!k*>;*;

4 ¦ •

: §&

s Vv-

!H#'^.

**¦ /

|l^i:f 'f

^jk.* "^^^^

*W' «

:^^*."W*

iJr«

^rf1 V*
^
5^ff5k*
CLARK'S

FOKEIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

NEW SEEIES.
VOL. X.

39orner'0 Sgstem of Cfcuatian ©octrois.
YOL. IY.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
18 82.

PEINTHD BT MOEBISON AND GIBB,
FOE
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, . . . IIAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, .... GEOEQE HEBBEET.
NEW TORK, . . SCRIBNEE AND WELFOED.

A SYSTEM

OF

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

BY

DR. I. A. pORNER,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, BERLIN.

TRANSLATED BT

REV. ALFRED CAVE, B.A.,
PRINCIPAL AND PEOFESSOB OF THEOLOGY, HACKNEY COLLEGE, LONDON
AND
REV. J. S. BANKS,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, WESLEYAN COLLEGE, LEEDS.

VOL. IV.
TRANSLATED BY PROFESSOR BANKS.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
188 2.

[This Translation is Copyright, by arrangement with the Author.}

r\

tmS4f '07S5"

CONTENTS.

PART II.— Continued.
FIRST MAIN DIVISION— Continued.
B. — Ecclesiastical Development.
SECT. 114. Permanent and Variable Elements, .
115. History of the Doctrine to the Reformation,
116. Evangelical Doctrine,
117. Subjectivist Theories of Atonement to 1800,
118. Reaction from Subjectivist Theories,

PAGE 1

203847

C— Dogmatic Investigation.
First Article.
119. Need of Atonement, and God's Eternal Purpose of Atonement, . 79
Second Article : The Idea of Substitution and Satisfaction in general.
120. Substitution, ........ 89
121. Satisfaction, ........ 99
Third Article : Substitutionary Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.
122. Subjective Aspect, ....... 107
1226. Objective Aspect, ....... 116
123. Transition to Third Division : Christ's Post-Existence or Exaltation, 125
THIRD DIVISION.
EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
124. First Point : The Descent into Hades, . . . .127
125. Second Point : The Resurrection of Christ, .... 132
126. Third Point : The Ascension and Session at the Right Hand of
the Father, ....... 138

VI CONTENTS.
SECOND SUBDIVISION (see vol. iii. p. 392).
SECT. PAGE
127. The Transfiguring of the Earthly into the Heavenly Ofiice, . . 142
128. Transition to the Doctrine of the Church, . . . .154
SECOND MAIN DIVISION.
THE CHURCH, OR THE KINGDOM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
129. The Work of the Holy Spirit in general, . . . .159
FIRST DIVISION.
THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH THROUGH FAITH AND REGENERATION.
130. Relation of the Holy Spirit in the "Work of Grace to Human
Activity, ........ 164
Biblical Doctrine, . . . . . . .165
Ecclesiastical Development of Doctrine, .... 168
Dogmatic Investigation, . . . ... . 177
131. First Point : Repentance or Change of Mind, . . . 187
132. Second Point : Regeneration, or the Faith that appropriates Justifi
cation, . . . . , . . . . 192
Biblical Doctrine, . . . . . . .194
Ecclesiastical Doctrine, ...... 198
1326. Dogmatic Doctrine of Faith and Justification, . . . 209
133. Third Point : Sanctification, . . . . .238
SECOND DIVISION.
THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.

FIRST SUBDIVISION.
ESSENTIAL AND UNCHANGEABLE BASES, OR CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE CHURCH.
134. Summary. — Distinction between the Continuation of Christ's Official
Activity through the Organ of the Church and the Reflecting of
the same, ........ 243
First Point : Continuation and Reflecting of Christ's
Prophetic Office.
135. A. — Continuation of same, or the Doctrine of God's Word, . . 247

