 11 Klaiber (quoted by JBaur, p. 648), and especially Hasenkamp , (both the father and the son), Menken (a pastor in Bremen), Collenbusch in Barmen, and Rudolph Stier. All these agreed in rejecting the idea of a conflict between the love and justice of God (Hasenkamp and Menken, in particular, expressed themselves in strong language on this point) ; and in regarding the divine love as the true principle of redemption, but differed on some minor points ( e . g. Stier retains the idea of the divine wrath.) For further particulars see Baur , p. 656 ss., where the literature is also given. Comp. Krug , Die Lehre des Dr. Collenbusch, Elberfeld, 1846, p. 44. 13 To this class belong the author of an essay published in the Evangeli- sche Kirchenzeitung, 1834 ; Geschichtliches aus der Versohnungs- und Ge- nugthuungslehre (see Baur , p. 672 ss. and Goschel , Zerstreute Blatter aus den Hand- und Htilfsacten eines Juristen, etc.) ; the latter especially de¬ fended the juridical aspect of the doctrine in question, which had given offence to many others. Comp. Tholuck’s literarischer Anzeiger, 1833, p, 69, ss. ; Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 1834, p. 14 ; Baur , p. 682 ss. — The . controversy has entered into a new phase, in the Lutheran Church, in con¬ sequence of the positions taken by Hofmann of Erlangen, in his Schriftbeweis, and in the Zeitschrift fur Protest, und Kirche, March, 1856 — deviating from strict orthodoxy in respect to “the vicarious satisfaction.” Philippi replied in the preface to the second edition of his commentary to the Romans ; and in the tractate, “Herr Dr. Hofmann gegenuber der lutherisclien Versohn-- ungs- und Rechtfertigungslehre,” Frankf., 1856; and Schmid in his “Dr. von H’s., Lehre von der Versohnung,” Nordl., 1856. In rejoinder Hofmann, Schutzschriften fur eine neue Weise, alte Wahrlieit zu lehren, Nordl., 1856. [Four Parts, 1856-9.] Comp. Ebrard in the Allgem. Kirchenzeitung, Oct. 1856. [See also Ebrard, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthung in der heiligen Schrift begriindet, Konigsb., 1857. G. Thomasius , Das Be- kenntniss der lutherischen Kirche von der Versohnung, und die Versohnungs- lehre Dr. C. K. von Hofmann’s. Mit einen Vorwort von Dr. Th. Harnack, Erlangen, 1857. Delitzsch in the Appendix to his commentary on Epistle to Hebrews. Bodemeyer, Zur Lehre d. Versohnung, 1858. The Vorwort to the Evang. Kirchenzeitung, 1858, against Hofmann. Gess, Zur Lehre d. Versohnung, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theoh, 1858, pp. 713-788, on An- 503 § 301. Justification. Grace. i selm’s doctrine, etc. A. Schweizer , Lehre des Paulus vom erlosenden Tode, etc., in Stud, und Kritiken, 1858 ; and Baur in reply, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1859. WeizsdcTcer gave a review of the recent controversy in his article, Um was handelt es sich in dem Streite liber die Versohnungslehre, in Jalirb. f. deutsche Theol., 1858, pp. 114-188. Schneider , The Lutheran Doctrine of Christ’s Vicarious Death, transl. in Brit, and Foreign Evang. Re¬ view, 1861, from the Studien und Kritiken, I860.] [In several recent English works, the lift -theory is advocated, in distinc¬ tion from the satisfaction-theory : e. g. by Maurice (Doct. of Sacrifice, 1854), reply by Candlish of Edinb. ; John McLeod Campbell , The Nature of the Atonement, Camb., 1826 ; Jas. 13. JBrown , The Divine Life in Man ; Henry Solly , Doctrine of Atonement by the Son of God, 1861. Comp, also Wil¬ liam Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ; the Bampton Lectures, for 1853. E. Mellor , The Atonement, its Relation to Pardon, 2d ed., 1860. Jc C. Macdonnell, Six Discourses on Doctrine of Atonement (Univ. Dublin), 1858- A. Robertson , Hist, of the Atonement Controversy in connection with the Secession Church (Scotland: Morisonianism). On the controversies in the United States, see above, § 285, d, e. Comp, also Albert Barnes , The Atonement in Relation to Law and Moral Government, 1859. Shedd , The Atonement a Satisfaction for the Ethical Nature of both God and Man, Bib. Sacra, 1860. — On the extent of the Atonement, see Richards' Lectures (1846), pp. 302-328 ; and Princeton Rev., 1856. — BushnelV s views in his God in Christ (1849), pp. 183-275, and Christ in Theology, 1851, 212, 330.] The doctrine of the Descensus a.d inferos was agreeable neither to the views of the ra¬ tionalists, nor to the modern supematuralists. The adherents of the speculative philosophy- regarded it as a mere symbolical expression, to indicate that, even in the most corrupted souls, there is still one entrance for the gospel of Christ. Compare the passages from the works of Reinhard , De Wette, and Marheineke , collected by Base , Dogmatik, p. 344. — The doctrine of the three offices of Christ was combated by Ernesti , in his Opuscula Theologica, p. 411 ss. Modern theologians (such as Schleiermacher) have revived it. Comp. Konig, Die Lehre von Christi Hollenfahrt, Frankf., 1842 : and especially, E. Gilder, Die Lehre von der Erscheinung Jesu Christi under den Todten, in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Lehre von den letzten Dingen, Bern., 1853. [On Giider, see Zeitschrift f. die lutherische Theologie, 1857, p. 391 sq. V. U MaywaMen, Tod, Todenreich, etc., Berl., 1854; transl., by J. F. Schon , Lond. 1856. J. Korber , Katholische Lehre von der Hollenfahrt Jesu Christi, Landshut, 1860. Holemann in Bibel Studien, 1861, pp. 89-129. — F. Huydekoper , Belief of First Three Centuries on Christ’s Mission to Underworld, Boston, 1854. The Intermediate State, by the late Duke of Manchester, Loud., 1856. J. Munscher in Bib. Sacra., 1859.] § 301 THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. (FAITH AND GOOD WORKS.) GRACE AND LIBERTY. PREDESTINATION. The orthodox view of the doctrine of atonement having been abandoned, the juridical idea of justification, as distinctly separated from that of sanctification, also lost its significance, and Protestant 504 Fifth Period. The Age of Griticism. theologians manifested a leaning to the Homan Catholic doctrine, in regarding both as different aspects of one and the same divine act.1 Kant claimed for man the power of amending himself by his own power of will, notwithstanding his theory of radical evil ;a hut he rejected, in accordance with the essential principles of Protestantism, all external and legal righteousness by works, or any merit based on the same.3 He also pointed out the importance of faith, but made a distinction between the statutory (historical) faith in the doctrines of the church, and the faith of religion (i. e. reason), and ascribed to the latter alone an influence upon morality.4 The same was the case with the rationalists in general, who have* sometimes been un¬ justly charged with giving countenance to the Roman Catholic doc¬ trine of righteousness by works, in connection with their Pelagian tendencies. The Pietists and Methodists retained the strict views of Augustine, though with various modifications.6 The adherents of the modern theology, too, have either defined the idea of liberty in the sense of Augustine rather than in that of Pelagius, or endeav¬ ored, from a higher point of view, to bring about a reconciliation between the two systems.7 Thus too the Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrine of predestination ,® despite the warning and threatening voice, which Herder had once raised against the hand that should again renew the strife,9 was acutely defended by Schleiermacher , who endeavored to remove all its offensive aspects.10 On the other hand, the advocates of its ruder form were led to pass a harsh and condemnatory sentence upon their opponents.11 Modern theology in general has endeavored to overcome the harshness of the dogma, without giving up its deeper significancy . 13 1 Henke maintained that it is indifferent whether emendatio precedes, or the pacatio animi ; Lineamenta, cxxiii. But such indifference could not last. More profound investigations contributed to bring about a higher union. Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. pp. 109, 110. Marheineke , Dogmatik, p. 301 : “The idea of justification must be defined in accordance with the spirit of Christian religion, as the union of the forgiveness of sins with the communication of love.” Comp, also Menken and Hahn (quoted - by Mohler , Symbolik, p. 151 — in reference to the tides formata). Hase, Dogmatik, p, 419-21. In modern times, however, the economy of redemp¬ tion as propounded by earlier theologians has been again defended (in oppo¬ sition to the Roman Catholic doctrine), in order to prevent its being refined away. See the work of Baur, in reply to Mohler, p. 235 ss. [The idea of faith, as merely receptive of God’s declaration of the forgiveness of sins was not in accordance with the spirit of the times, which gave an intense signifi¬ cancy to self-consciousness. In proportion as faith, instead of being viewed as a mere form, received definite contents, as a self-active principle, the an¬ tagonism between faith and works, and between Protestantism and Catholi¬ cism, became weaker.. Kant gave prominence to the moral ideal personified in Christ, ^chleiermacher to the participation in Christ’s perfection, through 301. Justification. Grace. 505 vital union with him ; Hegel to the subjective assurance of a reconciliation objectively ensured, i. e. to man’s knowledge of his oneness with the absolute spirit — for which Strauss substituted the concrete idea of humanity. Baur , Dogmengesch., 389-390. — In the Anglican literature, the works of Davenant , (1631), Bp. Bownam (1633), and O'Brien, Bp. of Ossory (against Bull) de¬ fended the Protestant doctrine, modified in the teachings of Bull , Water- land and Hooker. The views of the Oxford School in J. H. NewmaFs Lects. on Justif,, 1838. Comp. Wliately's Errors of Romanism : Heurtley's Barnp- ton Lectures, 1845 : Afcllvaine's Oxford Theology. — On the American dis¬ cussions, see Princeton Essays, voh i. ; Bu field on Finney , in Bibl. Repos., 1845; JBoyd in Presb. Quarterly, 1854; Stearns on Justification, 1853 ; Albert Barnes , How shall man be just with God? 1854; President Lord's Sermon on Justification, 1854. George Junkin , Treatise on Justif., 2d ed., 1850. See § 285, d , pp. 236, 244.] a In his Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Yernunft, p. 45 : “ That which man is in a moral aspect, depends on his own exertions. It must be the effect of his own free will, for otherwise he could not be respon¬ sible for it, and accordingly, would be neither morally good, nor morally bad. P. 46 : Notwithstanding the fall, the command is given : W Qmicst be better men; hence we must be able to be so.... At the same time it must be presupposed that a germ of good has remained in its original purity, that it could neither be destroyed nor corrupted ; surely this germ cannot be self- love,” etc. P. 53 : “ There is one thing in our soul, which, if we attentively examine, we cannot cease to consider writh the highest wonder, a win¬ der which is not only legitimate, but also serves to elevate our souls. This one thing is the original moral nature of man ” .... P. 58 : “ According to moral religion (an appellation which, of all the public forms of religion, can alone be applied to Christianity), it is a fundamental principle that every one must use all possible efforts to become a new man” (Luke xix. 12-16). Comp, his Lehre vom Kategorischen Imperativ (in the Kritik der prakti- schen Yernunft). 3 Ibid., p. 52 : “The moral culture of man must not commence with the amendment of his conduct , but with a complete change in his mode of think¬ ing , and with the basis of his character .” (Comp, the distinction which he made between legality and morality , Kritik der praktischen Yernunft, p. 106.) 4 Ibid., p. 157 ss. Of course by religion he understands the religion of reason, into which historical faith must gradually pass over (p. 169). Con¬ cerning divine grace (according to the principles of the Kantian philosophy), comp. Tief trunk , iii., p. 132 ss. ; concerning the effects of grace, see p. 166 ss. By saving faith he understands (p. 204), 1. That man himself does all he can in order to obtain salvation ; 2. That he leaves the remaining part to the wisdom of God. 6 Bengel bitterly complained of the Pelagian tendencies of his age ; men had become increasingly strangers to the effects of grace, and that to such an extent, that Pelagius, if he could rise again in our day, would undoubt¬ edly be dissatisfied with the present Pelagianism. See Burk , p. 238. The rationalists and the prosaic tendency of the age took offense principally at 506 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. the supernatural effects of grace : see J. J. Spalding , Ueber den Werth der Gefiilde, 1764. J. L. Z. JunJcheim , Von dem Uebernaturlichen in den Gnadenwirkungen. For further particulars see JBretschneider , Entwurf, p. 677 ss., and comp. Wegscheider , § 151 ss., especially § 161 (De unione mystica). The rationalists acknowledged no other practical Christianity than that which manifests itself in external actions, and for the most part misunderstood the true nature of mysticism, the dynamic in the doctrine concerning faith and its internal effects. On the other hand, the Christian rationalists (in distinction from the deists) always urged the importance of making the heart the source of our actions, and reject the lifeless works of the law; see Wegscheider , § 155, p. 542, in reference to the words of Luther : “ Good and pious works nevermore make a good and pious man, hut a good and pious man makes good works : the fruit does not bring forth the tree, but the tree brings forth the fruit.” ( Walch , xix., p. 1222 ss.) Comp. Staudlin , Dogmatik, p. 417, and others, quoted by Hase , Dogmatik, p. 419. 6 The differences obtaining among the pietists and Methodists had, for the most part, reference to the struggles of repentance, to the questions, whether grace may be lost or not, whether it is possible to attain moral perfection in this present life, to the unio mystica cum Deo, etc. Thus Wesley (1740) differed from the United Brethren in reference to the necessity of good works, and the various degrees of faith ; see Southey (translated by Krum - macher ), i. p. 298, ss. — Wesley and Whitefield separated from each other, because the former asserted the universality of grace, while the latter advo- cated the particularistic theory; see ibid. p. 330, ss. — The Pietists charged the United Brethren -with a want of zeal in the work of sanctification. — Bengel charged Zinzendorf with Antinomianism ; Abriss der Bruderge- meinde, p. 128, ss. In opposition to the doctrine of spiritual union (as the United Brethren understood it), he expressed himself as follows, p. 145 : “ This doctrine has the appearance of the greatest spirituality, but in reality it offers richer food to the flesh than any mere man of the world can at¬ tain unto.” Comp, on the other side, Idea Fidei Fratrum, § 118, § 149, ss., § 169, ss. — According to Swedenborg (in opposition to the doctrine of the church, and to the Moravians), the imputation of the merit of Christ is a word without meaning, unless we understand by it the forgiveness of sins after repentance ; for nothing belonging to the Lord can be imputed to man, but he (the Lord) can promise salvation after man has repented, i. e. after - he has seen and acknowledged his sins, and if he afterwards, from love to the Lord, abstain from them. This condition being fulfilled, the promise of salvation is made to man in such a manner that man cannot be saved by his own merit or his own righteousness, but by the Lord, who alone has fought with and overcome hell, etc. See Divine Revelation, i. p. 47. Ibid.: “ There is a Divine faith, and a human faith ; those who repent possess Divine faith, but those who do not repent, and nevertheless believe in impu¬ tation, possess human faith.” 7 De Wette considered the subject in question in a twofold aspect, each of which may, in a certain sense, be justified — (viz. the religious, and the ethical aspect, that of faith and that of reason) ; see his Religion und The- ologie, p. 242, ss. (comp, his Dogmatik, § 76, ss.). Hegel used the word § 301. Justification. Grace. 507 liberty in a higher sense (contrasted with the liberty of choice) — viz., as liberty which has its origin in union with God, so that in one respect all is grace, in another all is liberty, the actings of God appear ours, and vice versa: see bis Philosophic der Religion, i. p. 157. Hase, Hutterus Redi- vivus, p. 274. For a further theological discussion, comp. Schleiermaclier , Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii. § 86-93, § 106-112; Nitzsch , System der christlichen Lehre, p. 138, ss. [Comp. Julius Muller , Lehre von der Siinde, ii. 6-48 (on formal and real freedom), and 89-151 (transcendental and empirical freedom) ; see also his representation of Augustine’s views, i. 45, sq. — Kantfs views on freedom are reproduced in Henry Solly , The Will, Divine and Human, 1856 (comp. Am. Theol. Rev., 1860, p. 542). — On Edwards on the Will, and the American discussions, see § 285, A] 8 For a considerable time controversy respecting this doctrine had re¬ posed. It was revived in the course of the eighteenth century by the work of Joachim Lange ; Die evangelische Lehre von der allgemeinen Gnade, Halle, 1732. J. J. Waldschmidt , a pastor in Hesse, defended the Calvin- istic doctrine in opposition to Lange, 1735. For the further progress of this controversy see Schlegel , Kirchengeschichte des 18. Jahrhunderts, ii. 1, p. 304 ; Von Einem , ii. p. 323. 9 In his work: Yom Geist des .Christenthums, p. 154 (Dogmatik, p. 234) : “ Fortunately our age has consigned to oblivion all these unscriptural and lifeless errors, as well as the entire controversy respecting various gifts, which was carried on in a most unchristian spirit, and may the hand wither that shall ever bring it back I” (Herder agreed with his contempo¬ raries in their low estimate of Augustine and the doctrine concerning the workings of grace ; for further passages comp, his Dogmatik, p. 230, ss.) 10 In his essay : Ueber die Lehre von der Erw&hlung (Theologische Zeit- schrift, herausgegeben von Schleiermacher , Dr Wette , und Lucke, part i. p. 1, ss.) On the other side : De Wette , Ueber die Lehre von der Erwahlung, etc. (Theologische Zeitschrift, part ii. p. 83, ss.). Bretschneider (in the Oppositionsschrift von Schroter und Klein , iv. p. 1-83). Schleiermacher , Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii. § 117-120. The milder aspect which he gave to the doctrine in question consists in regarding election, not as referring to the lot of man after death, but to the earlier or later admission to fellowship with Christ. The literature is given by Bretschneider , Entwurf, p. 677, ss. [Schleiermacher’s Essay on Election, transl. by L. Woods , in Lit. and Theol. Review. — Schleiermacher maintained the general Calvinistic doctrine, but “ abolished its dualism by the idea of a universal world-organism, which for the completion of the race demands in the individual every grade of spirit¬ ual capacity ; also looking to the conversion of all in a future life.” Strauss says, that he brought the doctrine out of the theological sphere into the philosophical, and really made the question to be, whether there could be an independent human agency alongside of the supreme divine causality. See Jdaur , p. 392. — Comp. Geo. Stanley , Faber, Primitive doctrine of Election (“ecclesiastical individualism”), 2d ed. 1842. J. B. Mozley , Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, Lond., 1855.] 11 The views of Abr. Booth advanced in his work, The Reign of Grace (translated into German by Krummacher , Elberf., 1831), were combated by ,508 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. J P . Lange , Lelire der heiligen Schrift von der freien und allgemeinen Gnad-e Gottes, ibid., 1831. — On the Methodist controversy see note 6 [and Abel Stevens, Hist, of Religious Movement, etc., New York, 1859. On the Methodist Controversy in America — Fitch and Fisk — see Calvinistic Con¬ troversy, New York, 1853.] The doctrine of Predestination has found in Kohlbrugge a new defender, among the Reformed. 12 Comp. e. g. J. P. Lange , Dogmatik, ii. 956, sq., Martenson , 338 — polemi¬ cal against Sclileiermacher. Ebrard , i. 120, 339, 356, sq. ii. 688 sq. (making a distinction between the theological and the anthropological question). See also E. W. Krummacher , Des Dogma von der Gnadenwahl, Duisburg, 1856. \Hebart , Biblische Lehre von der Predestination, in Zeitschrift f. d. luther- iscbe Theologie, 1858. — The question has been discussed between Schweizer and Ebrard on the relation of the dogmatic system of the Reformed Church to necessarianism (determinism) ; the former represented this doctrine as the life of the Reformed system, in his Glaubenslehre d. Ref. Kirche, etc. ; see Ebrard , Das Verhaltniss d. ref. Dogmatik, etc., 1849 ; and Schweizer in in the Tubingen Zeitschrift, 1851.] FOURTH DIVISION. THE CHURCH. THE SACRAMENTS. ESCHATOLOGY. § 302. THE DOCTRINES CONCERNING THE CHURCH. As tlie spirit of worldliness gained ground, it could hardly he expected that a clear sense of the existence and functions of the Church would he retained. The perverted Protestantism of the so-called illumination period thought that every approach to an in¬ dependent development of ecclesiastical life, in opposition to the state, had a hierarchical tendency. After the chancellor Pfaff, in Wir- temherg, had defended what is called the collegial system in opposi¬ tion to the territorial system,1 the latter was advocated by those who regarded the Church as an institution which the state may use for disciplinary purposes, or, who at the utmost, admitted the “ utility of the ministry/” Considering the general want of ecclesiastical life, it cannot be a matter of surprise that a growing desire after Christian fellowship manifested itself among individuals, which led to the formation of smaller churches within the Church universal, such as the Society of the United Brethren.3 Others, e. g. Sweden¬ borg. , despairing of the present, established the Church of the New J erusalem , in the ideal world in which they lived.4 Kant alone rose above the narrow-mindedness of the friends of such illumination, by directing attention once more to the importance and necessity of a society based upon moral principles, or the establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth.6 But he rested satisfied with the merely moral aspect ; wrhile the true church can only be founded upon profound religious principles, which must have their origin in spiritual views of religion in general, and a more living Christology in particular. On this account modern theologians have come to discuss the doctrine concerning the Church even more fully than the reformers.6 The development of the Canon Law, and of ecclesias¬ tical government, kept pace with the development of the doctrine. On the one hand, church and state are entirely separated from each other, e. g in the United States of America7 (attempted also in the * 510 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Canton de Yaud, and in Scotland) ; on the other hand, some specu¬ lative theologians have sought to bring about a higher union of both in the state* others again take an intermediate position, asserting that church and state are distinguishable in idea, but practically must exert a living influence upon each other.9 — Puseyism advanced with new vigor the claim of the Church of England to superiority, on account of the episcopal succession from the days of the apostles.10 The Irvingites demanded a new apostolate, and the restitution of the offices of the apostolic church.11 Even in the New-Lutheran church, the idea of office has been emphasized in such a way as to awaken anew the fear of a heirarchy, and to call out strong oppo¬ sition.12 1 Pfaff do Originibus Juris ecclesiastici variaque ejusdera indole. Tiib., 1719, 4to; in 1720, published with a new essay, De Successione Episcopali. The church is a society, a collegium which has its own laws and privileges. The rights which princes possess in ecclesiastical matters are conferred upon them by the church (silently or expressly ?). See Schroc/ch , vii. p. 547, and Stahl , Kirchenrecht, p. 37, ss. On the other hand, the so-called territorial system first propounded by Thomasius (see § 256, note 4), was more fully developed by Just Henning Hohmer (died 1749) and others. 2 See Spalding , Yon der Natzbarkeit des Predigtamts. He was com¬ bated by Herder , in the Provinzialblatter. 8 Zinzendorf did not intend to found a sect, but to establish an ecclesiola in ecclesia • see Spangenberg, Idea Fidei Fratrum, p. 542: “The United Brethren consider themselves as a very small part of the visible church of our Lord Jesus Christ. .. .Since they hold the same doctrines as those of the Evangelical Church (set forth in the Confessio August.), they see no reason for separating from it. . . .Those are right who regard the congrega¬ tions of the United Brethren as institutions founded by our Lord Jesus Christ in his church, in order to present a barrier to the flood of corruption now breaking in upon doctrine and life. The opinion of those is well- founded who regard them as an hospital in which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only physician of our souls, has collected many of his poor and dis¬ eased followers to care for them, and that their wants may be supplied by his servants.” 4 Divine Revelation of Swedenborg, ii. p. 84 : “ The church is in man ; the church which is without man, is a church composed of many in whom the church is.” — The church is everywhere, where the word of God is rightly understood. — Swedenborg thinks that the church is everywhere typified in the old Testament. By the New Jerusalem spoken of in the book of Reve¬ lation he understands the new church as regards her doctrines (ibid., i., p. 132. The new doctrines hitherto concealed, but now revealed by Sweden¬ borg, constitute the new church, or the church of the New Jerusalem, pp. 138, 139, and in several other places. 6 In his Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Yernunft; third chap* § 302. The Doctrine Concerning the Church. 511 er, p. 119 ss., comp, the fourth chapter, concerning “Religion und Praffen- thum,” p. 211 ss. 8 In common with the rationalists, the adherents of formal supernaturalism lost the more profound insight into the nature of the church. Thus Rein* hard , treated of the church in a very external, desultory and negative manner, p. 614 ss. Comp. Rohr , Briefe liber den Rationalismus, p. 409 ss. (quoted by Hase , Dogmatik, p. 455). Wegscheider , Institutiones, § 185 ss. gives better definitions. — Schleiermacher returned to that view, according to which the church is a living organism (the body of Christ), and he viewed it in connection with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of fellow¬ ship ; see his Christliche Glaubenslehre, i., § 6, p. 35-40, § 22, p. 125 ss., ii., § 121 ss., § 125, p. 306 ss. Comp. Re Wette , Religion und Theologie, p. 167 ss. ; Dogmatik, § 94. Twesten , i., p. 107 ss. Nitzsch , p. 306 ss. — The adherents of the speculative philosophy regard the church “ as God existing in the congregation,” or, “ as the religious side of the state.” But the Gnos¬ tic distinction which they make between those who believe and those who know, would naturally prevent them from forming any just idea of the church. See Hegel , Philosophie der Religion, ii., p. 257 ss. Marheineke , Dogmatik, p. 320 ss. Strauss (Dogmatik, ii., p. 616) further explains the Hegelian view, as implying that philosophers should not be compelled to belong to any particular church, but thinks it very strange, that separa¬ tion from church-fellowship should be the result of a philosophical examina¬ tion. Comp. Biedermann , Die freie Theologie, p. 201 sq. — More recent doctrinal statements concerning the church, see in Lange, Dogmatik, ii. 1081 sq. — According to him the church “is the planting and development of the salvation and life of Christ in the social sphere,” and “ the typical com¬ mencement of the world’s transfiguration.” On the polarity of the church, as coetus Sanctorum, and mater fidelium, see Ebrard, 404 sq. ; on its com¬ pletion in the kingdom of Christ, ibid., 730 sq. [Separatism views the church only as the coetus Sanctorum ; its historical continuity is found in it as the mater fidelium. — The completion of the church will consist in the ex¬ clusion from it of all the wordly elements that remain, which can only be by a crisis. Ebrard, ubi supra.] — “ The Protestant church is a developing, but not a fully developed church ; it is the church of the future .” Schenkel , Protestantismus, iii. 202 sq. 7 This independence of the church in relation to the state is connected with the independence of the citizens in relation to the church, and to eccle¬ siastical institutions, and with the liberty of worship. Comp. Vinet , Memoire en Faveur de la Liberte des Cultes, Paris, 1826 (comp. Hagenbach, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1829, 2d part, p. 418). — On the Scotch National Church, and the disturbances in the Canton de Yaud, see Niedner, Kirchen- geschichte, 886. [Comte Agenor de Gasparin , Interets generaux du Pro- testantisme Francais, Paris, 1843. — On the Scotch Church, see § 285, c.] 8 R. Rothe, die Anfange der Christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung. 2 vol., Wittenb., 1837-45, Ethik, ii. 89 sq., 145 sq. : “As long as the single na¬ tional state has not completed its development as a state, the extent of the ethical communion of the people is not yet completely embraced in their religious fellowship ; that is, the political body (the State) does not include and swab 512 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. low up tlie religious comrauuions. In such a state of things there must of course be a church alongside of the state. Hut the church as a distinct body , must also recede and be dissolved, just in proportion as the state approximates to the perfection of its development .” [Comp. Gladstone, on Church and State : and § 285, b, p. 246. H. W. Wilberforce, Hist, of Erastianism, 1851. R. J. 'Wilberforce, Inquiry into Principles of Church Authority, Balt, ed., 1855. Pusey on Royal Supremacy, 1849. J. R. Pretyman , Church of England and Erastianism, 1854. Among English writers, Cole¬ ridge and Arnold approximate to the views of Eothe.] < 9 F. J. Stahl, die Kirchenverfassung nach Lehre und Recht der Protes- tanten, Erl., 1840. (Second Appendix.) 10 See the statements of the Oxford divines in the work of Weaver- Amtlior , p. 16 sq. Hook, Sermons on the Church Establishment : “ The only office to which the Lord has pledged his presence is that of the bishops, the suc¬ cessors of the first commissioned Apostles, and to the rest of the clergy, so far as they are sanctioned by the bishops and act under their authority.” Keble and Newman , in the Evangelical Magazine, p. 68 : “The gift of the Holy Spirit is preserved to the world only by the episcopal succession ; and to strive for communion with Christ by any other channel is to attempt what is impossible.” [On the Oxford School, see above, pp. 423, 426.] 11 They call themselves the Catholic ^Apostolic Church. Their offices are those of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. See Narra¬ tive of Events, affecting the Position and Prospects of the whole Christian Church, Lond., 1847. W. H. Darby , The Irvingites — in German by Poseck, Berl., 1850. A short sketch by Stockmeier, Irvingismus, Basel, 1850. [See above, § 285, note 6, p. 414.] 12 Lohe, Ivirche und Amt., Erlangen, 1851. Munchmeier, Sichtbare und unsichtbare Kirche, 1855. Kliefoth , Acht Bucher von der Kirche, Schwe¬ rin, 1854. Harless, Kirche und Amt., Stuttg., 1853. C. Lechler, Neutest. Lehre vom heiligen Amte, Stuttg., 1857. W. Preger , Die Geschichte vom geistlichen Amte, auf Grand der Rechtfertigungslehre, Nordling., 1857. See Palmer's article, Geistliche, in Herzog’s Realencyclop. [Delitzsch, Vier Bucher von d. Kirche, 1847. Julius Muller, Die unsichtbare Kirche, in Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1851. Hodge, in Princeton Review, 1853.] Several questions of a more practical nature, e. g. those concerning the rights of princes in matters of worship, the constitution of Synods, the presbyterian form of church govern¬ ment, the obligation of ministers to sign the symbolical books of the church to which they belong, the relation of the various denominations to each other, etc., have frequently been discussed in modern times. See the acts of the General Synod, held at Berlin, 1846 : the 18th and following sessions. In the Roman Catholic church a controversy was carried on between the Curialists and Episcopalians. Jansenism made its appearance in Germany as Febronianism (see Klee, Dogmengeschichte, i., p. 99). The French Revolution seemed to have annihilated the existence of the Church ; but it rose again with new vigor. Concerning its further devel¬ opment and the various politico-ecclesiastical systems, see the works on ecclesiastical his* tory and Canon Law. Respecting the conflicts to which the subject of mixed marriages, etc., gave rise, see ibid. ^ § 303. The Sacraments. 513 § 303. THE MEANS OF GRACE * THE SACRAMENTS. Protestants continue to hold the doctrine of two sacraments1 — viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The denominational differ¬ ences between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, to which the doc¬ trine of the Lord’s Supper had given rise, were still in existence at the commencement of the present period.3 But the position of the Socinians, that the sacraments are mere ceremonies, being in better accordance with the tendency of rationalism,3 the Lutheran theolo¬ gians gradually abandoned their former rigid views,4 so that, at last, the denominational differences were lost sight of, in consequence of the wider spread of indifferentism. Those only who had retained some idea of grace, continued to attach importance to the means of grace? The rationalists adopted in the main, the theory of Zwin- gle.6 Calvinism was more fully developed by the adherents of a mediating theology in particular, and served as the basis of the ecclesiastical union.7 The old Lutheran view, however, was also re¬ vived in its most rigid form, and adopted by many ;8 this was still more the case as modern philosophers interpreted it speculatively.® Anabaptist views concerning baptism have given rise to controver¬ sies in our own day.10 Inasmuch as the more unprejudiced of the Protestant theologians gradually admitted that infant baptism was not expressly commanded in Scripture, Schleiermacher and his fol¬ lowers endeavored to defend the ecclesiastical usage, by regarding the act of confirmation as a complement of that of baptism.11 The strict Lutherans still hold to the objective significancy of the sacra¬ ment of baptism in its full extent.12 The Puseyites make the con¬ nection between spiritual regeneration and water baptism to be essential.13 1 Augusti gave the preference to the threefold division into baptism, the Lord’s Suppler, and absolution, which he compared (an anti-climax) to the Trinity — (viz. baptism is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s Supper is that of the Son, and absolution is that of the Father as the supreme judge). See his System der christlichen Dogmatik, 2d edit., p. 278-281, Preface, p. 6; and his Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, p. 382. Karrer agreed with him ( Bertholt's Kritisches Journal, xii). Ammon (Summa Doctrinae, edit, iii., p. 251) would like to number, if it were suitable, the redditio animae in manus Domini, among the sacraments ; and Kaiser (Monogrammata, p. 224) held that confirmation and the laying on of hands are sacraments (see Augusti , Dogmengeschichte, 1. c.). — Gothe, from the aesthetic point of view, * On the Word of God, see above, § 291. 514 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. defended the Roman Catholic doctrine of seven sacraments (in his Aus mei- nem Leben, ii., p. 117 ss., Stuttg., 1829). — The Moravian brethren have introduced among themselves the ecclesiastical usages of the washing of feet, the kiss of charity, and the casting of lots, without regarding them as sacra¬ ments ; they attach, however, great importance to the first of these ; see Idea Fidei Fratrum, p. 548 ss. In addition to the Lord’s Supper, they also cele¬ brate the love-feasts. — As regards the idea of sacrament, several theologians took the ground that the term sacrament is not very judiciously chosen. See Storr , Doctrina Christiana, § 108 ss. Reinhard , p. 556 : “It would have been better, either not to introduce into systematic theology the term sacra¬ ment, which is used in so many senses, and does not once occur in Holy Writ, or to use it in the free and indefinite manner of the earlier church.” Comp. Schleiermacher , Christliche Glaubenslehre, vol. ii., p. 415 ss. p. 416: “ The common mode of commencing with this so called general idea, and explaining it, serves to confirm the erroneous opinion, that it is a proper doc¬ trinal idea, involving something essential to Christianity, and that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are of so much importance principally because this idea is therein realized.” — The Idea Fidei Fratrum treats only of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, wuthout discussing the idea of sacrament, p. 275 ss. See on the other side, Hase , Dogmatik, p. 529, and Schenkel (Protestantismus, i. 393 sq.), who gives prominence in express terms to the objective idea of sacrament. — Martensen (Dogmatik, 470) says that “the sacred pledges of the new covenant contain an actual bestowal of the nature and life of the risen Christ, who does not merely give redemption and completion to the spiritual, but also to the corporeal.” Ebrard , ii. 1, distinguishes the “ Word of God,” as a means of grace from the sacraments, in such a way as to make the former the instrumental cause of the converting (metanoetic) agency of the Holy Ghost ; and the sacraments, on the other hand, to be means of grace for the objective, regenerating ( avayevvav ) energy of the same spirit, considered as the Spirit of Christ. . 