CONTENTS. Vll
SECT. PAGE
136. B. — Reflecting of same, or the Ministry of the Word, . . 263
137. Transition to Second Point : Relation of Word and Sacrament, . 270
Second Point.
A. — Continuation of Christ's Priestly Activity. — Baptism.
138. Biblical Doctrine, ....... 277
139. Ecclesiastical Forming of Doctrine, ..... 280
140. Dogmatic Exposition of the Doctrine of Baptism in general, . 285
141. Infant Baptism, ....... 293
B. — The Church as a Reflection of Christ's Priestly Love.
142. The Confirming Church, ...... 302
Third Point.
A. — The Continuation of Christ's Kingly Office through the Organ
of the Church, or the Holy Supper.
143. Biblical Doctrine, ....... 307
144. Ecclesiastical Development of Doctrine, .... 314
145. Dogmatic Exposition, ...... 322
B. — The Reflecting of Christ's Kingly Office through the Church,
or the Power of the Keys.
146. Biblical Doctrine. — Ecclesiastical Doctrine, .... 334
1466. Dogmatic Investigation, ...... 338
SECOND SUBDIVISION.
THE CHURCH ORGANIZING ITSELF IN AND OUT OF THE WORLD.

147. Organization in reference to Christ's continuing Activity, .
1476. Organization in reference to the Reflection of Christ's Activity,
148. Invisibility and Visibility of the Church, .
Biblical Doctrine, ..••••
Ecclesiastical Doctrine, .
149. Dogmatic Investigation, .

340 340345
345
347 357

THIRD SUBDIVISION.
150. The Militant Church, ...-•¦ 367

Vlll CONTENTS.

THIRD DIVISION.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST THINGS, OR OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE
CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
SECT. PAGE
151. Summary. — Characteristics of Christian Eschatology, . . 373
First Point.
152. Christ's Second Advent, with its Preparation in the History of the
World, ........ 383
Second Point.
153. Intermediate State of Departed Souls and Resurrection, . . 401
Third Point.
154. The Last Judgment, and End of the World, . . .415
155. Eternal Blessedness and Consummation of the World, . . 428

PART II— (Continued.)

FIRST IAIN 1)1118107$— (Continued)
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIS T -(Continued.)

B. — Development of the Ecclesiastical Doctrine.
§114.
On one hand, the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Reconciliation x
of mankind with God through Christ has in all ages
remained immoveably the same, namely, in respect of
the consciousness of the Christian Church that the com
munion between God and mankind, disturbed by sin,
has been restored through the mediatorial Person of
Christ, who, as the Representative of the personal unity
of God and man, accomplishes His work through His
substitutionary love without violating the divine justice,
nay, in harmony therewith. On the other hand, the
development of this dogma contains a variable element
through its dependence on the current development of
Christology, Ponerology, and in the last resort of the
Doctrine of God.
Liteeatuee. — Cotta's Treatise in his edit, of J. Gerhard,
1 [Reconciliation and atonement represent the same word in the original,
Versohnung. Atonement is used wherever English idiom permits. At the
same time, the substantial equivalence of the two terms must constantly be
borne in mind in the following discussions.]
Dorner. — Christ. Doct. iv. A