2 In the year 1714, L. Clu Sturm, former professor of mathematics in the university of Frankfort, who had seceded from the Lutheran to the Reformed Church, published his Mathematische Beweis vom Abendmahle, in which he (like Schwenkfeld, § 259, note 15), confounded the subject and the predicate of the words used by our Lord, by explaining, rovro as equivalent to tolovto. He was opposed by J. A. Fabricius , J. G. Reinbeck, F. Buddeus, and others. About the middle of the eighteenth century, Ch. August Heumans* himself a Lutheran, dared to prove, “ that the doctrine of the Reformed Church con¬ cerning the Lord’s Supper is correct and true.” His work did not so much lead Calvinists to engage in a controversy, as gave rise to dissensions among the Lutheran theologians themselves. See Schlegel, Kirchengeschichte des 18 Jahrhunderts, ii., p. 307 ss. Von Einem, p. 325 ss. 8 The writings of rationalists abounded in trivial matters even on litur¬ gical points. Thus K. R. Lange proposed (in Hufnagel’s liturgische Blat- * He held this view quietly as early as 1740, and avowed it, 1754, in his explanation of the New Testament (on 1 Cor., xi. 24); but it was even then suppressed before the publication of the work. He next wrote the above essay in 1762, which was not pub¬ lished, however, till after his death, 1764. 303. The Sacraments. 515 tern, vol. i.) the following formula for use at the administration of th« Lord’s Supper : “ Partake of this bread ! may the spirit of devotion bestow all his blessings upon you. Partake of a little wine ! Virtuous power is not in this wine, it is in you, in the divine doctrine, and in God.” See Kapp , Liturgische Grundsatze, Erl., 1831, p. 349. 4 Ernesti defended the Lutheran interpretation of the words used by our Lord on exegetical grounds (Opuscula Theologica, p. 135 ss.), but expressed his sorrow that many were more inclined to adopt that view, quae rationi hu- manse expeditior est et mollior. The supernaturalists Storr and Reinhardt, were satisfied with a more indefinite statement of the Lutheran doctrine [Storr, Doctrina Christiana, § 114 ; Reinhardt , p. 588). Knapp went so far as to say (vol. ii., p. 482) : “ The doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper should never have been made an article of faith, but have been con¬ fined to the theological problems.” Others, e. g. Hahn. Lindner , and Schwarz , endeavored to help the Lutheran doctrine, by introducing their own explanations. See Ease, Dogmatik, p. 583. 6 The Pietists and Moravian Brethren, retained the most firmly the idea of means of grace. The mystics gave prominence to the specific dynamic efficacy of the sacraments, and hesitated, in respect to the Lord’s Supper, to interpret the words of institution in a purely tropical sense. Thus Oetinger (Theologie, 345) : “We must be very cautious about perverting any word of the Holy Ghost, so as to make of it a merely metaphorical figure of speech. The fulness of the spirit is attenuated by thin and lean interpretations. A man with a good, sound heart feels more than can be expressed in words ; and so we must let the words stand in all their fulness.” See also his Lehr- tafel (in Auberlen, 408) : “As the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, bodily, it also imparts itself bodily to the water, blood and spirit, in baptism and the supper. For regeneration comes of spirit and water, both in crea- turely wise; Spirit is the causa materialis , not efficiens , — despite the scandal of philosophers about materialism.” Ibid., 373 (in Auberlen , 409) : “ Water and blood are penetrated with the fire of the Holy Ghost.” Evangel, i. 280 sq. (in Auberlen , 436) : “As it is by the invisible, everywhere diffused essence and substance of Christ, that the equally invisible power of the bread and the wine is made to nourish all men, although they be merely earthly men— so too must the new, unseen, inward man be nurtured and preserved by this self-same, everywhere present, substance and essence of Christ. We all have body and soul. The spirit from Christ’s body offers himself daily to all, that they may receive him into the essence of their body and soul, and^rans- form their mortal nature. The angels — they eat the bread of angels. The Israelites in the wilderness ate the manna ignorantly ; but Christ gives clear and full understanding (John vi).” On Oetinger’s positive relation to the Lutheran, and negative relation to the Reformed and Roman Catholic doc¬ trine, see Auberlen , 325, 336, 413, 426-28. On his position as to the early church, see p. 442 sq. 5 The rationalists differed among themselves. The strict Lutheran doc¬ trine was, of course, excluded. Mauy adopted what we may call the inter¬ mediate view of Zwingle ; others fell down into the Socinian theory and even lower, while some rose up as high as the Calvinistic scheme. Benjamin 516 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Hoadly, of the Anglican Church, a friend of the Arian, Samuel Clarke, defended the Socinian theory in his treatise : Of the Nature and End of the Sacra¬ ment of the Lord’s Supper. Lond., 1735. He was combated by Whiston , Waterland and Mill, defending the doctrine of the 39 Articles. See Schle - gel , 1. c. Von Einem , ii., p. 536, ii. 2, p. 751. — Henlce followed Schwenkfeld in the interpretation of the words used by our Lord, Lineamenta, cxxxvii., p. 250. — TieftrunTc adopted the view of Kant, that the design of the Lord’s Supper is to awaken and develope a spirit of cosmopolitan brotherhood ; see his Censur, p. 296 ss. (comp. Kant, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blos- sen Vernunft, p. 282). The better class of German rationalists explained the ordinance in its memorial and symbolical significance, in a becoming spirit, insisting on its profound moral import, and in accordance with the spirit of Zwingle. See especially D. Schulz , Die Lehre vom Abendmahl ; and com¬ pare Wegscheider, § 180, a. He regards the elements used in the Lord’s Supper not merely as signa significantia, but as signa exhibitiva ; and thus approximates to the Calvinistic view. 7 Schleiermacher , Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii., p. 139 ss., p. 388 ss. JDe Wette , Dogmatik, p. 93. JVitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, p. 317. Ebrard , Das Dogma von heiligen Abendmahl, Bd. ii., 785 sq. ; and his Dog¬ matik, 631 sq. Compare the article o i Julius Muller in Herzog’s Realency- clop. i. 21 sq. [See also the works referred to § 258, p. 308.] 8 Scheibel , das Abendmahl des Herrn, Breslau, 1823. Sartorius , Verthei- digung der lutherischen Abendmahlslehre, in the Dorpat Beitrage, 1832, vol. i, p. 305 ss. Th. Schwarz , Ueber das Wesen des heiligen Abendmahls (in Ebrard , p. 874). The innumerable recent controversial writings (by Kahnis , Rudelbach, Rodaz , Strobel ), we cannot here individually cite. The Luther¬ an view is most comprehensively presented in Kahnis , Die Lehre vom Abend¬ mahl, Leipz., 1851 (against Ebrard). See also RucJcert , Das Abendmahl, 1856, and Baur, in Theol. Jahrb., 1857. 9 Hegel , Philosophie der Religion, vol. ii., p. 274 : “The idea involved in the Lutheran doctrine is this, that the motion begins with the external (ele¬ ment), which is a plain and common thing, but that the participation, the consciousness of the presence of God, is brought about so far forth as the external element is consumed not merely corporeally, but in spirit and in faith. God is present only in spirit and faith. . . . Here is no transubstantia- tion in the common sense of the word, but yet a transubstantiation, by which the external is abolished, and the presence of God is purely spiritual, so that' the faith of the participant is essential.” (The last idea is not in accordance with the Lutheran view; comp. § 259, note 10.) 10 The Anabaptists in Switzerland. — Oncken in Hamburgh (from the year 1834). — The Anabaptists in Wirtemberg (from the year 1787) : see Grunei - sen , Abriss einer Geschichte der religiosen Gemeinschaften in Wurtemburg, mit besonderer Rilcksicht auf die neuen Taufgesinnten, in Illgens Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie, 1841, part, i., p. 64 ss. [See § 285, b, note 23 ; § 285, e, note 19.] 11 Schleiermacher , Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii., § 138, p. 382 ss. 12 W. Hofmann , Tauf uud Wiedertaufe, Stuttg., 1843. Martensen , Die christliche Taufe und die baptistische Frage, Hamburg, 1843 [1859]; sea § 304. Eschatology. 517 also his Dogmatik, p. 398. Ho fling, Das Sacrament der Taufe, Erlangen, 1846. Bd. i. 28 : “The chief point is, and remains, this — that we recognize the grace of God, the Spirit of God, God himself, as working with us in, with and under the water of the baptism, so that by means of this act, we receive regeneration, an actual reception and transition into the saving and life-giving fellowship with Christ, justification and the blessed life.” Compare the acts of the Frankfort Church Diet, 1854. 13 Pusey on Holy Baptism; in the work of Weaver- Amthor, p. 22 sq. [See also, above, p. 308, 426, 427.] § 304. ESCHATOLOGY. Flugge , Geschichte des Glaubens an Unsterblichkeit, Auferstehung, Gericht und Yergel- tung, Leipz., 1794-1800. Weisse Die philos. Bedentung der Lehre von den letzten Dingen (Studien u. Kritiken, 1836). Kling, on Eschatology in Herzog’s Realencyclop. iv. 136 sq. [/. H. Fichte , Idee der Personlichkeit und d. individuellen Fortdaner, 2te. Aufl, 1855. Abp. Whately , Revelations of a Future State, 1855. Alger, Belief in Immortality ; see Christ. Examiner, 1861.] The decline of church life during the period of rationalism ap¬ peared to the more religious to portend a defection from pure Chris¬ tianity ; and in proportion to the clearness of, such indications, the higher were their expectations as to the near approach of the end of all things. Bengel / and Jung Stilling ,2 endeavored to ascertain the exact period when this event would take place. The former fixed upon the year 1836. In opposition to these positive expecta¬ tions, the rationalists sought to explain away the Scriptural doc¬ trine of the second advent of Christ,3 and to limit the duration of the punishments of hell.4 Earlier hypotheses, e . g. concerning the sleep of the soul, the migration of souls, Hades, etc., were also re¬ vived and their number increased by new ones.5 Nevertheless both rationalists and supernaturalists retained the hope of man's perso¬ nal existence after death ; not only those who believed in a revela¬ tion, such as Lavater, but also the leaders of rationalism looked hopefully into the world to come.6 Kant examined the arguments commonly advanced in support of the doctrine of immortality (as he had done in reference to the existence of God), and approved only of the moral argument (for the practical reason).7 In opposi¬ tion to that form of belief in immortality which had lost its Chris¬ tian basis, and had its real origin in selfish motives, the modern philosophy and theology justly insisted upon that idea of eternal life which as Christ himself taught was to begin upon earth.8 But this idea in connection with the free concession, that we could form no definite conception of the future,9 led some of the disciples of modern 518 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. speculation to a total denial of the world to come, and a deification of the present life :10 while others endeavored more fully to fortify the church doctrine about the last things by means of the same philosophy.11 The prophetical parts of the Old and New Tes¬ tament were also investigated anew in view of their didactic con¬ tents ; what was veiled in vision and image was applied to the confirmation of a theosophic and apocalyptic eschatology.12 That the kingdom of God, which has its commencement and completion in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, is ever approaching ; that the idea of a glorified union of the human with the Divine, "by means of a living faith in Christ, in relation to the whole as well as to individuals, will be more and more realised in the fulness of time ; and that noth withstanding the manifold change of forms, the spirit of Christianity will always be the incorruptible inheritance of humanity — these are hopes reaching far beyond a sensuous millenna- rianism, and which we are justified in cherishing by the considera¬ tion of the course, which, amidst numerous conflicts and errors, the development of Christian theology has taken to the present hour. 1 In his Erklarte Offenb. Joh. oder vielmehr Jesu Christi, aus clem Grund- text tibersetzt, durch die prophetischen Zaklen aufgeschlossen, und Allen, die auf das Werk und Wort des Herrn achten, und dem, was vor der Thiire ist, wurdiglich entgegen zu kommen begehren, vor Augen gelegt durch Joh. Albr. JBengel, Stuttg., 1740. — Sechzig erbauliche Reden liber die Offenb. Job., sammt einer Nachlese gleichen Inhalts, etc., 1747. — Cyclus, sive de anno magno solis, lunae, stellarum consideratio ad incrementum doctrinae propheticae atque astronomicae accomodata, Ulm., 1745. For the controver¬ sial writings to which his works gave rise, see Hurk's Life of Bengel, p. 260, and the chronological table, p. 273. Comp. Lucke , Einleitung in die Offen- barung Johannis, p. 548 ss. [Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse, i., p. 469.] Oetinger looked into the future in the spirit of Bengel (see Auberlen , p. 516 sq.)*. Magnus Freidrich Boos, Auslegung der Weissagungen Dan¬ iels, 1771 ; see the Appendix to Auberlin’s work on Daniel [transl. Edinb. 1859]. John Michael Hahn and others. 3 In his Siegesgeschichte der christlichen Kirche, oder gemeinntitzige Erklarung der Offenbarung Johannis, Ntirnb., 1779. Appendix, 1805, 1822. A. F. v. Meyer on Sheol, etc., followed Stilling. 3 Henke , Lineamenta, cxiv. : Atqui his in oraculis (Scripturae S.) non omnia, ut sonant, verba capienda ; multa ad similitudinem formae judiciorum humanorum et pompae regiae expressa esse illi etiam fatentur, qui adspectabile aliquod judicium, a Christo ipso per sensibilem speciem praesenti in his terris agendum, praefiguratum esse atque praestituto tempore vere actum iri defen- dunt. Interim vel sic, districtis quasi exuviis orationis, remanent multa, quae non modo obscuritatis, sed etiam offensionis plurimum habent, etc. . . .Insunt vero istis rerum, quas futuras esse praedixerunt, imaginibus hae simul graves et piae sententiae: 1. vitam hominibus post fata instauratum iri, eosque etsi eosdem, non tamen eodem modo victuros esse ; 2. sortem cujusque in ha* 304. Eschatology. 519 vita continuita talem futuram, qualem e sententia Christi, h. e. ad veritatis et justitiae amussim, promeruerit ; 3. plane novam fore rerum faciem in is- thac altera vita, et longe alias novae civitatis sedes ; 4. anirao semper bene composite et pervigilanti, magnam illam rerum nostrarum conversionem, ne inopinatos oprimat, expectandam esse. Comp. Wegscheider , Institute, § 199, 200. Herder (Yon der Auferstehung), and De Wette (Religion und Tlieo- logie, p. 259 ss.), and endeavored to make a distinction between the symbols and that which is signified by them. [Millennarian views have been revived in Germany by Delitzsch , Hofmann , Auberlen , and Floerlce. See W. Floe-rice , Die Lehre vom tausendjiihrigen Reiche, Marburg, 1859: comp. Zeitschrift f. lutherische Theologie, 1861, p. 558 sq. ; and Kohler in the same period¬ ical on Schriftwidrigkeit des Chiliasmus, 1861, pp. 412-475. J. N. Schnei¬ der, Die Chiliastiche Doctrin, Schafhausen, 1859. — -In England the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, 1849 sq., and in the United States, Lord’s Theol. and Lit. Review, advocate the millennarian expectations ; compare Princeton Re¬ view on Modern Millennarianism, 1852, 1853. Camming, Elliott, Hirics and Keith in England, advocate, with more or less exactitude of dates, the Second Coming. See also G. S. Faber, Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, 3, 1828 sq.; Fullfilled Prophecies, etc., 5th ed., 3 vols., 1818. Prof. S. Lee, Study of Holy Script, (in part millennial), 1830. D. Brown, Christ’s Second Coming, 1851 ; W. Wood and H. JBonar (in reply), Coming and Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpheus Crosby, The Second Advent, Bost., 1850. J. F. Berg , the Second Advent not premillennial, Phil., 1859. Geo. JDuffield , Dissertation on the Prophecies of the Second Coming, New York, 1842. Nathan Lord, on the Millennium, Hanover, 1854. S. Waldegrave, New Test. Millennarianism (Bampton Lectures), Lond., 1854. — On the Adventists, Millerites , m the United States (end of world in 1843), see above, p. 451.] 4 Some supernaturalists also propounded milder views. On the contrary, others defended the eternity of punishment. — Kant numbered such queries among those childish questions from which the inquirer could learn nothing, even were they answered (Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Yer- nunft, p. 83, note). The literature is given by Hretschneider, Entwurf, comp. p. 886 ss. [For the English literature, including universalists, resto- rationists, annihilationists, see above, p. 451.] 6 The Psychopannychy (sleep of souls) was advanced by John Heyn, in a letter addressed to Baumgarten ; see his Theologische Streitigkeiten, iii., p. 454, and probably also by J. J. Wettstein (see Hagenbach, in Illgens Zeit¬ schrift ftir historische Theologie, 1839, i., pp. 118, 119) ; by J. G. Sulzer (Yermischte Schriften, 1781, ii.), and to some extent by Reinhard, Dogma- tik, p. 656 ss. The latter rejects indeed the true doctrine of a sleep of the soul, but admits that the soul immediately after its separation from the body falls into an unconscious state, because the change made by death is so powerful, that the activity of the soul might for a time be interrupted by it. Comp, also Simonetti , Gedanken fiber die Lehre von der Unsterblichkeit und dem Schlaf der Seelen, Berl. 1747. — [ Isaac Taylor, Physical Theory of another Life, and Abp. Whately on the Future State, 1855, advocate a con¬ dition of partial consciousness between death and resurrection.] Concerning the migration of souls (perep^vx^ 7ic) in an ascending order, see S chlosser^ 520 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. zwei Gesprache, Basel, 1781. Herder , Zerstreute Blatter, vol. i., p. 215. F. Ehrenberg , Wahrheit und Dichtung fiber unsere Fortdauer, Leip., 1803. Conz , Schicksale der Seelenwanderungshypothese, Konigsb., 1791. ( Bret - Schneider , Entwurf, p. 846 ss.). [North American Review, Jan., 1855, on Transmigration.] — The doctrine of an intermediate state (Hades) was especially- advocated by Jung Stilling , Geisterkunde, § 211, 212: “If the departed spirit who has left this world in a state of imperfect holiness, carries along some elements which cannot be introduced into the heavenly regions, he must remain in hades until he has put away all that is impure : but he does not suffer pain, excepting that of which he himself is the cause. The true sufferings in hades are a kind of home-sick longing for the pleasures of this world forever lost.” Comp, his Apologie der Geisterkunde, p. 42-45. — Among modern theologians, Hahn has adopted these views (christliche Glau- benslehre, § 142 ; Hretschneider , Entwurf, p. 886). Passing by the theory of the intermediate state, Priestley endeavored to reconcile the scriptural doctrine of resurrection with the philosophical idea of immortality, by sup¬ posing that there is a particular organ of the soul which developes itself in the hour of death ; see British Magazine, 1773, vol iv., part 2 ; JBretschnei - der , Entwurf, p. 861. — Swedenborg, with peculiar hypotheses, developed his Eschatology : vol. 2, p. 284. He rejected the church doctrine of the resurrection, as founded upon a too literal interpretation of Scripture. (Re¬ surrection and the general judgment have already taken place.) Men con¬ tinue to live as men (the righteous as angels) after their departure from this world, and are greatly surprised to find themselves in such a state. Imme¬ diately after death they again have a body, clothes, houses, etc., and are ashamed of the erroneous opinions they had formed concerning the future life (comp. § 297). Those who were inclined towards the good and true dwell in magnificent palaces, surrounded by a paradise filled with trees. . . . The opposite takes place in the case of those who have indulged in sin. They are either in hell shut up in prisons without windows, in which there is light coming, as it were, from an ignis fatuus ; or they live in deserts, and reside in huts, surrounded by sterile wastes, and haunted by serpents, dragons, owls, and other such objects corresponding to their evil inclinations. Be¬ tween heaven and hell there is an intermediate place, called the world of spir¬ its. Every man goes thither immediately after death ; the intercourse which there takes place between the departed spirits is similiar to that which men carry on upon earth, etc. Divine Revelation, pp. 250, 251. By the new heaven and the new earth Swedenborg understood the new church ; see what he says on the Last Judgment, in his Divine Revelation. — Oetinger's original views on “The World of the Invisible,” are found in his Tlieologie, p. 354 sq. ; s qq Auberlen, pp. 325 sq., 400 sq. The Oxford Tractarians adopted, with some modifications, the doctrine of purgatory ; see the work of* Weaver- Amthor, p. 33 ; and Tract 90, p. 25 sq. 6 J. C. Lavater , Aussichten in die Ewigkeit, in Letters to Zimmermann, Ztirick, 1768 ss. — Ch. F. Sintenis, Elpizon, oder fiber meine Fortdauer im Tode, Danz., 1795 ss. — By the same; Oswald der Greis ; mein letzter Glaube, Leipz., 1813. — Engel , Wir werden uns wiedersehen, Gott., 1787, 88. The literature is more fully given by Bretschneider , Entwurf, p. 827, 879 ss. § 304. Eschatology. 521 I The arguments commonly advanced, especially in modern times, are the following: 1. The metaphysical , i. e. that which is derived from the nature of the soul ; 2. The teleological , i. e. that which is derived from the capacities of man as not fully developed upon earth ; 3. The analogical , i. e. that which is derived from nature — spring, the caterpillar, etc. ; 4. The cosmical , i. e. the argument derived from the starry world ; 5. the theological , i. e. the ar¬ gument founded on the various attributes of God ; 6. The moral (practical), i . e. the argument founded on the disparity in the struggle for happiness and that for moral perfection. See Kant , Kritik der Praktischen Yernunft, p. 219 ss. For the literature, see Bretschneider , 1. c., and Hase , Dogmatik, pp. Ill, 112. Strauss , Dogmatik, ii., p. 697 ss. [Comp. Bushnell , Nature and the Supernatural, 3d ed., New York, 1858. R. W. Landis, The Immortality of the Soul, etc., New York, 1859. Is the Soul Immortal ? New Englander, Aug., 1853. T. M. Post , in Bibl. Repos., 1843 ; New Englander, Feb. and May, 1856. W. R. Alger, in Christ. Examiner, Jan., 1856, Jan., 1857 ; Journal of Am. Unit. Assoc., 1858. Christian Review, April, 1861.] 8 Fichte, Anweizung zum seligen Leben, p. 17 : “ Most certainly there is perfect happiness also beyond the grave for those who have in this world be¬ gun to enjoy it, and this is by no means different from that which we may here at any time begin to possess. We do not enter into this state of hap¬ piness merely by being buried. Many will seek happiness in the future life, and in the infinite series of future worlds, as much in vain, as in the present life, if they think it can be found in anything but that which is now so near to them that it can never be brought nearer — viz. the eternal.” Concerning the resurrection of the dead, comp, ibid., p. 178. Schleiermacher, Reden fiber die Religion, p. 172 (3d edit.) says that most men form their idea of immortality from irreligious motives, inasmuch as -their wish to be immortal has its origin in their aversion to that which is the very end and aim of reli¬ gion. [A. White, Life in Christ : Immortality as the Privilege of the Regen¬ erate. Lond., 1846.] 9 Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii. § 157 ss. De Wette, Dog- matik, § 107, 108. 10 F. Richter, Die Lehre von den letzten Dingen, Bresl. 1833. By the same : Die Geheimlehren der neueren Philosophic, nebst Erklarung an Herrn Prof. Weisse in Leipzig., Ibid., 1833. — By the same : Die neue Unster- blichkeitslehre, ibid., 1833. Strauss, Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 793 : “ The idea of a future world.... is the last enemy which speculative criticism has to oppose, and if possible (!) to overcome ” / / The natural practical consequences of this doctrine are seen in epicurianism, Communism, etc., though the specu¬ lative philosophy seeks to gaurd against these results. II Ck. Weisse, Die philosophische Geheimlehre von der Unsterblichkeit des menschlichen Individuums, Dresd., 1834 : and also, Ueber die philoso¬ phische Bedeutung der Lehre von den letzten Dingen, in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 271 ss. J. H. Fichte, die Idee der Person- lichkeit und der individuellen Fortdauer, Elberf., 1834, 1855. C. F. Gos- chel, Yon den Beweisen fur die Unsterblichkeit der menschlichen Seele, im Lichte der speculativen Philosophie ; eine Ostergabe, Berlin, 1835. Comp. Bretschneider, p. 831. Franz Baader and others in the same controversy. — 522 Fifth Period. The Age of Criticism. Theologically, the way has been prepared for an entire revision of the domain of eschatology, from the cosmological and anthropological, as well as from the christological and soteriological points of view, in the doc¬ trinal systems of J. P. Lange , ii. 1227 sq. ; Rolhe , Theol. Ethik, ii. 156 sq. ; Liebner, Christologie, i. 1 ; Martensen , 424 sq. (the completion of the church) ; Ebrard , Dogmatik, ii. 710 sq. (the macrocosmic completion of all things). 12 Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel, und die Offenbarung Johannes, Basel, 1854 [translated, Edinb., 1859] ; against Hengstenberg’s transposition of the millennium into the middle ages — the so-called “ church period.” M. Baum - garten , Die Nacthgesichte Sacharia’s, Braunschweig, 1855. INDEX Abbadie, ii. 222. Abbot, Bishop, ii. 187. Abelard, i. 384, 391 ; works, 393 ; on rea¬ son and revelation, 416, 417; tradition, 422 ; being of God, 436 ; attributes, 446 ; unity, 448 ; omnipotence, 449, 452 ; op¬ timism, 452; Trinity, 457, 459; theodicy, 473; on sin, ii. 24; hereditary sin, 26; freedom, 28 ; christology, 38 ; the right of the devil, 43 ; redemption, 46, 47 ; matrimony, 115. Abraham' s bosom, ii. 130. Absolute , philosophy o£ ii. 399. Absolution , as sacrament, ii. 303, 325, 513. AbnlfaradsJi (Barhebraeus), i. 385. Abuses of Roman Catholic Church, ii. 289. Acacius of Caesarea, i. 255. Acceptilatio, ii. 356, 360. Accidentia sine subjecto, ii. 95. Accommodation, ii. 467. Acindynus, i. 475. Acoluthi , ii. 115. Acominatus , i. 385. Act and testimony, ii. 444. Active obedience, ii. 354, 357-8, 362, 497-8. Acts of councils, i. 31. Actus personales (Trinity), ii. 335. Adam's first estate, ii. 251 sq., see Original Righteousness, Innocence. Adam's sin, i. 292, 297, 299 ; ii. 22. See Original Sin, the Fall. Adam, Jean, ii. 246. Adam Kadmon, i. 116. Adams, Nell., ii. 440. Adams , Thos. ii. 191. Addison, ii. 383. Adelmann , Epistle, ii. 92. Adiaphoristic controversy, ii. 148. Adminicula gratice, ii. 303. Adopting act, ii. 169. Adoptionism, i. 383 ; ii. 35. Ador antes (Unitarians), ii. 212. Adoratio, ii. 302. Adoration of angels, i, 141 ; of saints, ii. 301 ; see Images , Mary, Saints. Adso, ii. 120. Advent, second, ii. 124, 370 ; see Eschato¬ logy. Adventists, ii. 451. xEneas of Paris, i. 454. FEneas Silvius, i. 383, 454. FEons, i. 118, 338. FEpinus, (Hock), ii. 351, 353. uErius, of Sebaste, i. 375. FEtius, i. 255, 256. Affediones Scrip turae, ii. 245. African School, i. 386. Agatho of Rome, i. 283. ’A yevvyaia, i. 264. Agnoetce, i. 281. Agobard, of Lyons, on Jews, i. 382, 415; works, 387 ; on Inspiration, 425. Agricola, John, ii., 148, 248. Agrippa of Nettersheim, ii. 22, 23. Aichard, see Eckart. kldvLog, i. 379. "A cpeaig, i. 52. Aix-la- Ghapelle , Council, i. 454. Aktistetce, i. 281. Alanus of Ryssel (ab Insulis), i. 395, 396 ; on faith, 417 ; attributes of God, 446 ; on the Trinity, 463 ; on atonement, ii. 49 ; on works, 69; on sacraments, 78; on orders, 116. Albertus Magnus, i. 396, 397 ; on knowing God, 439 ; on Erigena, 442 ; on immacu¬ late conception, ii. 30, 32 ; christology, 35, 38: on indulgences, 70; concomi¬ tance, 102, 103. Albigenses , i. 384. Albrecht, ii. 52. Alcherus , ii. 15. Alciat, ii. 211. Alcuin, i. 387 ; on revelation, 422 ; on pro¬ cession of Holy Ghost, 454 ; adoptionism, ii. 35, 37. Alexander , see Natalis (Noel) ii. 206. Alexander III., ii. 38. Alexander of Alexandria, i. 249, 250. Alexander of Constantinople, i. 250. Alexander Hales, i. 396, 397 ; knowing God, 439 ; on omnipresence, 446 ; love of God, 453; creation, 47 0 ; theodicy, 473; devil, 478 ; sinlessness of Mary, ii. 31 ; on assu¬ rance, ii. 65 ; on thesaurus meritorum, 69 ; seven sacraments, 7 8 •, confirmation, 87 ; Lord’s Supper, 98 ; the cup, 102 ; on concomitance, 103; penance, 111. Alexander , Archibald, J. A., J. W., ii. 445 ; W. L., ii. 435. Alexander of Stourdza, ii. 459. Alexandria, School of, i. 95, 239, 275; ii. 375. Alexandrian culture, i. 50. Alford, ii. 423. Alicubi, i. 445. Aliquando , i. 445. Allatius : see Leo. Allegorical Interpretation, i. 93, 199, 428; ii. 247. Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek, ii. 381. Allies, ii. 427. 524 INDEX. Allihn , ii. 409. Attoeosis, ii. 346. Alogi, i. 60, 61, lit, 170 ; ii. 328. 'A hoyoc, i. 458. Alombrados , ii. 205. Alschwinus : see Alenin- Alsted , ii. 300; on creation, 338-9. Alting, H., ii. 170, 172. Alvarius Pelagius, ii. 32. Amalarius, ii. 90, 91. Amalrich of Bena, i. 403, 442, 469 ; on re¬ demption, ii. 53 ; on Paradise, 133. Ambrose , i. 230, 235; on Trinity, 264; sin, 295; on invocation of angels, 338; on baptism and forgiveness, 360 ; on eucha- rist, 362, 364 ; first used inissa ; on future state, 377; ii. 96, on change in elements (spurious ?) America , Discovery of, i. 411. Ames , William, ii. 174. Ammon , ii. 396, 405, 499, 513; religion, 461. i. 115. Amphilochius on transubstantiation, i. 361. Amsdorf Nicolas, ii. 148 ; on justification, 286. Amularius , i. 383. Amulo on Jews, i. 383. Amyraldus (Ainyraut), ii. 179, 180, 181, 187 ; on predestination, 277, 278. Anabaptists , ii. 154, 155, 208, 211, 364, 513, 516 ; on clergy, 291. Analogia Fidei, ii. 230, 231, 235. Analytic Method , ii. 150, 152. ’A vapapTyaia, i. 178. Anastasius of Alexandria, i. 276. Anastasius Sinaita, i. 288. Ancient Church History , works on, i. 40. Andrea, , Jacob, ii. 149, 157, 207. Andreace , Valentin, ii. 157. Andrews , Lancelot, ii. 182, 187. Andrews , W. W., ii. 414. Angels, i. 138, 139, 338, 475 ; ii. 341, 482. Angelites , i. 268. Angelolatry forbidden, i. 338. Angelom , i. 429. Angelus Silesius, ii. 204, 340. Anglican Divines , ii. 182, 416 ; on the church, ii. 296 ; on baptism, ii. 364, 369. Anhalt , ii. 149. Anna, Empress, i. 475. Annihilation , i. 226. Annihilationists , ii. 451. Anointing , extreme unction, ii. 112. Anselm, i. 391; works, 392, 412; on evi¬ dences, 415 ; on faith, 416, 418 ; on Bible reading, 431 ; ontological argument, 433 ; on knowing God, 439 ; on attributes of God, 445, 446 ; on eternity and omni¬ presence, 445, 446 ; omnipotence, 449 ; on procession of Holy Ghost, 454, 455 ; on Trinity, 457, 459, 460, 463 ; on the best world, 473; angelology, 476; on fall of devil, 477, 478; creationism, ii. 14, 17 ; image of God, 19, 20, 21 ; on sin, 23, 24; on imputation, 26-7; on free¬ dom, 28; on sinlessness of Mary, 31; christology, 36, 38 ; on birth of Virgin, 40 ; redemption, 41 ; Cur Deus Homo, 43, 44 ; soteriology, 53 ; on election, 60, 61 ; transubstantiation, 96, 99, 100, 101 ; on atonement, 355, 363, 497. Anslem of Havelberg, i. 454. Ancyra, Council, i. 255. Antagonism , Age of, ii. 373 sq. Antecedent will, i. 332, 474. Anthropology, i. 148, 229, 286 ; of scholas¬ tics, ii. 13; modern, 251, 485. Anthropomorphism, i. 106, 109, 328. Anti- Burghers, ii. 431. Antichrist, ii. 119. 216. Antideistica, ii. 382. ’AvTcfioaeug rpoixoc, ii. 35, 352. Antilegomena, i. 317. Antinomians , ii. 183, 192. Antinomian Controversy, ii. 148, 248. Antioch , School, i. 239, 275, 320. Antioch, Synod, i. 248, 253. Antipodes, i. 473. Antitrinitarians , i. 131 ; ii. 210, 328. See Unitarians. ’ Avt ltv 7T a in Eucharist, ii. 108. Apelles, Gnostic, i. 221. Appleton, Jesse, ii. 440. Aphthartodocetce, i. 281. Apocalypse , i. 213, 214, 319. Apocrypha, i. 84, 318 ; ii. 230, 233, 472. Apocryphal Gospels, i. 85. Apollinaris, i. 229, 271, 351; millennarian, 368. Apologetics , i. 19, 20 ; ancient, 77, 313, 382 ; mediaeval, 414; modern, ii. 220. Apology of Augsburg Confession, ii. 146, 148 : see Augsburg. Apostles ’ Creed, i. 51, 173, 354; ii. 157, 249, 329, 354. ' AnopvrjpovEv/iaTa, i. 85. Apostles, i. 44-6. Apostolate , new, ii. 510. Apostolical Fathers , i. 63. Apostolical Succession, ii. 291. See Epis¬ copacy. Apotheosis , ii. 354. Apthorp, ii. 448. Aquarii, i. 205. Aquinas , Thomas, i. 396 ; works, 397 ; on Scotus, 398; contra Gentiles, 415; on miracles, 415 ; reason and revelation, 416, 419 ; tradition, 422 ; inspiration, 426 ; in¬ terpretation, 430 ; ontological argument, 432, 436 ; on knowing God, 139 ; on Erigena, 442 ; attributes of God, 447 ; omnipotence, 451 ; will of God, 453 ; pro¬ cession of Holy Ghost, 456; creation, 470, 472; theodicy, 474; angelology, 476; devil, 478; psychology, ii. 14; on immor¬ tality, 16 ; on state of innocence, 18, 19 ; on pura naturalia, 19; the fall, 23; here¬ ditary sin, 26 ; on original justice, 28 ; on immaculate conception, 30 ; sanctification of Mary, 32 ; christolology, 35, 38 ; atone¬ ment, 47, 50 ; on three offices of Christ, 50; incarnation, 54, 55; on election, 60, 62; on justification, 63, 64; on grace, 64, 65; on indulgences, 70; the Hyper- dulia, 76; number of sacraments, 77,79; idea of sacraments, 80, 82 ; indelible INDEX. 525 character, 82 ; on baptismal grace, 84, 85, 86 ; confirmation, 87 ; transubstantiation, 98, 99 ; on sacrifice in eucharist, 100 ; the cup, 102 ; concomitantia, first used, 103 ; on penance, 109, 110, 111 ; extreme unc¬ tion, 113; orders, 114, 115; on matri¬ mony, 116, 117; resurrection, 123; on the judgment, 125, 126; purgatory, 127; on limbus infantum, 131 ; beatitude and dos, 134 ; hell, 136, 137, 354. Arabici , i. 159. Archaeology , works on, i. 22. Arch-heretic, i. 54. Aretius , ii. 170, 171. Arguments for Being of God, i. 325, 432 : see God. Arianism , i. 229, 241, 249, 252-4, 256, 259, 271, 328; in England, ii. 184, 328, 332, 478. Aristeas, i. 88. Aristotelianism , i. 390, 395, 397, 408, 423 ; ii. 16. Arles , Synod, i. 306. Arminians , ii. 208, 214, 218, 277 ; in England, 182, 187 ; learning of, 214, 216; on Scripture, 241 ; on interpretation, 243 ; on state of innocence, 254 ; on original sin, 260; on freedom, 270; on justifica¬ tion, 281, sq. ; on the church, 292 ; on sacraments, 303 ; on Lord’s Supper, ii. 309 ; Trinity, 328, 332 ; baptism, 367 ; infant baptism, 369. Arminius , ii. 214, 215. Arnauld , ii. 201, 202, 277 ; on eucharist, 321. Arnd, John, ii. 154, 156; on justification, 287. Arnobius, i. 171, 230, 234; on sin, 295; miracles, 314' inspiration, 321; on being of God, 325 ; on eternity of God, 332 ; on providence, 336 ; annihilation, 226, 376, 379. Arnold of Brenia, i. 412. Arnold, J. G., ii. 154, 156. Arnold, Thos., ii. 428. Art, mediae val, ii. 121. Artemon, i. 60, 61, 117, 118, 170. Articles XLII, XXXIX, Church of England, ii. 164, 166-7 ; of Lambeth, 182, 185 ; of Dort, 164; of Remonstrants, 214, 215; of Smalcald, 146 ; of Torgau, 147. 'Aproc, ii. 108. Artotyntes, i. 205. Asbury, ii. 450. Ascension-body , i. 177 : see Resurrection. Asceticism, i. 291 ; ii. 154. Ascusnages, i. 268. Assembly, Westminster, ii. 169, 182. Asterius, i. 257. Associate Presbyterians , ii. 431. Assurance, ii. 65, 277. Athanasian Greed, i. 269; ii. 249, 329. Athanasius , i. 230, 231, 245, 247, 249, 251 ; on the Arian, 256 ; on Holy Spirit, 257-9 ; procession of Holy Spirit, 263 ; on Trinity, 265 ; on Christ’s humanity, 271; on Apollinaris, 273; on sin, 291, 293 ; defense of Christ., 313 ; Bible, 316 ; canon, 319; on being of God, 325; na¬ ture of God, 328; on dualism, 330; cre¬ ation, 333 ; on redemption, 346 ; on Lord’s Supper, 365 ; ii. 29. Atheism , ii. 475. Athenagoras, i. 63, 68, 87 ; on unity of God, 103, 110; on Logos, 120; on angels, 139, 142 ; on freedom, 155 ; on resurrec¬ tion, 218, 219. Attains, i. 104. Atonement, i. 179, 345; ii. 41, 46, 354,496; extent of, 275, 351 ; recent German con¬ troversy, 502-3 : see Death of Christ , Redemption. Attributes of God, i. 109, 331, 445 ; ii. 385, 476: see God. Attritio , i. 188; ii. 109, 111, 136, 325. Auberlen, ii. 473. VA vxyya, ii. 352. Auchterarder Creed, ii. 431 ; Case, 4.34. Audceus, i. 290. Audians, i. 328. Auditio, ii. 288. Auditor es, i. 352. Augsburg Apology on original righteousness, ii. 253; on sacraments, 304; mass, 311; penance, 325; incarnation, 345; atone¬ ment, 355-6; baptism, 365 ; on Anabap¬ tists, 368. Augsburg Confession , ii. 146, 147 ; variata, 147; on original sin, 258; on freedom, 272; on justification, ii. 282; faith, 283; on the order of redemption, 288 ; on the church, 292 ; on the mass, 293, 310 ; on saints, 301; on word and sacraments, 305 ; Lord’s Supper, 316; the cup, 312; penance, 325; Trinity, 329; incarnation, 345; on eschatology, 370; on restitution ’ of all things, 371. Augusti, ii. 453, 513; on the doctrine of the devil, i. 477 ; on spiritual knights, ii. 88. Augustine, i. 230, 236-7, 240 ; procession of Holy Spirit, 263 ; Trinity, 265 ; Christ’s body, 282; traducianism, 288; soul and body, 289, 290- ; freedom, 291 ; the fall, 292 ; sin, 295, 300 ; freedom, 302 ; pre¬ destination, 303 ; on religion, 312 ; rev¬ elation, 312; De Civitate Dei, 313; mir¬ acles, 314; on tradition, 316'; the Bible, 317 ; inspiration, 321 ; interpretation, 323 ; councils, 324 ; ontological argument, 325 ; nature of God, 328 ; attributes of God, 331; creation, 333; the six days, 333; the Trinity in creation, 334 ; preservation, 335 ; evil, 337 ; worship of angels, 338 ; fall of angels, 341 ; conversion of devil, 342 ; redemption, 348, extent #f, 351 ; the church, 352-3 ; visible and invisible church, 354; sacraments, 355-6; bap¬ tism, 357-8-9 ; children not baptized, 360, 366 ; cbiliasm, 369 ; resurrection, 370-1; purgatory, 373-4; heaven, 376; future punishment, 376; degrees of hap¬ piness and suffering, 379; freedom, ii. 18, 25. Augustinianism , i. 239, 265, 296-305, 381 ; ii. 25, 60, 261, 265, 485. Augustus, Elector, ii. 149. Aureola , ii. 132. 526 INDEX. Auricular Confession , ii. Ill, 325. ’Avts^ovclov, i. 155. Autonomy of will , i. 155. ’A vro&roc, L 268. AuxiUus on ordination, ii. 114. Averrhoes , i. 397. Avicebron, i. 397, 443. Avicenna, i. 397. Avitus of Yienne, i. 306. Ayton , ii. 298. Azy mites, ii. 108. Baader , ii. 457, 521. Backus , Charles, ii. 435, 437. Backus , Isaac, ii. 449. Bacon , Frauds, ii. 221, 223, 224. Bacon , L., ii. 441. Bacon , Roger, ii. 121, 406—7, 421. Baden disputation, ii. 160. Bagot , ii. 384. Bahrdt, C. F., ii. 382, 498. Baier, J. W., ii. 151, 153; on proofs of Being of God, 335. Baillie, ii. 185. Bain, A. ii. 425. Baird, S. J., ii. 445. Bogus , ii. 202, 280. Balaamites, i. 54. Balfour , ii. 451. Bailer ius, ii. 689. Ballou , ii. 441, 451. Bancroft , Abp., ii. 186. Bangor Controversy , ii. 416, 417. Bangs, ii. 450. Bannez, ii. 280. Baptism , i. 197, 356 ; ii. 84, 363, 513 ; de¬ lay of, i. 358; of blood, 203, ii. 84; of heretics, i. 202, ii. 86 ; of martyrdom, i. 358; of tears, 358, ii. 100; and faith, ii. 365 ; and original sin, i. 359, 364-5 ; repetition of, ii. $6 ; sins before and after, ii. 110; Romish, ii. 364; its nature and necessity (Protestant view), ii. 364. ’BaTCTLO/ua, i. 198. Baptismal regeneration , ii. 366, 368. Baptismus Clinicorum, i. 198. Baptists in America, ii. 443, 449 ; in Eng¬ land, ii. 423. Baptists, Confessions ofj ii. 169. Bar Sudaili , i. 308. Barclay , ii. 217 ; on Scripture, 238; on the church, 295. Bardesanes, i. 59, 137. Barhebraius, i. 386. Bari, council, i. 454. Barlaam, i. 474. Barlow, Thos. ii 182, 183, 190, 297. Barnabas, i. 64, 78; epistle, 318; on re¬ demption, 182. Barnes, Albert, ii. 433, 442, 448, 503, 505. Baroe, ii. 185. Barret, ii. 185. Barrow, ii. 183, 188, 297. Barthels, ii. 385. Baruch, i. 318. Basedow , ii. 381. Basil of Ancyra, i. 255. Basil the Great, i. 230, 231 ; on Holy Spirit, 260 ; procession of Holy Spirit, 263-4; on Trinity, 265; :3n sin, 291; inspiration, 321 ; angels, 338 ; on bap¬ tism, 357 ; baptism of heretics, 360; end of world, 373 ; heaven, 377 Basilides, i. 118, 170. Basle, ii. 413. Basle Confessions, ii. 163 ; on authority of creeds, 250 ; on Scripture, 232 ; on orig¬ inal righteousness, 253 ; on original sin, 258 ; on immaculate conception, 262 ; on decrees, 273; on election, 274; on faith, 284 ; on church, 292 ; on discipline, 299 ; on number of sacraments, 304 ; on Lord’s Supper, 317 ; Trinity, 330. Basle , councils, ii. 32, 72. Basnage, ii. 200. Bates, Wm., ii. 183, 190. Bauer , Bruno, ii. 409. Baumgarten Crusius on Reformation, ii. 140 ; Roman Catholic Church, 206 ; So- cinus, 212 ; sentimental religion, 381. Baumgarten, M., ii. 522. Baumgarten , S. J., i. 37 ; ii. 378, 392. Baur, F. C., i. 48, 58, 105 ; his works, ii. 409, 498 ; christology, 495 ; on Beryl, i. 132 ; angelology, 139 ; Gnostic fate, 157 ; Gnostics, 173; redemption, 180; Arius, 250 ; on Nicene creed, 252 ; Marcellus, 258; Philoponus, 268; Eunomius, 272; Monothelites, 284; Pelagius, 303; on the Predestinatus, 306 ; on apologetics, 314 ; tradition, 324 ; on ontological argument, 327 ; Manichees, 334, 353 ; Gregory of Nyssa, 347 ; theory of atonement, 350 ; theories of the eucharist, 363 ; scholasti¬ cism, 390 ; Abelard, 393 ; the Lombard, 395; Aquinas and Scotus, 398; scholas¬ ticism, 401 ; mysticism, 402 ; Anselm, 418; Aquinas, 419; Abelard and Aqui¬ nas on tradition, 422 ; Anselm’s argument for Being of God, 434 ; David of Dinanto, 443 ; the scholastic Trinity, 469 ; on Aqui¬ nas on creation, 470; on Erigena, ii. 24, 40 ; on the Damascene, 36 ; on adoption- ism, 36; on Aquinas’ christology, 38; Anselm, 43, 46, 47 ; Aquinas on sacra¬ ments, 97 ; on John of Damascus on the eucharist, 108 ; Catholicism and Protest¬ antism, 141 ; Lutheranism and Calvinism, 142 ; Sebastian Frank, 155 ; Schwenck- feld,155; Calvinism, 160, 2 74; justification, 284 ; faith, 284, note; Osiander, 286, 287 ; on communicatio idiomatum, 347—8 ; on Schwenckfeld, 348-9 ; on Protestant atone¬ ment, 355-6; active and passive obedi¬ ence, 358 ; Grotius, 361 ; Osiander, 363 ; the issue of the Reformation, 375; on English deism, 379 ; pietism, 388 ; Schleier- macher, 404; Hegel, 501; on faith, 5C4. Bautain, ii., 454, 457, 458. Bay, do; see Bajus. Bayle on Keckermann, ii. 172, 222. Baxter, ii. 183, 191, 222, 224, 227, 371, Beach, J. ii. 448. Beard, J. R., ii. 422. Beasley, ii. 446. Beatitudo, ii. 134. INDEX. 527 Beatitudo and dos, in Aquinas, ii. 134. Beattie , ii. 432. Beat us , ii. 37. Becanus, ii. 197, 200. Beck, J. C., ii. 378. Beck, J. T., ii. 406, 410. Bede, i. 387 ; on predestination, ii. 57 ; Lord’s Supper, 89, 90; extreme unction, 112. Beecher, Edward, ii. 441. Beecher , Lyman, ii., 443. Bee/l QPovTi., L 142. Beets, ii., 413. Beghards, i. 384 ; christology, ii. 40 ; on re¬ demption, 53; on hell, 132, 137. Beguines , i. 384, 423 ; on resurrection, ii. 123. Behmen, see Bohme. Bekker, ii. 41 ; on reason, 248. Being of God, i. 325, 432 ; ii. 333, 476. Belgic Confession , on original sin, ii. 259; on church, 292. Belief in Christ, in God, ii. 68. Bellamy , ii. 435,- 437. Bellarmine, ii. 197, 199; on interpretation, 234 ; on inspiration, 247 ; on original righteousness, 252 ; on creatianism, 264 ; freedom and grace, 269 ; justification, 283 ; the church, 291; notes of the church, 297 ; church a state, 299 ; sacrifice, 311 ; satis¬ faction, 357-8. Bellows , ii. 442. Belsham, ii. 421. Beman, ii. 445. Benedict, D., ii. 449. Benedict X1L, on sleep of soul, ii. 129. Benezet, ii. 451. Bev,oit, ii. 225. B eng el, J. A., ii. 383, 388, 389, 471, 517, 518; on Pelagianism, 505; on Zinzen- dorf, 479, 497. Bentham, ii. 423, 424. Bentley, RcL, ii. 226. Berg, J. F., ii. 451. Bergen Book, ii. 149. Berengar , i. 384; on sacraments, ii. 77 ; Lord’s Supper, 89, 92, 93, 94. Berkeley, ii., 226, 383-4, 422. Berington , ii., 422, 458. Bernard of Clairvaux , i. 402, 412 ; on faith, 417, 419 ; Scripture, 423 ; interpretation, 429 ; omnipresence, etc., 447 ; freedom, ii. 28; on immaculate conception, 30, 31 ; atonement, 46, 48 ; on the two swords, 72; on worship of Mary, 75; on feet washing, 78; baptism, 86. Berne , ii. 160, 413. Berne Disputation , ii. 160. Beron, i. 132. Berriman, ii. 333. Berthold, i. 421 ; on creation, 471 ; on an¬ gels, 476; creatianism, it 15; on image of God, 20; on preachers, 70; papacy, 72; on sacraments, 79; baptism, 85; purgatory, 128 ; limbus infantum, 131. Berti, ii. 199. Bertramn, see Batramn. Beryllus, i. 60, 117, 131-2. Beveridge, ii. 183, 189. Beza, ii. 166, 170-71; supralapsarian, 274. Bible, i. 315-19, 421, 465; in general use, 92 ; reading of, 428 ; Cranmer’s, ii. 183 ; Luther’s, 145; see Inspiration, Interpre¬ tation, Scripture. Bible Societies, ii. 406. Bible and Tradition, ii. 30 ; see Tradition. Biblical Criticism , i. 424 ; ii. 416 ; see Crit¬ icism. Biblical Learning in England, ii. 416, 423 ; in America, 442; Roman Catholic, 206; see Bible. Biblical Theology , i. 16. Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum , ii. 212 ; on Trinity, 331. Bicker steth, ii. 425. Biddle , ii. 213. Biel, Gabriel, i. 399, 400 ; on opus operatum, ii. 82, 83. Billroth, ii. 409, 469. Billuart , ii. 199. Bilson, ii. 186. Bingham, ii. 186, 296. Biran , Maine de, ii. 415. Bircherod, ii. 152. Birks, ii. 429. Blackburne, Archd., ii. 327, 422. Black Death, i. 412. Blair, Hugh, ii. 430, 432. Blanc, Louis le, ii. 277. Blandrata, ii. 211. Blanche, ii. 400, 482 ; on sin, ii. 487 ; Chriat- ology, 492 ; atonement, 501. Blau, ii. 455. Blessig, ii. 414. Blondel, ii. 180, 181, 279. Bloomfield, S. T., ii. 423, 429. Blount, ii. 222, 225. Blunt, J. J., ii. 428-. Bluttlieologie, ii. 392. Bochold , ii. 209. Bockshammer , ii. 470. Bodin, Jean, ii. 222. Body and Soul , ii. 13, 151-3 ; see Anthro¬ pology. Boethius, i. 230, 238; on Trinity, 267; on- tological argument, 325’' 390. Bogomiles , ii. 122, 384. Bohemian Brethren , ii. 71 ; confession of, 169. Bogardus, ii. 450. Bohme , ii. 154, 156, 301, 371, 390 ; on in* spiration, 245 ; justification, 287 ; Trinity, 336; creation, 339; christology, 350. Bohmer, J. H., ii. 510 ; on pantheism, 474-5. Bolingbroke , ii. 379. Bolsec, ii. 277-8. Bona, ii. 204 Bonald, de, ii. 458. Bonaventura , John of Fidanza, i. 396 ; works, 399; on reading the Bible, 431; om¬ nipresence of God, 447 ; eternity, 448 ; creation, 47 2 ; angelology, 47 6 ; psychol¬ ogy, ii. 15 ; immortality, 17 ; sin of Adam, 23; immaculate conception, 32; atone¬ ment, 51 ; election, 60-2 ; grace, 65 ; worship of Mary, 7 5 ; sacraments, 77, 79; confirmation, 87; Lord’s Supper, 98; the cup, 102; penance, 111; marriage, 117; purgatory, 127. 528 INDEX. Boniface , ii. 12*7, 306. Boniface VIII., ii. 72, 88. Bonnet , ii. 470. Book of Bergen , ii. 149, Book of Common Prayer , ii. 166, 167, 182; on baptism, 368. Book of Discipline , Scotch, ii. 185. Book of Homilies on Justification , ii. 285. Boos, ii. 456. Booth, ii. 417, 429, 507. Boothroyd , ii. 419. Boquin, ii. 172, 175, 176. Borhaus, (Cellarius,) ii. 209. Borromeo, ii. 204. Bose, de, ii. 279. Bost, ii. 415. Boston Synod, ii. 169. Boston, Tlios., ii. 192, 431. Bossuet, ii. 197, 199, 204 ; on Bp. Bull, 188 ; on union, 219 ; on worship of saints, 302 ; on transubstantiation, 323-4 ; purgatory, 326. Boucat, ii. 199. Bourignon, Antoinette, ii. 177. Bouterwek, ii. 409. Bowden , ii. 449. Bowen , ii. 446. Boyle , ii. 222, 226. Brachmand ii. 152. Bradshaw, fm., ii. 186. Bradwardine, Thos., ii. 62. Brahminism, i. 114. Bramhall, ii. 183, 188, 224. Brandt , ii. 215. Braun , ii. 174. Bread , see Lord's Supper. Breaking of Bread, ii. 323; see Lord’s Sup¬ per. Breckling, ii. 156. Bremen Gymnasium , ii. 175-6. j Brenz on the canon, ii. 242 ; on (Ecolampa- dius, 314. Bres, Guido de, ii. 167. Bresten , in Zwingle, ii. 257. Brett, ii. 183, 189, 296. Bretland , ii. 421. Bretschneider, ii. 398, 507. Brevianum Bom., ii. 197. Brevint, ii. 297. Bridges, John, ii. 186. Bridget, St., i. 427 ; ii. 32. Bridgewater Treatises, ii. 429 Broad Church, ii. 423, 428. Br ogden, ii. 297. Brokesby, ii. 298. Bromley , ii. 177-8, 205. Brooks , ii. 191. Broughton , John, ii. 371. Brown, Thos., ii. 433-4. Browne, Bp. Peter, ii. 225, 227. Browne, Simon, ii. 227. Browning, ii. 185. Brownson, ii. 459. Broughton, il 227. Bruce, W., ii. 435. Bruch , il 414, 477. Bruno, Eusebius, it 9®. Bruno, ii. 221 Bucanus, ii. 170, 171 ; on Adam’s innocence, 254 ; creationism, 264. Bucer, ii. 163, 170, 218; in England, 185; on Lord’s Supper, 317-18. Buchanan, ii. 434. Biichlein von der deutschen Theologie , ii. 65. Buchner, ii. 475. Buckeridge , ii. 297. Buckminster , ii. 441. Buddeus , J. E., ii. 376; on Konig, 153. Bugenhagen, ii. 147. Bugri, i. 384. Bull, Bp. Geo., ii. 183, 188, 210, 213, 285 ; on Trinity, 328, 332. Bullarium, i. 35. Bullinger, H., ii. 160, 164, 166 ; confession of, 163. Bunsen, ii. 411, 428. Bunyan , ii. 183, 190. Bur dig al, ii. 199. Burgess, ii. 190, 418, 421. Burghers, ii. 431. Burmann, ii. 170, 174, 199; on Christ’s obe¬ dience, 359. Bur map, ii. 441. Burnet, Thos., ii. 183, 189, 416, 417, 418; on Sarpi, 195 ; on foreign orders, 297. Burning of World, i. 221 ; see Eschatology. Burr, ii. 438. Burroughes, ii. 190. Burton, Asa, ii. 439. Burten, Ed., ii. 422, 423, 428; on Gnostics, i. 223. Bury, Arthur, ii. 213. Bush, George, ii. 448. Bushnell, ii. 436, 442, 503. Butler, Alban, ii. 454. Butler, Charles, ii. 458. Butler, Bp. Joseph, ii. 227, 422. Butler, W. A., ii., 425. Cdbasilas : see Nicolas. Ccecilian, i. 353. Caesar of Heisterbach. i. 443 ; ii. 100. Caius, i. 213. Cainians, i. 202. Cajetan, i. 439 ; ii. 197. Calamy, ii. 183, 191, 213, 298, 333. Calderwood, ii. 192. Calixt , George, ii. 150, 152, 157, 158, 219, on inspiration, 244 ; tradition, 249 ; justi- tia originalis, 255; sin, 263, 266; crea¬ tionism, 266 ; justification, 286 ; ubiquity, 316 ; Trinity, 337. Calixtines, i. 410. Calov , ii. 151, 153; against Calixt, 250; on original rectitude, 253 ; on sin, 263, 266. Calvin , ii. 159 ; works, 161 ; Institutes, 161 ; influence, 162 ; Consensus Genevensis, 164; Catechism of Geneva, 168, 182; on Scripture, 231, 236 ; inspiration, 242 ; original righteousness, 253 ; original sin, 257; creationism, 264; predestination, 273-4; on Castellio and Bolsec. 277-8; justification, 282 ; on Osiander, 287 ; order of salvation, 288 ; the church, 292, 293 ; on . excommunication, 299; sacraments, 307-8; Lord’s Supper, 309, 317, 318; the INDEX. 529 mass, 311; on Westphal, 318; on Zwin- gle, 318 ; charged with Arianism, 329 ; on , Trinity, 329 ; on nature of creation, 338 ; Satan, 342 ; angels, 342 ; person of Christ, 345 ; three offices, 353 ; atone¬ ment, 356 ; obedience of Christ, 3^8 ; on Osiander, 366 ; baptism and original sin, 365; on psychopannychy, 370, 371. Calvinism , ii. 141, 142 ; its peculiarity, 160; symbolical books, 162 ; theology, 170 sq. ; on decrees, 268 sq. ; on the church, 293-4. Calvinism and Lutheranism , ii. 141, 142, 149, 159, 160, 162 ; attempts at union, 218, 228, 229; decrees, 268; faith, 284; economy of redemption, 288 ; worship, 290 ; ordination, 295 ; the Lord’s Supper, 314 sq. ; the host, 323; christology, 345; on Christ’s humiliation, etc., 351 ; bap¬ tism, 364 sq. Calvinism in England, ii. 182, 185, 417 ; in America, 435 ; in Greek Church, 295. Calvinists , ii. 452, 513. Cambridge , Synod, ii. 169. Cameron , John, ii. 180; on obedience of Christ, 362, 363. Cameronians , ii. 431. Campanella, ii. 221. Ca mp anu s, John, ii. 211. Camp anus , Wm., ii. 331. Campbell , Alex., ii. 449. Campbell , Geo., ii. 379, 432. Campbell, McLeod, ii. 428. Campbellites in America, ii. 443. Campe , ii. 381. Candlish , ii. 434. Canisius , Catechism, ii. 197, 200. Cannae Eudharisticoe, ii. 103. Canon , i. 83, 230, 317, 383, 424. Canon Law , ii. 71. Canons of Trent , ii. 196. Canus , ii. 197, 200. Canz, ii. 377. Capadose , ii. 413. Capernaitic Interpretation, i. 366 ; ii. 89, 94. Capito , ii. 170 ; on Lord’s Supper, 318. Capnio : see Renchlin. Capped , ii. 179, 278. Carleton , Bp. George, ii. 182, 188, 466. Carlovingian Age, i. 386. Carlstadt, ii. 154; on Lord’s Supper, 309, 310; Scripture, 236; on criticism, 241. Caroli, ii. 329. Carpenter, Lant, ii. 421. Carpocrates , i. 59. Carpov, ii. 377. Carpzov of Dresden, ii. 392. Carson, ii. 429. Cartesian Philosophy, ii. 178, 221. Carthage, i. 239. Carthage Synods, i. 298, 317. Cartwright, ii. 182, 184, 186, 298. Cassander , ii. 218. Cassian, John, i. 230, 237, 287, 306, 343. Cassiodorus, i. 390. Castellio, ii. 277, 278. Cataphrygians , i. 60. Catechism of Calvin, ii. 182 ; Canisius, 197 ; Cranmer’s, 183; Geneva, 164; Heidel¬ berg, 164, 165; of Leo Judee, 307; of Luther, 146, 148 ; of Moscorovius, 212 ; Poinet’s 166; Roman, 196; Racovian, 210, 212 ; of Socinus, 212 ; of Schmelz (Socinian), 212; of Schomann (Socinian), 212; Westminster, 169. Catechisms , i. 32. Cathari, ii. 122, 384; on purgatory, 127. Catharinus, ii. 198. Catholic (ancient) Doctrine , i. 62. Catholicism: see Romanism. Catholics, union with Protestants, ii. 218. Catlin, ii. 440. Caitenburg , Andr. A., ii. 216. Cave, ii. 298. Cecil , Richard, ii. 425. Celestine of Rome, i. 277, 296, 309. Celibacy, i. 411; ii. 116. Cella7'ius, ii. 209. Celsus, i. 137. Cerdano, ii. 220. Cerdo, i. 59. Ceremonies, ii. 301. Cerinthus, i. 55, 57, 170, 213, 215. Certitudo salutis, ii. 277. Cerularius, Michael, ii. 108. Cesar of Arles, i. 306, 373 : see Ccesar. Cesar o-papism, ii. 299. Chalcedon, Council, i. 282. Chaldee Christians, i. 385. Ghalloner, ii. 459. Chalmers , ii. 431, 434. Chamier, ii. 170, 171. Champlin, ii. 446. Chandler, Bp. ii. 225. Chandler, T. B., ii. 449. Channing, ii. 436, 441. Chantepie, ii. 413. Character indelibilis , ii. 80,294. Charenton Synod, ii. 181. Chardieu (Sardel), ii. 172. Charlemagne, i. 453 ; on image worship, ii. 7 6. Charles the Bald, ii. 58. Charles II. (England), ii. 182. Charnock , ii. 183, 190. Charron, ii. 222. Chatel, ii. 457. Chateaubriand, ii. 457. Chandieu, ii. 166. Chauncy, ii. 438, 449, 451. Checkley , ii. 448. Cheese in the Lord’s Supper : see Artotyrites. Xetporovia, ii. 114. Chennitz, ii. 149, 150, 151. Cheneviere , ii. 415. Children, Communion of, ii. 109: see Com¬ munion. Chillingworth, ii. 180, 183, 194. Chiliasm, i. 119, 213, 360 : see Millenna- rianism. MttSn, i. 115. Choniates : see Nicetas. Chrism, ii. 364. Xoiopa, ii. 87, 112, 118. Christ, Life of, works on, i. 43 ; human na¬ ture, 271, ii. 175; redemption by, L 530 INDEX. 345 ; two wills, 282 ; glorified body, 282, ii. 177; God-Man, 171; union of soul and body in death, 41 ; second advent, 124; sinlessness, 178, 490, 494; ideal and historical, 489. See Christology , Natures , Will, God-man , Hypostasis , Atone¬ ment, Redemption , Advent , Monothelite, Trinity , etc. Christian II., Elector, ii. 151. Christianity , i. 44, 60, 313, 414; ii. 461, 463. Christology , i. 169, 229, 243, 277 ; ii. 35— 56, 344, 485, 489. Chrysostom , i. 230, 232, 255 ; on Christ’s body, 282 ; on sin, 293 ; the Scripture, 317 ; inspiration, 320 ; providence, 335 ; Lord’s Supper, 362, 364 ; resurrection, 370, 377 ; on future punishment, 376, 380. Chubb, ii. 222, 226. Church, i. 193, 352, ii. 71, 289, 519; or¬ ganization, 299 ; representation, 300 ; vis¬ ible and invisible, i. 354 : see Bishop , Priests, Pope, Presbyterian, Clergy, etc, Church of England on the Episcopate, ii. 291 ; in America, 448 : see England. Church History, works on, i. 39 ; Tables of, 40. Church and State, ii. 71, 299, 509, 511. Churches dedicated to angels, i. 338. Churchill, Edmund, ii. 371. Chytrceus, ii. 149. Clairvoyance, ii. 482. Clanburg, ii. 179. Clap , Thomas, ii., 437. Clarendon, Lord, ii. 224. Clarke, Samuel, ii. 183, 194, 210, 213, 225, 226, 329, 332, 414, 478 ; on Dodwell, 371. Clarisse, ii. 413. Clarkson, D., ii. 191. Classical studies, i. 406, ii. 383. Claude, ii. 279 ; on eucharist, 324. Claudius of Savoy, ii. 211. Claudius of Turin, i. 387. Clausen, ii. 412. Clemens , ii. 457. Clement of Alexandria, i. 63 ; works, 72, 76, 79, 110, 111; on inspiration, 89; tradi¬ tion, 96, 97 ; on being of God, 102; on unity of God, 103; names of God, 105; on anthropomorphism, 107 ; on Logos, 120-1 ; creation, i. 133, 135 ; providence, 136, 137 ; on Christ, 175; sinlessness of Christ, 178; redemption, 181, 189; be¬ lief, 190; the church, 193; baptism, 199, 202 ; Lord’s Supper, 204 ; resurrection, 220 ; intermediate state, 223, 281. Clement of Rome, i. 65, 78; on redemption, 182; eschatology, 226; on resurrection, 217, 218. Clement IV., ii. 105. Clement V., ii. 84, 95. Clement VI., ii. 69. Clement VIII., ii. 280. Clementine Homilies, i. 55, 67, 77, 85, 143, 154, 163, 197, 199. Clergy, ii. 114, 290. Clericus (Le Clerc), ii. 199, 216. Gierke, Gilbert, ii. 213. Clemangis , i. 423, ii. 73. Cobham, Lewis, ii. 121. Cocceius , ii. 170, 173, 175; on interpret* tion, 241, 247 ; on atonement, 356. Cochlceus, ii. 197, 198. Coetus Party, ii. 451. Colani, ii. 415. Coleridge, ii. 423, 424, 442, 446. Collections of works of Fathers, etc. i. 34. Collegial system, ii. 509. Collegium Trinitatis, ii. 351. Collenbusch, ii. 502. Collier, Arthur, ii. 333. Collins, ii. 222, 223, 228. Colloquium Charitativum, ii. 219. Colloquium Lipsiacum , ii. 169. Colloquy of Marburg, ii. 309, 316. Cologne , i. 412. Combe, Fran, 247, ii. 330; oneppaTiKoc, l. 99, 116, 126, 188. Lokwitz (Loquis), i. 410, ii. 120. AoyoTrdrup, i. 257. Lollards , i. 409. Lombard : see Peter. London Synod, ii. 166. Longinus, St., ii. 75. Lope de Vega, ii. 205. Lard, N., ii. 440, 519. Lord's Supper, i. 203, 361, ii. 89, 164, 308, 513; consubstantiation, 309, 320; spir¬ itual participation, 317, 318 ; symbolical, metabalical, 312; matter, form, and ob¬ ject, 323. Lord's Supper , Greek Church on, ii. 107. Loscher, ii. 144. Lothaire U., i. 456. Lothrop, ii. 440. Lots, ii. 514. Loudun Synod, ii. 181. Louis of Bavaria, ii. 121. A ovrpov, i. 198. Louvain University Controversies , ii. 278, 280, INDEX. 543 * Love feasts, ii. 514, 543. Low Church in England, ii. 423. Lowman , Moses, ii. 225. Lowih, Bp., ii. 419. Love of God , i. 110. Loyola , ii. 198. Lucar, Cyril, ii. 206, 207. Lucian , i. 313. Lucidus, i. 306. Lucifer , i. 477. Lucke , i. 51, 124, ii. 406; on millenarianism, 120. Lullus, i. 399, 421 ; on Trinity, 467 ; on in¬ carnation, ii. 55. Luther , on uncertainty of grace, ii. 65 ; theses, 139 ; a reformer, 140 ; his expe¬ rience, 141 ; and Melancthon, 143 ; life and works, 144 ; Bible translation, 145 ; Articles of Smalcald, 146 ; Catechisms, 166, 168; Scripture, 230; interpretation, 235; on mystics, 236; inspiration, 241, 245 ; ceremonies, 249 ; on his own au¬ thority, 250 ; original rectitude, 252 ; the fall and original sin, 255, 256 ; traducian- ism, 264; bondage of will, 271-2; assu¬ rance, 277 ; the church, 292 ; priesthood, 293 ; on heresy, 299 ; number of sacra¬ ments, 304 ; transubstantiation, 309 ; on Henry VIII., 309; the mass, 310 ; Lord’s Supper, 314, 317 ; confession, 325; Trin¬ ity, 329; on being, of God, 334; on crea¬ tion, 338 ; angels, 341 ; devils, 341-2 ; incarnation, 345 ; ubiquity, 346 ; christol- ogy, 350 ; atonement, 356; baptism, 367 ; infant baptism, 368. Lutheranism , ii. 141, 149 ; controversies, 148-9 ; systematic theology of, 150 sq. ; decrees, 268 sq. ; the church, 293, 294, 452, 513 ; reformed, 157. Lutheranism and Calvinism , ii. 141, 142, 149, 159, 160, 162 ; attempts at union, 218, 228, 229; decrees, 268; faith, 284; order of redemption, 288 ; worship, 290 ; ordi¬ nation, 295 ; the Lord’s Supper, 314 sq. ; the' host, 323 ; christology, 345 ; Christ’s humiliation, 351 ; baptism, 364, 367. Lutheran mysticism, ii. 154. Lutheran Symbolical Books, ii. 146 sq. Lutherans in America, ii. 443, 450. Lutkemann, ii. 156. A vrpov, i. 179. Lutz, ii. 472. Lyons , canons of, ii. 30. Lyons , council, i. 454. Lyser , ii. 279. Maccovius, ii. 170, 172. Macedonian, i. 229, 258, 262. Macdonald, ii. 435. Macknight , if.' 432. Maclaurin , ii. 432. Macmahon, ii. 425. Macnaught, ii. 470. Macpherson , ii. 446. Magdeburg Controversy, ii. 491. Magee, Abp., ii. 421. Magistracy , ii. 299. Magnetism , ii. 482. Mahan , ii. 445. Maimbourg, ii. 200. Maimonides, i. 427. Maine de Biran , ii. 415. Mainwaring, ii. 182, 187. Maitland, ii. 428. Major, George, ii. 148 ; o:i justification, 286. Majorinus, i. 353. Majus, Heinrich, ii. 144. Makowsky : see Maccovius . M anpooTixoc Formula , i. 253. Malachias , Abp. of Armagh, ii. 105. FfliT i. 115, 140. Malakans , ii. 460. Malan, ii. 415. Maldonatus, ii. 197, 200. Malebranche, ii. 221. Malon , Bp., ii. 489. Man, before the fall, i. 163, 286, ii. 17, 251. Mandeville, ii. 223, 226. Manichees, i. 160, 165, 240, 241, 295, 330, 333, 337, 342, 352, 383, 389, 470; ii. 43, 262 ; canon ofj i. 317. Manning, ii. 426, 459. Mansel , ii. 424, 425. Mant, Bp., ii. 418. M.avrtnri, i. 87. Manton, ii. 183, 190. Manuel, ii. 33. Manutius, Paul, ii. 196. Manz, ii. 209. Marathonius of Nicomedia, i. 262. Marbach of Strasburg, ii. 272, 324. Marburg Colloquy, ii. 309, 314. Marcellus of Ancyra, i. 255, 257, 368 ; on Holy Spirit, 263. Marchica Confessio, ii. 275. Marcion, i. 58, 59, 85, 190. Marcionites , i. 198. Marck , J., ii. 178, 179. Maresius, ii. 170, 173, 213. Marheineke , i. 195, ii. 407, 409 ; on Monta- nus, i. 60 ; on baptism, ii. 364 ; on Trin¬ ity, 480 ; atonement, 501 ; justification, 504. Marian exiles , ii. 298. Marino, ii. 196. Mariolatry, ii. 75, 198: see Mary, Saints. Maronites, i. 241, 284. Marsh, Bp. H., ii. 385, 420. Marsh, James, ii. 446 ; on sin, 488. Marsilius Ficinus , i. 383, 390, 407, 408, 415, ii. 17. Martensen , ii. 410, 514, 516 ; on the devil, ii. 484 ; christology, 495. Martin Marpr elate Tracts , ii. 186. Martin I., i. 283. Martineau , Harriet, ii. 424. Martineau, Jas., ii. 422. Martini, Rudolph, ii. 176, 211, 331. Marriage, of angels, i. 146; priests, ii. 116; see Matrimony. Marrow Controversy , ii. 430, 431. Martyr, Peter, ii. 170; creatianism, 264; in England, 185. Martyrs, i. 180, 198. Marum, abbot, i. 284. Mary, the Virgin, i. 171; mother of God, 544 INDEX. 275; immaculate conception, ii. 29; par¬ tus virgineus, 40; worship of, 74; inter¬ cessor, 75 ; psalter of, 75. See Immaculate Conception. Maskell , ii. 426. Mason , Francis, ii. 297. Mass, ii. 100, 294, 308, 310, 373; sacrifice of, 95; in Heidelberg Catechism, 165. Masses for the. dead, ii. 126 ; private, 326. Massilienses , i. 306. Master. See Eckart. Maastricht, ii. 178, 179. Material Principle of Protestantism, ii. 141. Materialism , ii. 222, 475. Mather, Cotton, ii. 192. Mather, Increase, ii. 192. Mather, Rd., ii. 192. Mather , Samuel, ii. 438. Matrimony, ii. 325 ; as a sacrament, i. 356 ; established in Paradise, ii. 117. Matter, i. 58 ; eternity of, 135. Matter of the eucharist , ii. 324. Matthias of Janow, ii. 71, 73. Matthias , W. B., ii. 184. Maurice, ii. 428, 503. Maurus. See Rabanus. Maximus , i. 283. Mayhew, ii. 437, 449. Mayo, Rd., ii. 213. Mayivahlen, ii. 503. Maxcy, ii. 449. Me Cosh, ii. 433. McCrie, ii. 434. Mead, ii. 468. Means of Grace, i. 352 ; ii. 303, 513. See Grace. Meaux, council, ii. 87. Mede, ii. 468. Mediaeval Art , ii. 121. Mediate imputation, ii. 180, 181. Megapolensis, ii. 451. Megetius, ii. 36. Meier on Arius, i. 250 ; Hilary, 260 ; Tri¬ theism, 268 ; Wessel, 410. Meier, Sebastian, ii. 160. Melandhon, ii. 143 ; works, 145 ; confession of faith (Augsburg), 146 ; controversies, 148, 175; and Greek church, 207 ; inspi¬ ration, 242 ; original sin, 256 ; freedom, 272; assurance, 277 ; the word sacra¬ ment, 303 ; number of sacraments, 303 ; Trinity, 329 ; being of God, 334 ; preser¬ vation, 340 ; atonement, 355. Melandhon' s Loci, i. 29. Melchiades, ii. 87. Melchisedekites , i. 60. Meletius , i. 14. Melito , of Sardis, i. 108. Melville , Andrew, ii. 182, 185. Memmon, i. 277. Memra, i. 116. Menander, i. 54. * Mendelssohn, ii. 476. Menius , ii. 209. Menken, ii. 496, 497, 502. Mennas of Constantinople, i. 230. Menno Simonis, ii. 209 ; docetism of, 344, 348. Mennonites, ii. 209 ; confession of, 209 ; on Scripture, 237 ; sacraments, 303 ; wash¬ ing of feet, 305 ; Lord’s Supper, 309, 315; baptism, 364, 367 ; rebaptism, 369. Menzer, ii. 353. Mercy of God, i. 110. Merit, i. 189 ; ii. 67, 282. Meritum ex condigno, ex congruo, imputati- vum, ii. 68, 69. Merle d'Aubigne, ii. 414, 416. Messiah, i. 117, 118. Mestrezat, ii. 279. Metabolical view of the Supper , i. 211; ii 312, 362. MeTaf3u?i2.Ea6ai, ii. 109. M.£Tanosla6ai, ii. 109. Metempsychosis, ii. 517, 519. . Method of treating History . i. 24. Methodism, ii. 39 i, 393, 487, 504 ; in America, 443, 449 ; on predestination, 508. Methodius, i. 230, 294, 368, 369 ; on Origen, 333. Meyer, ii. 518. Miall, ii. 429. Michael Cerularius, ii. 108. Michael de Placois, ii. 51. Michaelis , ii. 383, 385, 481, 498. Michelet , C. L., ii. 408. Middle Ages, works on, i. 40. Miehl, ii. 455. Migration of souls, ii. 519. Milan church , ii. 185. Miles, J. W., ii. 447. Militant church, ii. 291. Mill, ii. 383, Mill, James, ii. 423, 424. Mill, John Stuart, ii. 423, 424. Mill, W. H., ii. 429. Millennarianism , i. 60, 213, 368; ii. 119, 370, 519. See Christian. Miller, H., ii. 434. Miller, Samuel, ii. 445. Miller, William, ii. 451. Milman, Dean, ii. 423, 428. Milner, John, ii. 458. Milton, ii. 183, 194, 214, 298. Ministerium, ii. 294. Ministry, Protestant, ii. 295. Minnesingers, ii. 75. Minucius Felix, i 63 ; works, 69, 76, 79, 103 105, 137, 143, 144, 155, 171; resurrec tion, 218, 219; eschatology, 226. f-nrr snpn, i. 194. Miracles , i. 314, 414; ii. 467 ; in early church, i. 80. Miracle- Plays, ii. 53. Mirandula, John Picus, i. 407, 408. Mislenia, ii. 267. Missa , i. 367. Missale Romanum , ii. 197. Missionary Societies, ii. 406. Modalism, i. 131, 246. See Sdbellianism. Modetus, ii. 168. Moderates, Scotch, ii. 430. Mogila.s, Peter, ii. 207. Mohammed , as Antichrist, ii. 120. Mohammedanism, i. 382, 414; ii. 206. Mohler, i. 18 ; ii. 456; on allegorising, L 93; INDEX. 545 Ciement, 121 ; Justin Martyr, 141 ; Apol- linaris, 274 ; Anselm, 434, 435 ; justifica¬ tion, ii. 282. Molanus , abbot, ii. 219. Moleschott , ii. 475. Molina , ii. 202 ; on predestination, 278, 280; his Spiritual Guide, 288. Molinceus. See Moulin . Molinos, ii. 204, 205. Momiers , ii. 415, 453. Momma, ii. 174. Monads, ii. 340. Monarchianisms , i. 60, 117, 130. Monas, i. 247. Monasticism, i. 305, 411. Moneta , ii. 17, 122, 128. Monographs, historical, ii. 406. Monophysitism, i. 20, 229, 241, 277-282, 385. Monotheism , i. 330. Monothelites , i. 229, 241, 282 ; ii. 35. Montagu , ii. 182, 187. Montaigne , ii. 222. Montanus , Montanism, i. 60, 96, 194, 209, 216, 236. Monte-Mayor , Prudentius de, ii. 280. Montesono. See John de. Moral Argument for Being of God , i. 432 ; ii. 477. Moral Attributes , i. 452. See Attributes. Moral Interpretation , ii 467. Moravians , ii. 391, 509, 513. More, Hannah, ii. 425. More, Henry, ii. 183, 193. Morell, J. D., ii. 425. Morgan (Pelagius), i 296. Morgan , Thos., ii. 226. Morison, James, ii. 432. Morlin, Joachim, ii 149, 363. Mormons , ii. 443, 452. Mortal sins , ii 23, 25 ; Protestant view, 262. Mortality , ii. 29. Morton , Thos., ii. 296. Mors oetema, ii. 354. ii 4-4-1 Morns, S. F. N., ii. 383, 387, 498. Mosaic account of Creation , l 332, 470; ii. 338, 481. Moscorovius, catechism, ii. 212. Moses Maimonides, i. 427. Mosheim , i. 72 ; ii. 377, 448. Mother of God, i. 275. Moulin, Peter du, ii. 180, 182, 279. Mozarabic Liturgy , ii. 26. Mozley, ii. 428, 507. Muhlenberg, ii. 450. Muller, Geo., ii. 413. MiiUer , Heinrich, it 156. Muller, Johannes von, on monks of St. Gall, i. 424. Muller, Julius, ii. 410 ; on Augustine, i. 292 ; Augustine’s view of freedom, 303 ; on sin, ii. 488 ; on freedom, 507. Munscher , i. 27 ; on Tertullian, i. 109, note; Clement, 121; Marcellus, 258; Jerome, 380 ; sacraments of Old Test, ii 82. Munster Anabaptists , ii. 209. Muntinghe, ii. 413. Munus propheticum, sacerdotale, regium, ii. 353. Munzer, ii. 209, 284 ; on church, 295. Murdock, ii. 448. Mursinna, ii. 383, 388. Musculus, W., ii. 149, 1^0, 17 1 ; on baptism, 365. Muslin. See Musculus. MvorypiovA. 211; (sacramentum), ii. 117. Muth, ii. 455. Myconius, ii. 170; on Lord’s Supper, 317. Mysticism, mediaeval, i. 401, 406, 412, 421, 427, 438, 442, 458, 470 ; ii. 13, 20, 26, 39, 47, 130, 138; Protestant, 1 54 ; Lutheran, 154, 155; Reformed, 177, 178; Roman Catholic, 203, 394, 515 ; on the internal word, 236 ; justification, 280 ; on the church, 300 ; Lord’s Supper, 323 ; crea¬ tion, 337 ; Trinity, 336 ; Christology o£ 344; redemption, 355. Mythology, works on, i. 20. Myths , ii. 470. Mares, ii. 384, 421. Natalis (Noel), Alexander, ii. 199, 206. Nature, philosophy of. See Schelling. Natural Religion, ii. 424. Naturalism , ii. 220, 378, 396. Nature, book of, i. 421. Nature of God, i. 327, 441. See God. Nature of Christ, i. 229; ii. 35, 271, 277, 344 See Christology. Nazarenes, i. 55, 66, 170; ii. 328, 344. Neander, ii. 406, 448 ; cited, i. 15, 16, 18, 27, 39, 58, 88 ; on Bardesanes, 137 ; Origen, 250 ; Holy Spirit, 263 ; Philopeonus, 268 ; Chrysostom, 294 ; Pelagius, 298 ; on the Predestinatus, 306; church, 354; Augus¬ tine, 355 ; Pelagius and Augustine on baptism, 359, 360 ; theories of the eucha- rist, 363 ; Eusebius, 365 ; Athanasius, 365 ; Abelard, 417 ; Agobard, 426 ; An¬ selm, ii. 46, 61 ; Innocent III., 49 ; Wyc- liffe, 63 ; Scotus on eucharist, 91. Neander , Michael, ii. 144. Necromancy, ii. 452. Nelson, ii. 213. Nemesius, L 230, 234 ; on preexistence, 286 ; on creation, 335. Neonomians, ii. 431. Neoplatonism, ii. 375. Nepos, i. 368. Nestorius , i. 275. Nestorianism, i. 20, 241, 275, ii. 35, 344* 363 ; on marriage, 117. Netherlands, ii. 412. Nevin, J. W., ii. 450. Newcome, Bp., ii. 419. New England, theology in, ii. 183, 192, 43 & Newman , John, ii. 459. Newman , J. H., ii. 414, 423, 426. Newton, Isaac, ii. 213, 421. Newton, John, ii. 415. Newton, Thos., ii. 383, 418. Newtown Synod, ii. 192. New School Presbyterians, ii. 444. New Haven Theology , ii. 436. New Jerusalem Church, ii. 391. 546 INDEX. Nice, council of, i. 251 ; second council, ii. 108. Nicene Creed, i. 334, ii. 249, 329. Nicetas Choniates , i. 385, ii. 36 ; on Trinity, i. 458, 463. Nicetds Pedoratus, ii?108. Nicholas, Michel, on the Logos, i. 116. Nicholls , ii. 225; on the church, 296. Nicolai, ii. 381. Nicolai, Melchior, ii. 353. Nicolaitans, i. 54. Nicolas, Aug., ii. 458. Nicolas I., l. 454. Nicolas Cabasilas, i. 402, 406. Nicolas Clemangis, i. 423, ii. 73 Nicolas de Casa, i. 423 Nicolas of Methone, i. 385, 439, 448, ii. 26 ; on Trinity, i. 458 , immortality, ii. 16, 36 ; on redemption, 41, 42 ; on eucharist, 109. Nicole, ii. 201, 202 ; on the eucharist, 324. Niedner, i. 39, 389. Nihil privativum, negativum, i. 470. Nihilianism, ii. 35, 38. Niles, N., ii. 439. Nilus , i. 366. Nitsch, G., on Scripture, ii. 245. Nitzsch, C. J., ii. 406, 410, 477 ; on atone¬ ment, 500. Noetus, i. 60, 117, 131, 246. Nogent, Guibert of, ii. 136, 137. Non-Adorantes (Unitarians), ii. 212. Non- Conformists, ii. 417. Non-jurors, ii. 183, 189, 417. Nominalism , i. 391, 457, 460, ii. 51. Nordheimer, ii. 448. Norris, ii. 183, 193, 225, 227. Norton, Andrews, ii. 441, 448. Norton, John, ii. 192. Nosselt, ii. 384. Nofla, i. 317. Notiones personates (Trinity), ii. 336. Novalis, ii. 491. Novation, i. 71, 106, 108, 131, 171, 172, 352; controversy, 194. Novum Testamentum, Instrumentum , i. 89. Noyes, G. R., ii. 448. Nye, Philip, ii. 298. Oakley, ii 426. Oaths, ii. 209. Oblations, i. 209. O'Brien, Bp., ii. 505. Occam, i. 399, 400, 401, 412 ; being of God, 432, 437 ; on knowing God, 440 ; on atonement, ii. 51; elevation of host, 100 ; transubstantiation, 104, 105. Occasionalism , ii. 341. Ochino, ii. 212 ; on satisfaction, 359. Octavius, by Minucius Felix, i. 69. i Odo of Clugny, i. 424. Odo of Cambray , ii. 15. (Ecolampadms, ii. 160, 170; on church disci¬ pline, 299 ; on Lord’s Supper, 309, 314. (Ecumenical Councils: see General Oegger, ii. 393. Oetinger, ii. 388, 389, 393 ; on Lord’s Supper, 515. Offices of Christ , ii. 50, 357. Oil, in extreme unction, ii. 112. 113. Oischinger, ii. 457 Olevianus, ii. 164, 175; christology, ii. 351, 352. Olin, ii. 450. Oliva, Peter, ii. 116. Old Testament (see Bible), ii. 472 ; Protestant views on, ii. 248. Olshausen , ii. 470. Om, i. 114. Omnipotence, i. 110, 332, 448 : see Attributes. Omnipresence, i. 110, 445. Omniscience , i. 110, 332, 448; limited, ii. 335. ' OfioLovoioc , i. 255. 'OpoXoyovpeva, i. 317. 'Opoovmog, i. 251, 253, 255. Oncken, ii. 516. Onderdonk, ii. 449. v Ovopa , i. 104. Ontological Argument , i. 325, 432, 476. Opera ad intra, extra, ii. 334*? Opera attributiva (Trinity), ii. 336. Opera oeconomica (Trinity), ii. 336. Operationes Spiritus, ii. 288. Ophites, i. 59, 143, 163. Optatus of Mileve, i. 352, 353. Optimism , ii. 341. Opus, ex opere operantis, ex op. operate, ii. 80, 303, 306. Opzoomer, ii. 413. Orange, Synod, i. 306. Orders , foreign, in Church of England, ii. 296. Orders, sacrament, i. 356; ii. 114, 115, 325: see Ordination . Ordination , matter and form, ii. 114 ; age of the ordained, 115; seven classes, 115; is indelible, 115. Ordinatio vaga, ii. 295. Or do salutis, ii. 109, 288. Origen, i. 28, 63 ; works, 72, 73, 81 ; on Ebionites, 56; on canon, 85; inspiration, 87, 90, 91; interpretation, 92; tradition, 98; God, 105, 107; omniscience, 110; justice, 112 ; Logos, 123 ; Holy Spirit, 128; Trinity, 130, 132; creation, 133, 135; angels, 139; demons, 143; on res¬ toration of Satan, 146 ; anthropology, 150; preexistence, 151; image" of God, 153; on freedom, 155; immortality, 158 ; on sin, 160; on the fall, 162, 165; on Christ, 171, 174, 178; redemption, 181, 185, 186 ; predestination, 188, 191 ; on the church, 195, infant baptism, 198 ; millennium, 2 17 ; resurrection, 220 ; purifying fire, 223 ; fu¬ ture state, 224, 226 ; Christ’s glorified body, *282. Origenism , fate of, i. 229, 239, 243, 246, 318, 333. Origin of Soul, i. 151: see Creationism, Traducianism. Original Righteousness, ii. 251. Original Sin (see Sin), i. 293, 301, ii. 25, 255, 364, 485, 487, 547 ; Flacian contro¬ versy, ii. 149 ; Edwards on, 436. Original Sin and Baptism, ii. 364, 365. Orosius, i. 298, 344. Orthodox Church : see Greek. INDEX. 547 Crtftodoxy, ancient, i. 228. Osgood , S., ii. 441. Osiander , Andrew, ii. 149. Osiander , L. ii. 150, 353 ; on atonement, 362 ; on water of baptism, 367 ; on justi¬ fication, 286. Osterwald, ii. 377. Osterzee , Van, ii. 413. Ostiarii , ii. 115. Ostorodt, ii. 210; on Scripture, 240; on the Supper, 321; Christology, 349. Ott, ii. 209. Otto , Bp. Bamberg, ii. 72 ; on number of sacraments, 78. Otto (Emperor), ii, 72. Ovoid , i. 264, 267. Overall , ii. 186, 296. Overton , ii. 184. Owen , John, ii. 183, 191, 298; on universal redemption, 357. Owen, J. J., ii. 448. Owen, Robert, ii. 426. Oxford Council, on Bible reading, i. 430. Oxford Essays and Reviews, ii. 424, 429. Oxford School, ii. 412, 414, 423 ; on purga¬ tory, 520. Oxlee, ii. 422. Pcedobaptism : see Infant Baptism. Paine , Thos., ii. 384. Pajon, ii. 180, 181, 277, 279. Palamas, i. 474. Paley, ii. 384, 419, 477. Palfrey, ii. 441. Pallavicmi, ii. 195. Ild/Uf, i. 224. Pamphilus of Caesarea, i. 230. Paneitas, ii. 104. Pantheism, i. 132, 441; ii. 47, 64, 132, 220, 222, 337, 399, 474, 475, 481. Panther as, i. 171. Papacy , ii 71, 74, 412 ; as a state, 299. Papal Decretals , i. 32. Papias , i. 66, 213. Paracelsus, ii. 154, 155, 324. Paraclete, i. 125. Uapddooic, i. 52, 63. Paradise, L 224, ii. 132. Pareus , ii. 218. Paris Councils , i. 442, ii. 32, 99, 166. Paris University, ii. 32. Park, E. A., ii. 445. Parker , Abp., ii. 182, 184. Parker, Samuel, ii. 419. Parkhurst , ii. 419. IT apovcia, i. 213. Particular churches, ii. 299 : see Indepen¬ dency. Particularism of Grace, ii. 180, 276 : see Atonement. Partus virgineus (of Mary), ii. 40. Pascal , ii. 201, 203. Paschasius Radbert, ii. 40 ; on sense of Scripture, i. 429 ; on sacraments, ii. 77; on Lord’s Supper, 89, 90, 92. Passaglia, ii. 455. Passive obedience, ii. 354, 357, 358, 362, 497, 498 Pastoris, Adam (Martini), ii. 331. Pater ini, i. 384. Patrick, St., on Purgatory, ii. 127. Patrick , Bp. Symon, ii. 183, 194. Patripassians , i. 131, 248, 255. Patrology , i. 18, 34. Paul, works on, i. 46, 47; on Logos, 117; on resurrection, 218. Paul III., ii. 148. Paul V., ii. 280. Paul of Samosata, L 246, 248 ; revived, ii. 211. Paulicians, i. 240, 384, 430. Paulinus, i. 296. Paulus , H. E. G., ii. 398, 406. Paulus Orosius, i. 298. Payne, Geo., ii. 424, 429. Peabody, ii. 441. Pearson, ii. 183, 189, 384 ; on baptism, 366; on the descent to Hell, 354. Peccatum , i. 292. Peccatum, originate, originans, ii. 264 ; orig- inale, actuate, 265. See Sin. Pedagogics, modern, ii. 486. Uyyrj Oeottjtoc, i. 455. Pelagianism, i. 229, 240, 241, 287, 296, 305, 352, 359; ii. 201, 259, 268, 485, 505. . Pelagius , i. 296 ; on baptism, 359 ; creation¬ ism, 287 ; eternal punishment, 376. PeUicia, ii. 456. Penance, first and second, i. 189; ii. 70; aa a sacrament, 109 ; matter and form o£ 110, 325. Penn , Wm., ii. 217. Penny-preachers , ii. 70. Pepuzians, i. 60. Perfectibility , ii. 463. Perfectionism , ii. 442. II epix 16* Psychology , i. 149; of scholastics, ii. 13. Psychopannychy, ii. 129, 370, 372, 514 : see Thnetopsychites. Puaux, ii. 416. Publicani, i. 384. Puffendorf ii. 377. Pulleyn, Robert, ii. 14, 65 ; on the conception of Christ, 41 ; the atonement, 47, 49 ; on the cup, 102. Pungens-asinum, Johannes, ii. 104. Pur a naturalia, ii. 19. Purgatory, i. 221, 273 ; ii. 126, 289, 326 520 ; site ofj ii. 130. Purifying fire, i. 373; ii. 126. Purists, ii. 245. Puritans, ii. 182, 183; ancient, i. 352. Pusey, ii. 414, 423, 426; his school, 412, 414, 465, 510, 513. Pyrmont , Quakers in, ii. 217. Quakers , ii. 208, 216, 218, 451; in America, 443 ; on clergy, 291 ; the church, 295 ; sa¬ craments, 303; Lord’s Supper, 309; chris¬ tology of, 344; on redemption, 355, 362. Quenstedt, ii. 151, 153; on creation, 339; on providence, 341. Quesnel , ii. 201, 202, 203, 269. Quicunque, symbol, i. 269. Quiercy Synod, ii. 56, 60. Quietists , ii. 204, 205. Quietists (Greek), i. 474. Quintilla , i. 202. Rdbanus Maurus, i. 429 ; ii. 36 ; on predes¬ tination, 56, 57 ; sacraments, 77 ; baptism, 86 ; Lord’s Supper, 89, 91. Rabbins, i. 426. Racovian Catechism , ii. 210, 212; on inter¬ pretation, 234 ; freedom and grace, 271 ; the Supper, 320 ; on person of Christ, 349, 350 ; atonement, 360. Radbert , on virginity of Mary, ii. 30. See Paschasius. Radical evil (Kant), ii. 486. Raimund Lullus , i. 399. See Lullus. Raimund Martini, i. 383 ; ii. 17. Raimund of Sabunde, i. 399 ; on revelation, 423 ; being of God, 432, 436 ; the Trinity, 467 ; immortality, ii. 16, 17 ; freedom, 22 ; sacraments, 79; orders, 114. Rainer ius, i. 431. Ramus , Peter, ii. 170, 171. Randolph , Thos., ii. 333. Rascolniks, ii. 460. Ratio ac forma, etc., ii. 298. Rationalism, ii. 210, 222, 378, 385, 395, 397, 404, 407, 463, 468, 474, 506, 509, 515 ; on Scripture, ii. 239 ; Christology of, 489, 490 ; atonement, 496. Rationalistic Reaction, ii. 410. Rationalismus vulgaris, ii. 397, 410. Ratramn, i. 454 ; ii. 40 ; on virginity of Ma¬ ry, 30 ; predestination, 56, 58 ; on Lord’s Supper, 89, 90, 92. Rauch, ii. 447. Ravenscroft, ii. 449. Reading of Bible, i. 428. See Bible. Real Presence, i. 207 ; ii. 309, 316. Realism, i. 391, 460. Reason and Revelation, i. 416 ; ii. 463. Re-baptizing, ii. 86, 364, 369. Recared, i. 264. Rectitude, primitive, ii. 17. See Innocence. Redditio Animce, ii. 513. Redemption , i. 179, 190, 395; ii. 41, 46, 268, 354; economy ofj 251 sq., 288. See Ecor^ omy. 550 INDEX. Redslob, ii. 414. Rees, Thos., ii. 212, 421. Reformation , ii. 139, sq., 228, sq. See Prot¬ estantism, Lutheranism, Calvinism , etc. Reformation, in its second stage, ii. 374, sq. Reformation , works on, i. 40. Reformation in England, Calvinistic, ii. 185. Reformed (see Calvinism), ii. 141. Reformed (Calvinistic) Confessions on Scrip¬ ture, ii. 232. Reformed Presbyterians , ii. 431. Refutatio of 1557, ii. 272. Regeneration, baptismal, ii. 366, 368. Regiaticum concilium, on extreme unction, ii. 112. Regula Fidei, i. 129. Reid, ii. 433. Reimarus, H. S., ii. 381. Reinbeck, ii. 377. Reinhard, ii. 397, 409, 477, 481, 511, 514, 519 ; on demoniacs, 483 ; on the fall, 488 ; atonement, 498. Reinhold, ii. 409. Reinmar of Zweter, ii. 72. Relationships in Marriage, prohibited, ii. 117. Relief Secession, ii. 431. Relics, ii. 301. Religio, i. 312. Religion, history of} i. 19; works on, 20; defined, ii. 311, 461. Remigius, Abp., ii. 56, 59. Remissiones peccatorum, i. 189. Remonstrants, ii. 208, 214; articles of} 214, 215; on Scripture, 232 ; on justification, 284 ; on Trinity, 332. Renctsci, i. 201. Repentance, works of, ii. 69. See Works. Representation of the Church, ii. 300. Reprobatio, i. 281, 304. See Election. Res sacramenti , ii. 116. Resemblance to God, ii. 18. See Image. Restoration, i. 376. See Eschatology. Resurrection, i. 213, 217, 369, 372; ii. 122. Retribution, i. 373. See Hell. Rettberg, i. 191 ; on Occam, ii. 105, 106. Rtuchlin, John, i. 407. Reusch , Peter, ii. 378. Reuss, ii. 414. Revelation, idea of} i. 311, 416; ii. 463. Revelation, the, i. 213, 214 ; ii. 120. Revelation and Inspiration , ii. 245. See In¬ spiration. Reves : see Servetus. Revival of Letters, i. 411. Reynolds, Ed., ii. 182, 188. Rhyn, Van. ii. 413. Ribow, ii. 377. Ricci, ii. 455. Rice , N. L., ii. 445. Richard St. Victor, i. 383, 392, 394 ; on reason, 420 ; omnipresence of God, 445, 446 ; omnipotence, 448 ; the Trinity, 467 ; soul and body, ii. 14 ; on incarnation, 54. Richards, James, ii. 445. Richter , F., ii. 521. Ridgeley, ii. 183, 191, 420. Ridley, ii. 182, 184. Ries, ii. 209 ; on faith, 285 Riggs , ii. 448. Righteousness, original, ii. 251 : see Image. Ripley , George, ii. 447. Ripley, H. J., ii. 448. Ritter, H., ii. 409 ; on Erigena, i. 388 ; oa scholasticism, 386, 390; Aquinas, 397. Rivetus, ii. 170, 173, 180, 182, 215. Robbers' Synod, i. 278. Robert of Melun, i. 395, 396. Robert Pulleyn, ii. 14: see Pulleyn. Robertson, F. W., ii. 428. Robertson, Wm., ii. 431. Robinson, Edward, ii. 447. Robinson , John, ii. 192. Rochelle, synod, ii. 166. Rodaz, ii. 516. Roger : see Bacon. Rogers, Henry, ii. 429. Rogers, John, on church, ii. 296. Rohr, ii. 398, 475, 491, 511, 514. Rojas: see Spinola. Rollin, Ledru, ii. 415. Rokykzana, i. 410. Romaine, ii. 419, 425. Romanism, ii. 141, 142, 195 sq., 201 ; formal and material principles, 228 ; characteris¬ tic doctrines, 229 sq. ; tradition, 248 ; man before the fall, 251 ; freedom, 268 ; predestination, 278 sq. ; Pelagian, 280 ; justification and works, 281 sq. ; the church, 289 sq.; ecclesiastical power, 290; the church a state, 299 ; worship of saints, etc., 301 ; sacraments, 303 ; the mass, 308 ; atonement, 357 ; baptism, 364. Romanism and Protestantism, ii. 229 sq., 244 sq., 251 sq., 281 sq., 289 sq., 303 sq., 308 sq. Roman Catechism, on immortality, ii. 2 ; on original righteousness, 252 ; on faith, 283 ; on seven sacraments, 303 ; on "Word of God, 305. Roman Catholic Church, ii. 454 ; theology, 197 ; mysticism, 203 ; liberal tendencies, 206 : see Romanism. Romish Baptism , ii. 364. See Re-baptism. Rome, council, ii. 89, 92, 94. Romeyn, ii. 445. Ronge, ii. 458. Roos, ii. 518. Roscelin, i. 384, 391, 393 ; on Trinity, 457, 459. Rose, ii. 413. Rosenkranz, i. 28, ii. 409, 470. Rasenmuller, ii. 468. Rosicrucians, ii. 157. Rosmini , ii. 455. Rothe, i. 19, ii. 469 ; cited, i. 194, 361, 409, 410, 463 ; on sin, 488 ; on Christology, 495 ; on the church, ii. 511. Rotheram, ii. 418. Rothmann Controversy, ii. 246. Rottmann , ii. 209. Rougemont, ii. 469. Rousseau, ii. 380. Routh, ii. 428. Rouas (Roxas) de Spinola, ii. 219. Royaards, ii. 413. Royer- Collar d, ii. 415 INDEX. 551 DTftx nr, i*. 125. Rucelinus : see Roscelin. Ruckert, i. 205 ; on Gregory, 363 ; on Cyril, 364. Rudelbach, ii. 453 ; on inspiration, i. 426. Rufinus, i. 270, 289; on revelation, 312j on canon, 317; unity of God, 330; the church, 354. Ruge, ii. 408. Rule of Faith, i. 51. Rupert of Duytz, i. 428 ; on Jews, 383 ; on incarnation without sin, ii. 53 ; on transubstantiation, 104. Rupp, ii. 411. Russian- Greek Church, ii. 459. See Greek. Russian Schismatics, ii. 460. Rutherford, Samuel, ii. 185. Ruysbroek, John, i. 402, 405, 440; on the Trinity, 466 ; Christology, ii. 39 ; grace, 66 ; transubstantiation, 99, 101. Ryland , ii. 423, 429. Sabellicmism, i. 60, 211, 229, 240, 241, 246, 249, 254, 328, 329; ii. 328, 329, 457. Sabunde : see Raimund. Sacerdotium , ii. 293, 294. Sachsenspiegel, ii. 72 Sack , A. W., ii. 385. Sacramentarians , ii. 161. Sacraments, i. 355, ii 71, 76, 228, 509, 513; idea of, i 211, ii. 514; six, 356; seven, 7 6 ; four, 7 6 ; twelve, 7 8 ; in Old Testa¬ ment, 81, 82 ; seven or two, 303 ; Prot¬ estant view of, 116. See Orders, Mar¬ riage, Penance , Extreme Unction , etc. Sacramenti integritas , ii. 305. Sacr amentum, i. 211, ii. 116 ; difference from sacrificium, 310. Sacramentum necessitatis, dignitatis, consilii, ii. 116. Sacrifice in Eucharist, i. 204, 311, 367. Sacrifice of Mass, ii. 95, 308, 310. Sacrifice and transubstantiation , ii. 100. Sailer, ii 453, 456. Saints, worship of, ii. 74, 76, 301. See Wor¬ ship. Sale of Indulgences, ii. 325. See Indulgences. Sail , Andrew, ii. 297. Salmeron, ii. 197, 200. Salter's Hall Meeting , ii. 422. Salvian, i. 230, 237 ; on providence, 325. Salzmann, ii. 381. Samosatianism. See Paul of Samosata. Sameness of essence, i 252. See Homousia. Sampscei, i. 57. Sancroft, Abp., ii. 416, 417. > Sanctification, ii 281, sq., 288, 503. Sandemanianism, ii. 430, 431. Sander, ii. 476. Sand er son, Robert, ii. 296, 298. Sandius, ii. 332. Saracens , i. 383. Saravia, ii. 168, 186. Sardica council, i. 253. Sardel (Chardieu), ii. 172. Sardinoux, ii. 414. Sarpi, ii. 195. Sart-orius, ii. 404, 406, 494. Satan, i. 142, 145, 470, 477 ; ’restoration 146, ii. 43, 264. See Devil. Satis/ actio, i. 180; ii. 43, 355. Satisfactio operis, ii. 109, 325. Satisfaction theory, ii. 350, 354, 356. See Atonement. Saturninus, i. 59. Saumur , school of, ii. 168, 178, 180, 182; on original sin, ii. 261, 262. Savonarola, i. 383, 409, 410, 421 ; on inspi¬ ration, 426, 427 ; interpretation, 430 ; on being of God, 432 ; Trinity, 458, 468 ; predestination, ii. 63 ; original sin, 28, 29 ; grace, 67 ; faith, 69 ; on the church, 71, 74. Saybrook Synod, ii. 192. Savoy Confession , ii. 169. Saxon divines, christology of, ii. 352. Saywell, Wm., ii. 296. Scepticism, i. 414, 438. Sceva, i. 114. Schaff, ii. 448, 450. Schafihausen, ii. 413. Schaller , ii. 409, 475. Scheffer (Silesius), ii. 204. Scheibel, ii. 453, 516. Schelling , ii. 39, 398, sq., 464 ; on Trinity, 480 ; on freedom, 487 ; christology, 492. Schenkel, ii. 410, 411, 463, 511 ; on Protest¬ antism, 144. Scherer, ii. 415, 467. Scherzer, ii. 199. Schiller, ii. 398. i. 53. Schleiermacher, ii. 400, 401, 403, 405 ; on Artemon, etc., i. 118; Augustine, 333; Arminians, ii. 216; religion, 462; New Testament, 473; his pantheism, 475; on Trinity, 479, 480; angels, 482; on sin, 485, 488 ; Christology, 490, 494 ; atone¬ ment, 496, 500 ; election, 507 ; on the church, 511; sacraments, 514. Schlichting, ii. 210 ; on Scripture, 240. Schliemann, i. 56, 64. Schlosser, ii. 519. Schluter, ii. 177. Schmalz, ii. 210 ; Catechism, 212. Schmidlin. See Andrea. Schmidt, C., ii. 414. Schmidt, C. A. E., ii. 380. Schmidt, J. L., ii. 222. Schmucicer , ii. 450. Schneckenburger , ii. 142 ; on Calvinism, 160 ; on the Reformed Christology, 353 ; atone¬ ment, 356. Schneidemuhl, synod, ii. 458. Schnepf on (Ecolampadius, ii. 314. Scholastic Subtleties, i. 463 ; ii. 19, 20, 85. Scholasticism, i. 259, 381, 386 ; three pe» riods, 391, 401; Protestant, ii. 154, 170. Scholten, ii. 413. Schomann, Catechism, ii. 212. Schott, H. A., ii. 398. Scholz, ii. 455. Schrockh, on Spener, ii. 372. Schwabach Articles, ii. 147. Schwabenspiegel , ii. 72. Schwarz , ii. 498, 515. 552 INDEX. Schwarzerd. See Melandhon. Schivegler , i. 45, 57, 59, 61, 70; ii. 409, 503 ; on Tertullian, i. 122. Schweizer , Alex., ii. 407, 413 ; on Anselm, 45 ; Lutheranism and Calvinism, 141 ; Calvin¬ ism, 160, 274; Amyraut, 180, 181, 279; atonement, 356 ; Reformed system, 508. ScJiwenkfeld, ii. 154, 155, 284 ; on the letter and spirit, 237 ; justification, 287 ; Lord’s Supper, 309, 315 ; glorified flesh of Christ, 344, 348. Schulz, trial of, ii. 389. Schulz , D., ii. 516. Schulthess , ii. 412. Schurmann , Maria von, ii. 177. Schyn , ii. 285. Scientia media , ii. 280. Scotigena. See Erigena. Scotch Philosophy and Theology , ii. 182, 430. Scotists, i. 412, 439; ii. 199, 279, 354. Scott, John, ii. 420. Scott, Thos., ii. 184. Scotus, John Duns, i. 396 ; works, 398 ; on reason and revelation, 416, 419; inspira¬ tion, 426 ; ontological argument, 432, 436 ; freedom of God, 453 ; theodicy, 474; angelology, 476; the devil, 477, 478; on immortality, ii. 16; sin, 26; original jus¬ tice, 28; immaculate conception, 30, 32; adoptionism, 38 ; atonement, 46, 51 ;. in¬ carnation without sin, 54 ; predestination, 62 ; on cooperation, 64 ; sacraments, 80 ; eucharist, 91; penance, 111; resurrection, 124; future state, 132, 133. Scripture , i. 82, 421; authority of, ii. 374: see Bible. Scripture and Tradition (see Tradition ), ii. 465. Scrivener, ii. 189. Scriver, ii. 156. Seabury, ii. 449. Seeker, Abp., ii. 449. Second Advent, L 213, ii. 370: see Advent. Secret Marriages , 'L 116. Seda, i. 53. Sects, ii. 208. Secularism, ii. 475. Sedgwick, ii. 424. Seekers, ii. 222. Seiler, G-. F., ii. 383, 386, 498. Seiss, ii. 450. Self-determination, i. 155 : see Freedom. Selnecker, ii. 149, 150, 151. Semi-Arians, i. 229, 253, 254, 256, 259. Semipelagianism , i. 229, 241, 305, ii. 63. Semisch , i. 127, 139 ; on Logos, 119. Semler, ii. 389, 464; on Strigel, 151; on theories of inspiration, i. 427 ; on religion, ii. 461, 462. Sempiternitas, L 445. Sendomir Consensus , ii. 169, 219. Senf ii. 467. Sengler, ii. 457. Sens council, i. 459. Sentences, i. 392. Septuagint, i. 187. Sergius , l. 283. Sermons , rationalistic, it 382. Serpent : see Satan. Serostus Lupus on predestination, ii. 56, 58. Servetus, ii. 210, 211, 271 ; on Scripture, 238 ; on Trinity, 328, 330; Christology, 344, 349. Sethites, i. 163. Seven Sacraments, ii. 76, 303: see Sacra¬ ments. Sever ians, i. 281, 283. Severus Sanctus Endelechius, i. 345. Sextus IV., ii. 30. Shaftesbury, ii. 222, 226. Shakers, ii. 451. Sharp, John, ii. 172, 297. rov, i. 142. Shaw, Samuel, ii. 194. Shearman , ii. 420. Shekinah , i. 116. Shephard, Thos., ii. 192, 298. Shepherd of Hermas, i. 54, 134, 139, 141, 318 : see Hermas. ^1K», i. 221. Sherlock, Thos., ii. 225. Sherlock, Wm., ii. 222, 297, 328, 332, 333. Sibbs , ii. 191. Sibour, ii. 458. Sibylline Oracles ,, i. 77, 216, 314, 373, 415. Sigebert Gemblac , ii. 58. Sigismund, John, ii. 168. Sigismund Confession, ii. 275. Signa (sacramenta), ii. 303. Silberschlag , ii. 481. Silesius, Angelus, ii. 204, 340. Simeon, Chs., ii. 425. Simia Aristotelis, i. 397. Similarity of essence, i. 252 : see Homoiou • sianism. Similitudo, i. 290, ii. 20. Simon , Richard, ii. 206 ; on inspiration, 247. Simon , Jules, ii. 415. Simon Magus, i. 54. Simonetti, ii. 519. Simpson, ii. 431. Sin, i. 290-301, ii. 22, 485; of the devils, i. 145 ; imputed, 155, 159, 168 ; as nega* tive, 161; Lutheran definitions, ii. 266; against the Holy Ghost, 266 : see Orig¬ inal Sin, Peccatum. Sins after baptism, i. 189, 352, ii. 110. Sinlessness of Christ, i. 178, ii. 31, 490, 494: see Christology. Sinlessness of Mary, ii. 31: see Mary. Sintenis, ii. 520. Sirmian Formula on the Descensus, i. 351. Sixtus IV., ii. 33. Skelton, ii. 384, 385, 418. Skinner, ii. 445. Slater's Draft , ii. 296. Sleep of soul, i. 217, ii. 129, 370, 517, 619. Smalbrooke , Bp., ii. 226, 227. Smalcald Articles, ii. 146 ; on Scripture, 232 ; worship of saints, 301 ; Word of God, 305 ; the mass, 311 ; Lord’s Supper, 310, 316 ; penance, 325 ; confession, 325 ; purgatory, 326. Smalley, ii. 435, 437. Smaragdits, i. 455. Smedymnus, ii. 298. Snape, ii. 417. INDEX. 553 Smith , Elisha, ii. 384. Smith , Joe, ii. 452. Smith, John, ii. 183, 193 ; on justification, 285. Smith , John Pye, ii. 421, 423, 429. Smith , S. Stanhope, ii. 445. Smyth , Thomas, ii. 445. Socinianism, ii. 210, 218, 464, 489, 513; on Scripture, 232, 239, 240, 241 ; inspiration, 244; Pelagianism, 271; on justification, 281 sq., 284; the church, 295; the sacra¬ ments, 303 ; Supper, 309, 320 ; Trinity, 328 sq. ; limits omniscience, 335 ; on crea¬ tion, 339 ; angels, 341 ; person of Christ, 344; atonement, 354 sq., 360 ; incarnation, 363 ; baptism, 364, 367 ; infant baptism, 369. Socinus, it 210, 212 ; catechism, 212 ; on Scripture, 240 ; inspiration, 244 ; on state of innocence, 254 ; on immortality, 254 ; on original sin, 260 ; on the church, 293 ; the Trinity, 328, 331 ; Christology, 344, 349 ; the atonement, 359, 360 ; baptism, 367 v Societe Evangelique , ii. 415. Societies, religious, ii. 390. Sohnius , ii. 175, 176. Soissons , council, i. 459. Sola Fides , ii. 281, 286. Soldan, ii. 416. Solly, ii. 503, 507. Solutio (Grotian), ii. 355. Son and Logos , i. 243, 246. Soothsaying , i. 87. Sophronius, i. 283. Soteriology, i. 345 ; ii. 35, 36, 344 sq. ho(pia, i. 115, 125, 466. Soul, origin of, i. 151. See Creatianism , Preexistence, Traducianism. Sources of Christian knoivledge, i. 82, 315, 421 ; ii. 229. South, ii. 183, 190, 329, 332. Southey's Wesley, ii. 392. Souverain, i. 51, 127. Spalding, ii. 385, 520. Spalding, Bp., ii. 459. Spangenberg, ii. 392 ; on sin, 487. Spanheim, F., ii. 279. Speculative Method , i. 24. Speculative Philosophy , ii. 3. See Philoso¬ phy. Spelman, Henry, ii. 296. Spener , ii. 157, 158, 388, 390 ; on sin, 267 ; inspiration, 241, 246 ; the church, 300 ; creation, 340; eschatology, 370, 372. Spencer , Herbert, ii. 425. 'Ltypayig, i. 198. Spinckes , ii. 297, 417. Spinola, Ronas de, ii. 219. Spinoza, ii. 221, 470, 475, 491. Spira,tio (Trinity), ii. 336. Spiritual Participation in the Supper , ii. 317. See Lord's Supper. Spirituales , i. 384, 423. Spiritualism, ii. 452. Spitting in the Mass , ii. 91. Spittler, ii. 386. Spring, Gardiner, ii. 443. Spring, Samuel, ii. 439. Sprinkling , ii. 85. See Baptism. Stackhouse, ii. 226, 418. Stahl, ii. 411, 453. Stancarus, Francis, ii. 149, 362, 363. Staudenmaier , ii. 457 ; on scholastics, i. 391 ; on Erigena, 417. Staudlin , K. F., ii. 396, 499 ; on Limborch, 216. Stanley , A. P., ii. 428. Stapfer, ii. 378. Staphylus, ii. 286. Staroverzi, ii. 460. State and church, ii. 71, 299. See Church. Status exaltationis, inanitionis, ii. 351. Stearns, ii. 505. Steffens, ii. 385, 406, 453, 494. Steinbart , ii. 382, 496, 498. Steinmeiz, ii. 392. Stennett, ii. 429. Stephen de Borbone, ii. 128. Stephen Gobarus , i. 38. Stephen, of Rome, i. 202. Stercorianism, ii. 91. Stevenson, ii. 434. Stewart, Dugald, ii. 433. St. Hilaire, Rosseeuw, ii. 195. Stiebritz, ii. 383. Stiles, Ezra, ii. 438. Stier, ii. 497. Stilling, Jung., ii. 394. Stillingfleet , ii. 183, 188, 227, 296, 297, 298, 333. Stolz, ii. 412. Stone , J. S., ii. 449. Storch, ii. 209, 222, 383, 387. Storr, ii. 397, 468, 498. Stour dza, ii. 459. Stosch, ii. 383. Strabo, Walafried, ii. 90. Strdhler, ii. 376. Strasburg, i. 412. Strauss, D. F., ii. 409 ; cited, i. 45 ; ii. 413, 469, 471, 511; on eucharist, i. 206; So¬ cinianism, ii. 212 ; on Being of God, 477 ; Christology, 495 ; immortality, 521. Striqel, Victoria, ii. 149, 160 ; against Fla* cius, 261, 262. Strobel , ii. 516. Strong, Nathan, ii. 440. St. Simonism, ii. 457. Stuart, Moses, ii. 447. Stiibner, ii. 209. Studien'und Kritiken , ii. 410. Studita, Theodore, ii. 26, 76, 79. Stunden. See Andacht, ii. 398. Sturm , ii. 514. Suadela, in Irenseus, i. 183. Suarez , ii. 197, 200, 280. Subdiaconi, ii. 115. Sublapsarianism, ii. 268, 274. Subordination of the Son, i. 130 244, 249 Subscription to Articles , ii. 417, 422. Subsequent Will, i. 332. Substantia , i. 264. Subtleties. See Scholastic. Succession. See Apostolic. Seuvic Syngramma, ii. 314. 554 INDEX. Sufferings of Christ (divine or human), ii. 362. See Death of Christ. Sulzer, J. G., ii. 324. Sulzer, S., ii. 519. 'Lvfi(3o?iov}' i. 17, 200. Summas , i. 396. 2 1 ivd(j)£La, i. 275. 2vva£ic, i. 205. ’Zwovaiaarac , i. 275. Supererogation , works of, ii. 68, 70. See Works. Supernaturalism , ii. 240, 395 sq., 404, 406, 407, 463, 474, 511. Superstition, ii. 387. Supralapsarianism, ii. 268, 274. Sicso, Henry, i. 402, 404 ; on knowing God, 440 ; on pantheism, 444 ; on the Trinity, 465 ; creation, 473 ; atonement, ii. 52 ; grace, 66 ; heaven, 135 ; eternal punish¬ ment, 138. Susskind, ii. 397, 467. Swamerdam, ii. 178. Sweden , ii. 412. Swedenborg, ii. 391, 393 ; on interpretation, 472 ; on angels and devils, 482, 483 ; on Christ and Trinity, 479 ; on sin, 487 ; Chris- tology, 489, 491 ; on imputation, 506 ; on the church, 509, 510; eschatology, 520. Swiss Reformation , ii. 160. Switzerland, ii. 413. Swords, the two, ii. 71, 72. Sykes, ii. 184, 195, 213, 225, 227. Sylvester II. (Gerbert), i. 389. Symbolic books , i. 17, 31, 42 ; authority of, ii. 374. Synibolic view of the Supper, i. 362 ; ii. 89, 312. Symbolism, in worship, ii. 290. Symbolism, ii. 142, 405. Symbolism , age ofj ii. 139 sq. Symbolism in art, i. 35. Symbolum Quicunque, i. 268 : see Athana- sian Creed. Symington, ii. 434. Syncretism, ii. 157, 158, 218. Synergism, ii. 64, 148, 272. Synesius , i. 370. Synge, Abp., ii. 225. Syngramma Suevicum , ii 314. Synnada , synod, i. 202. Synods (see Councils) of Antioch, i. 248 ; Boston, ii. 169; Cambridge, 169; Cha- renton, 181 ; Delft, 179 ; Dort, 165 ; Jeru¬ salem, 207 ; Loudun, 181 ; Newtown, 292 ; of Robbers, i. 278 ; Rochelle, ii. 166; Saybrook, 192. Synoptic Evangelists, i. 44 ; ii. 489. Synthetic method, ii. 150, 152. Systems (modern German) of theology, ii. 382. Systematic Theology , i. 381, ii. 382. Systeme de la Nature, ii. 379. Szegeden (Seegedin), ii. 174. Tables of Church History, i. 40. Taborites, i. 410. Tafel, ii. 393. Tajo of Saragossa, i. 387. Tante, ii. 409. Tappan, ii. 438, 442, 447. Tarragona Council, i. 430. Taste Scheme, ii. 436. Tatian, i. 63, 68 ; ou Logos, 120; anthropol ogy, 148, 149 ; image of God, 154 ; on freedom, 155 ; immortality, 158. Tauter , John, i. 402, 404, 440 ; ii. 394, 438 ; on pantheism, 444 ; on Trinity, 464 ; angels, 477 ; on the fall, ii. 23 ; Christol- ology, 39 ; atonement, 52 ; on assurance, 65, 66 ; on Mary, 75 ; Lord’s Supper, 101. Taylor, Isaac, ii. 425. Tay lor, Jeremy, ii. 183, 188, 276, 297; on episcopacy, 296 ; on baptism, 366. Taylor of Norwich, ii. 385, 419. Taylor , N. W., ii. 440. Tears : see Baptism. Teleological argument, i. 99, ii. 476. Telesio , ii. 221. Teller, ii. 383, 387, 464 Temperaments, ii. 13. Tennent , ii. 438. Tertullian, i. 63, 76, 77, 78, 79; works, 69; on inspiration, 89 ; tradition, 96 ; being of God, 101 ; on anthropomorphism, 108, 109; on holiness of God, 111; penalty, 112; on Logos, 121 ; on Holy Spirit, 127 ; Trinity, 129, 130; providence, 136; de¬ mons, 143, 146 ; anthropology, 149 ; tra* ducianism, 151 ; freedom, 155 ; immor¬ tality, 158; the fall, 165; Christology, 170, 174; Christ sinless, 178; satisfaction, 180; justification, 190; on the church, 196; on baptism, 197, 198; on Lord’s Supper, 204, 207; on sacraments, 212; judgment, 216 ; intermediate state, 222. Territorial system, ii. 509. Tessard, ii. 279. Testament of XII Patriarchs, i. 216. Testamentum, i. 34. Testimonium animce , i. 99. Testimony of the Spirit, ii. 245. Tetrapolitan Confession on Lord’s Supper, ii. 317. Tetratheism, i. 267, 457, 459. Tetzel, theses, ii. 139, 144. Thaddeus , in Eusebius, i. 187. Thaer, ii. 381. Thalia of Arius, i. 249. Thamer, ii. 284, 359; on the Bible, 237. Qedvdpwrcof;, i. 174. Theism, i. 441, ii. 222, 474, 481. Qelypa krcopevov, npoyyovpevov, i. 332, 474 Themistius, i. 281. Theodicy , ii. 337, 469, 581 : see Providence. Theodor et of Cyrus, i. 230, 234 ; on Holy Spirit, 263, 282: traducianism, 288; apologetics, 313 ; inspiration, 322 ; on Providence, 335 ; on angelolatry, 338 ; Lord’s Supper, 366. Theodore Abukara , ii. 38. Theodore of Mopsuestia, i. 230, 234 ; on Holy Spirit, 263 ; Nestorianism, 275 Augustine, 305 ; inspiration, 321, 322 punishment, 380 ; adoptionism, ii. 36. Theodore of Pharan, i. 284. Theodore Studita, ii. 26, 76, 79. INDEX. 55 5 Theodosius, i. 277. Theodotus , i. 60, 61, 117. Theodulph of Orleans, i. 454. Theognis of Nice, i. 253. Theognostus , i, 244. Theologia Germanica, i. 402, 405. See Deutsche Theologie. Theologia Jrregenitorum, ii. 288. Theologische Jahrbucher , ii. 410. Theology and Philosophy, ii. 375: see Philos¬ ophy. Theology of the Fathers, i. 63 ; scholastic, 391 ; modern, ii. 404 ; change in the treatment of, 382 ; Roman Catholic, 197 ; of Jesuits, 197, 201 ; in France, 414 ; in England, 182, 416, 423 ; in Scotland, 182, 430 ; in New England, 183, 192 ; in United States, 435 sq. ; Puritan, 183 ; Lutheran, 150; Calvinistic, 170; German Reformed, 175. Theopaschites, i. 279. Theophanies, i. 115. Theophilus of Alexandria, i. 370. Theophilus of Antioch, i. 63, 68, 81, 110; on inspiration, 89 ; on being of God, 101; Logos, 120; Trinity, 129; on Holy Spirit, 126; on creation, 134; on freedom, 155 ; the fall, 164; baptism, 199; mil¬ lennium, 215 ; resurrection, 219. Theophylactus , i. 385, ii. 26; oneucharist, 109. Theosophy, Lutheran, ii. 155 : see Mysticism. OeoToicoc, i. 275. Theramo , Jacob de, ii. 53. Therese a Jesu, ii. 205. Thesaurus meritorum , supererogationis, ii. 69. Theses of Luther, ii. 139; of Harms, ii. 405. Thirty -nine Articles , ii. 164, 166, 167 ; on tra¬ dition, 249 ; original sin, 259 ; predestina¬ tion, 280; on justification, 285; thechurch, 295, 296 ; the sacraments, 304, 306 ; the Lord’s Supper, 322 ; purgatory, etc., 327 ; on redemption, 357. Thnetopsychites, ii. 129, 159, 221. Tholuck, ii. 389, 396, 467 ; on the apologists, 385 ; Semler, 386 ; on Gruner, 387 ; on sin, 488. Thom, J. H., ii. 422. Thomas : see Aquinas. Thomas: see Kempis. Thomas of Bradwardine, ii. 61, 62. Thomas of Cellano, ii. 121. Thomas- Christians, i. 241. Thomasius, ii. 410, 502 ; on redemption, i. 347 ; on Anselm, ii. 46. Thomasius , Christian, ii. 157, 158, 310, 341, 510; on Church and State, 300. Thomassin, ii. 198. Thomists, i. 412, 439, ii. 199, 279. Thorn Colloquy, ii 219. Thorn Declaration, ii. 164, 168; on immacu¬ late conception, 262. Thorndike, ii. 186, 296. Thornwell, ii 445. Thummius, ii. 353, 354. Thysi'us, ii. 215. Tichonius on the church, i 354. Tiedge , ii 398. Tieftrunk, ii. 395, 396. 499, 516. Til, Sol van, ii. 178. Tillotson, ii. 183, 194 ; baptism ofj 369. Timor jilialis, servilis, ii. 111. Tindal , ii. 222, 226. Titus Bostrus, i. 330 ; on resurrection, 370. Toland, ii 222, 225. Toledo, council, i. 263. Tollner, ii. 478, 496; on word of God, 466. Tomline, ii. 418, 420. Tongues (Irvingite), ii 414. Toplady, ii. 184, 420 ; on Charnock, 190. Torgau Articles, ii. 147. Torments of hell, ii. 132. Torquemada, ii. 33. Toulouse Council on Bible reading, i. 430. Tournely, ii. 199. Tractarians : see Oxford School, Puseyites. Tracts for Times , ii. 423, 425. Tradition, i. 82, 95, 315, 323, 421 ; ii. 230, 248, 465. Traditionalism, ii. 458 ; Roman See on, 465. Traducianism , i. 151, 286 ; ii. 13, 263. Trailer en, Dean, letter to Bullinger, ii. 185. Transiiio, ii. 95. Transcendentalism, ii. 446. Transubstantiate , first used by Hildebert of Tours, ii 95, 96. Transubstantiation, ii. 89 ; referred to the whole Trinity, 99 : see Lord's Supper. Travers, ii. 186. Travis, Archibald, ii. 421. Trechsel , i. 248 ; on Anabaptists, ii. 211. Tregelles, ii. 423, 428. Trench , Dean, ii. 423, 428, 471. Trent, Council of, ii. 195 sq. ; Scripture, 232 ; on interpretation, 234 ; Yulgate edition, 235 ; on freedom, 269 ; original righteousness, 251 ; original sin, 260 ; on immaculate conception, 263 ; justification, 282 ; faith, 282 ; on saints and images, 301, 302 ; number of sacraments, 303 ; opus operatum, 306 ; Lord’s Supper, 310 ; penance, 325 ; purgatory, 325. Treves, coat of, ii. 458. Triads, i. 114, 126, 129. Triangle Controversy, ii. 442, 443. T piag, i. 129. Trichotomy, i. 149, 158 : see Anthropology. Trimurti, i. 114. Trinitas, i. 129. Trinity, i. 118, 123, 125, 129, 229, 244, 246, 262, 453, 457 ; ii. 210, 478, 481 ; formulas, i. 264, ii. 335, 336 ; in creation, i. 334, ii. 339, 473 ; in Old Testament, 337 ; and history of the world, i. 469 ; transubstan¬ tiated, ii. 99. Tritheism, i. 130, 247, 457, ii. 328. Trithemius, Chronicle, ii. 120. Trishagion, i. 280. Triumphant Church, ii. 291. Tronchin, ii. 279. Trottet, ii. 413. Trullan Council, First, i. 283. Truman , Joseph, ii. 194. Truth of Christianity, i. 114, ii. 463 : sec Evidences. Try on, ii. 205. Tubingen Divines , ii. 288, 351. Tubingen school (Baur), i. 48, 56. Tucker , Abraham, ii. 422. Tuckney , ii. 190. Tvnoc, i. 283. Turlupines , i. 384. Turner, S. H., ii. 448. Turrecremata, ii. 33. Turretine , F., ii. 168 ; on obedience of Christ, 359. Turretine , John Alpb., ii. 118, 180, 241, 311. Twesten, ii. 410, 464. Twisse, ii. 183, 187, 190. Twysden, ii. 291. Tyler , ii. 240. Tyler, Samuel, ii. 446. Tyng , ii. 449. Tyre , council, i. 253. Tzschirner , ii. 398. Ubiquity of Christ's body , ii. 309, 316: see Christology. Udo , i. 290. Ueberfeldt , ii. 156. Uhlich, ii. 411. Ullmann, i. 413, ii. 494; on Gregory the Great, i. 294 ; on scholastics, 391 ; on Nicolas of Methone, 464, ii. 109 ; Wessel, 52. Ulrici, ii. 408, 415. Ulster Synod , ii. 435. Umbreit, ii. 412, 413. Unconditional election , ii. 60. Uncreated light , i. 414. Unction , extreme, ii. 112 ; repetition of, 113. Underworld , i. 181, ii. 130: see Hades. Unio mystica , i. 188, ii. 288. Unio personalis, ii. 344, 351. Unio sacramentalis, ii. 324. Union , attempts at, ii. 218, 452. Unitarians, i. 131, ii. 208, 210, 411, 418; in England, 210, 213 ; controversy in Eng¬ land, 421, 422 ; in New England, 436 ; in Ireland, 43 1 : see Socinians. United Brethren , ii. 11, 391, 506, 509, 510, 513. United States, ii. 509 : see America. Unity of Church , i. 195 : see Church. Unity of God, i. 102, 110, 330, 445. Universal Church, ii. 299. Universalism of grace, ii. 180, 215, 351. Universalismus hypotheticus, i. 211, 218. Universal priesthood, ii. 11. Universalists in America, ii. 443, 451. Upham , ii. 446. Upsal, university, ii. 316. Usages in baptism, ii. 364. Usher , ii. 182, 185, 321 ; on ordination, 291. Usteri, ii. 412; on atonement, 502. Utilitarianism , ii. 423. Urban IV., ii. 95. Urban VIII., ii. 280. Urlsperger , ii. 390, 418. Ursinus, ii. 164, 115. Uytenbogard, ii. 215. Valdez, John, ii. 211. Valence, councils, i. 306, ii. 51, 60. Valencia , controversy on transubstantiation, ii. 99. Valentinus , i. 118, 111, 198. Valentinians, i. 58, 149, ii. 31, 344. Validity of baptism, ii. 364, 369 : see Romish. Valla : see Laurentius. Van der Weijen, ii. 114. Van Ess, ii. 455. Van Hemmert, ii. 461. Van Mildert , ii. 213, 418. Van Osterzee, ii. 413. Van Prinsterer, ii. 413. Van Rhyn, ii. 413. Van Til, ii. 118, 119. Van Wijpersse , ii. 413. Vanini, ii. 221. Variata of Augsburg Confession, ii. 141. Vasquez , ii. 191, 200, 280. Vatke, ii. 413. Vaud , Canton de, ii. 412, 510. Vaughan , R., ii. 424, 429. Venial sins, ii. 23, 25. Venn, Henry, ii. 425. Ventura, ii. 455. Vera, ii. 408. Vercelli Synod, ii. 89, 92, 94. Vergier , Jean du (St. Cyran), ii. 202. Vicarious satisfaction , i. 180 : see Atonement. Vicarious suffering, ii. 354: ibid. Victors: see Hugo, William, Walter. Vienne Synods, ii. 84, 95. Vigilius Tapsensis, i. 269. Vincens of Lerins, i. 230, 231, 269, 308 ; o» tradition, 324. Vincent of Nismes, ii. 414. Vinet, ii. 219, 401, 414, 416, 511. Viret, ii. 318. Virgilius , i. 413. Virginity of Mary, ii. 30. Virtue, Edwards on, it 431. Virtues of heathen, ii. 256, 211. Virtus instrumenialis, ii. 80. Vishnoo , i. 114. Visible Church, i. 354, ii. 299. Visigoths, i. 264. Vitringa , ii. 118, 119; on baptism, 365. Vitium originis, i. 165 : see Original sin. Vladislas II., ii. 168. Vocatio , ii. 288. Voetius, ii. 110, 112, 119. Vogel, ii. 461. Vogt, ii. 415. Vokkmar, i. 54. Volkel, ii. 210. Voltaire, ii. 319, 381. Voluntas antecedent, consequens, i. 410, see Oehryia ; signi, beneplaciti, 414. Vowel points inspired, ii. 244. Vridankes Bescheidenheit, ii. 12. Vulgate version, ii. 230. Wafers, consecrated, ii. 101. Wakefield, Gilbert, ii. 422. Wagner , J., ii. 119. Wagner, R., ii. 415. Wake, Abp., ii. 183, 189, 298 ; on foreigi orders, 291. Walceus, ii. 215. INDEX. 557 Walafried Strabo , ii. 90. Walch , C. W. F., ii. 496, 498; on Felix, 37. Watch , ,T. G-., ii. 392. Waldenses, i. 384, 430, ii. 69, 71; on pen¬ ance, 109, Ill ; allegorizing on penance, 111 ; on purgatory, 127, 128. Waldschmidt, ii. 507. Wallis, ii. 329, 332. Walker, George, ii 191. Walker , James, ii. 446. Walter St. Victor, i. 395, 396. Warburton, ii. 384, 410. 4 Ward, W. G., ii. 426, 459. Wardlaw, ii. 422, 431, 435, 471. Wardley , ii. 451. Ware, Henry, ii. 441. Washing of feet, ii. 209, 305, 514. Water of baptism , mystical sense, ii. 84 ; substitutes, 84. Waterland, ii. 183, 184, 188, 210, 213 ; on Athanasian creed, i. 269 ; on baptism, ii. 366 ; lay baptism, 369. Waterlandians, ii. 209. Watson, Rd., ii. 381, 393, 418. Watson , Thomas, ii. 183, 191. Way land, ii. 449. Webster, ii. 213. Wegscheider , ii. 398, 506 ; on religion, 462 ; on atonement, 499. Weigel, ii. 154, 155, 371 ; on person of Christ, 350. Weishaupt , ii. 381. Weisse, ii. 409, 410, 471 ; on Trinity, 480. Weissenborn on pantheism, ii. 475. Weissmann, C. E., ii. 377. Weizs acker, ii. 503. Welch , ii. 434. Wells, ii. 213. Wendelin, ii. 170, 173, 175, 176, 300; on providence, 341. Werenfels, ii. 178, 180, 247, 377. Wes el, John, i. 410; on the church, ii. 71, 73. Wesel, synod, ii. 165. Wesley, John, ii. 391, 393, 423, 425, 506 ; on interpretation, 428, 430; on being of God, 433, 437. Wessel, John, i. 409, 410, 444, 457 ; on Trin¬ ity, 458, 468; demonology, 478; image of God, ii. 21 ; freedom, 22 ; Christology, 40 ; atonement, 47, 52 ; regeneration, 53 ; faith, 69; the church, 71, 73; opus ope- ratum, 80; Lord’s Supper, 102; transub- stantiation, 104, 107 ; on penance, 109, 111 ; on purgatory, 127. Wessenberg and his school, ii. 456. West , ii. 226. West, Samuel, ii. 437. West , Stephen, ii. 435, 437. Western Chur ch,\. 239,385,453,ii.25 : s eeLatin. Westminster Assembly , ii. 169, 182. Westminster Confession , on original sin, ii. 259; decrees, freedom, redemption, 276; on predestination, 281 ; the church, 292 ; the sacraments, 304, 305 ; the Lord’s Supper, 309, 321 ; descent to hell, 354 ; on atonement, 357 ; active and passive obedience, 359 ; baptism, 368, 369 ; on lay baptism, 369, 370. Westminster Confession in New England, it 192. Westphal, ii. 319. Wette : see Be Wette. Wetmore, J., ii. 448. Wetstein, ii. 383, 385, 413, 478, 519. Whately, ii. 423, 427, 519. Whedon, ii. 448. Whelpley, ii. 443. Whew ell, ii. 425. Whichcote, ii. 193. Whiston, Wm., 195, 213, 225, 226. Whitaker, Wm., ii. 185. Whitby, ii. 195, 213, 227, 371. White, Francis, ii. 297. Whitefteld, ii. 393, 413, 425, 432, 435, 506. Whiigift, ii.- 184. Wicel, George, ii. 198. Wieland, ii. 381. Wiest, ii. 456. Wigand, John, ii. 152. Wiggers, L 306, 310. Wigglesworth, ii. 448. Wilber force , H. W., ii. 426, 459. Wilberforce, R. I., ii. 426. Wilber force , Bp. Samuel, ii. 426. Wilberforce, Wm., ii. 425. Will of God, i. 452 ; as antecedent and con¬ sequent, 332, 470, 474. Willard, Samuel, ii. 193. William : see Occam. William of Auvergne, ii. 17. William of Champeaux, i. 392, 394. William of Paris, i. 421; on atonement, it 49. Williams , ii. 182. Williams , Ed., ii. 184, 420. Williams, Rowland, ii. 429. Willis, ii. 205. Wilkins, D., ii. 296. Willett, Andrew, ii. 297. Wills in Christ, i. 183, ii. 35 : see Monothelites, Wilson, Daniel, ii. 425. Wilson, J. L., ii. 443. Wilson, J. P., ii. 443. Wilson , Matthias, ii. 194. Wilson, Thomas, ii. 418. Wimpina, ii. 144, 198. Winchester, ii. 451. Wine in Eucharist, i. 207. Winer, ii. 406 ; on Arminians, 270 ; on sao* rifice of mass, 310. Wingen, ii. 168. Wisdom, i. 115, 123, 125, 244, 466, 469. Wise, John, ii. 298. Wiseman , ii. 459 ; on Amphilochius, i. 361. Wislicenus, ii. 411, 466. Wissowatius, ii. 210. Witasse, ii. 199. Witches, i. 477, ii. 341. Witherspoon, ii. 438. Withholding of cup, ii. 308 : see Cup. Wittenberg Divines, ii. 288. Wittenberg University , ii. 148. Witsius, ii. 170, 174. Wodrow, ii. 192. Wolf, ii. 376, 389, 398. Wolfenbutiel Fragments, ii. 378, 384, 490. 558 INDEX. WoUebius, ii. 170, 172; Christology, 352 ; on Christ’s obedience, 358. WoUner , ii. 389. Woltersdorj J ii. 388. Wolzogen , ii. 210. Woodbridge, John, 440. Woods , Leonard, 440. Woolston, ii. 222. Worcester Council , ii. 113. Worcester, N., ii. 441. Word, the, i. 244: see Logos. Word of God , i. 421 ; ii. 231, 303, 465. • Wordsworth, C., i. 423, 428, 429. Works, i. 189, ii. 67, 281, 289, 503 ; of pen¬ ance, 109; of supererogation, 68, 70. World, end ofj ii. 119: see End, Eschatology. Worship of Angels, i. 141 ; forhjdden, 338 ; of images, i. 229, 239 ; of saints, ii. 74, 301 ; of Virgin, 30. Worthington, Wm., ii. 418. Wunden-homilieen, ii. 392. Wurtemberg Confession, on angels, ii. 341. Wycliffe, John de, L 408 ; works, 409 ; on faith, 423 ; atonement, ii. 47, 51 ; on pre¬ destination, 63 ; indulgences, 7 0 ; univer¬ sal priesthood, 72 ; on number of sacra¬ ments, 80 ; on opus operatum, 81, 83 ; confirmation, 87, 88 ; on transubstantia- tion, 104, 107 ; on Antichrist, 121 ; pur¬ gatory, 127, 128. Wyttenbach , D., ii. 378. Xenaias, i. 281. Ximenes, i. 408. Tates, ii, 422. Tiondrup, i. 257. Taraa^f, i. 81. Yvon, ii. 177. Young, Brigham, ii. 452. Young Hegelians , ii. 407. Zacharias, ii. 383, 386. Zacharias of Chrysopolis, ii. 108. Zanchius, ii. 172, 175, 176, 272. Zeitschrift f christl. Wissenschaft , ii. 410. Zeller, ii. 409. Zend, i. 113. Zeno , Emperor, i. 280. Zeno of Verona, i. 245. Zenobia , i. 248. Zerbolt, i. 431. Zigabemes, i. 383, 385, 423, ii. 26. Zinzendorf ii. 391, 457, 491, 496, 497, 506, 510 ; on Trinity, 479. Zollikoffer, ii. 385, 486. Zosimus, i. 298. Zurich, ii. 413 ; reform in, 159. Zurich, confession, ii. 164, 165. Zurich , Disputation, ii. 160. Zurich , Letters, on Calvinism in England, ii. 185. Zwingle , ii. 140, 159; works, 160 ; influence, 162 ; Fidei Ratio, 162 ; on Anabaptists, 209, 236 ; on Scripture, 230 ; inspiration, 242 ; original rectitude, 253 ; original sin, 256 ; decrees, 273 ; . on virtues of heathen, 277; priesthood, 294; on discipline, 299; sacraments, 303, 306 ; on Lord’s Sup¬ per, 309, 312 ; on intermediate state, 326 ; preservation, 340; Satan, 341; incarna¬ tion, 345 ; alloeosis, 346 ; atonement, 356 ; baptism, 364, 366, 515. Zwinglian sacraments, ii. 303. Zwickau prophets, ii. 154, 155, 209. Zwicker , ii. 213, 332. u I Date Due - - - - — - - - -