2 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Loci Th. t. iv. Ziegler, Hist, dogmatis de redemtione, ed.
Velthusen, 1791. Bahr, die Lehre vom Tode Jesu in den drei
ersten Jahrh., 1832. Baur, die Lehre von der Versohnung in
ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung, 1838. Cf. Tholuck's Liter.
Anzeiger, 1839, No. 79. Nitzsch, Dogmengeschichte, p. 370 ff.
Ritscbl die chr. Lehre von der Rechtf. u. Versohnung, i. 1870.
Hasse, Anselm v. Canterb., 2 vols. 1849, 1852. Other discus
sions of the Anselmic theory by Bornemann, Franck, Sib-
macher, Ziinen (Anselmi et Calvini placita de hominum per
Christum apeccato redemptione, 1852). Aemil. Hohne, Anselmi
Cant, philosophia — ejusdem de satisfactione doctrina dijudicatur,
1867. As to Luther's doctrine of Atonement, cf. the works of
J. Ktistlin, 1863, andTh. Harnack, 1862, on Luther's Theology,
also Held, De qpere Jesu Christi salutari, 1860, and Chr. H.
Weisse, Martinus Lutherus quid de consilio mortis et resur-
rectionis Jesu Christi senserit, 1846. Socinus, Prcelectiones
Theol. ; Christ, religionis brevissima Jnstitutio, Biblioth. Fr.
Polon. i., Cat. Racov. qu. 377. Hugo Grotius, Defensio Fidei
Cath. de satisfactione Christi, 1617. As to C. Vorstius, cf.
Baur's theol. Jahrbucher, 1856. Against the Socinians, L.
Hiitter's Loci Comm. xxii. Fr. Turretin, De Satisfactione. J.
G. Tollner, Ueber den thatigen Gehorsam Christi, 1768. FA.
Philippi, der thatige Gehorsam Christi, ein Beitrag zur Recht-
fertigungslehre, 184l. Thomasius, De Obedientia Christi activa,
1846. Von Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ed. 2, 1857-59, i. 577.
Against his doctrine arose : Philippi, LTerr v. Hofmann,
gegenuber der luth. Versohnungs- und Rechtfertigungslehre,
1856. Thomasius, das Bekenntniss der luth. Kirche von der
Versohnung und die Versohnungslehre Chr. v. Hofmanns, mil
einem Nachwort von Harnack, 1857 ; cf. also Thomasius, Lehre
von Christi Person und Werk, iii. 1, pp. 157-315, ed. 2, 1862.
Ebrard, die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthuung in der
H. Schr. begrundet — mit besonderer Rucksicht auf v. Hofmann's
Versohnungslehre, 1857. Weizsacker, Jahrbucher f. deutsche
Theol. 1858, p. 154 ff. Gess, Jahrbucher f. d. Theol. 1859,
p. 467 ff. Von Hofmann, Schutzschriften fur eine neue Weise,
alte Wahrheit zu lehren, 4 Stlicke, 1856-59. Sartorius, Lehre
von Christi Person und Werk, ed. 7, 1860. Schipberlein,
Grundlehren des Heils, etc., 1848. The same, Art. " Versohnung "
in Herzog's theol. Real-Encycl., and his work, Die Geheimnisse
des Glaubens. Kahnis, Luth. Dogm. iii. 371. A. Schweizer,
Centraldogm. ii. ; Reform. Dogm. ii. 331, 377, 388, ii. 164 ff..
Schenkel, i. 650. Edw. Park, The Atonement; Discourses and
Treatises of Edwards, Smalley, Maxcy, Emmons, etc., 1860.
(Collection of the more important advocates of the older New
England theology.)

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE. 3
1. The variable element in the dogma does not consist in
the Church ever having doubted whether we owe to Christ
alone the restoration of divine communion and redemption,
and whether His work is all-sufficient and complete. From
the first it was with His name that Christendom connected
the forgiveness of sins — that blessing which must appear and
does appear to every one, who knows aught of himself and
God, the first and most urgent requisite in order to the attain
ment of divine communion ; for the good man is conscious
that atonement for his sin, not a positively holy and virtuous
walk, is the fundamental and most sacred problem. This reli*
gious is again the first moral problem, without the solution of
which man's entire existence would be destitute of foundation
and assured worth, because an existence without God. In
Christ, then, was beheld the God-given, personalized, universal
principle of Redemption. But it was only by degrees that
reflection advanced from the experienced fact of redemption1.
through Christ to the work of demonstrating the necessity of I
this special form of redemption, or from the that to the why,
and how. And to this question belonged again the dogmatic?:
knowledge of — 1. The Person adapted to be the Mediator;
2. That which makes salvation necessary ; 3. The Character
of God, in order that the Redemption or Reconciliation may
harmonize with His nature. Certainly many, abstaining from
closer dogmatic investigation, prefer to stop at the totality of
Christ's Person. In it they behold the realized, personal
reconciliation between God and mankind, between heaven and
earth. In this mystical doctrine Christ's essential Person
and His vitality or manifestation are not distinguished from
each other in thought ; by His very existence the Person
sanctifies the race, rendering it acceptable to God. But if
atonement is viewed as accomplished in Christ's mere exist
ence or birth, then 'the ethical meaning and ethical form of
Christ's work, as well as sin and what Christ did and suffered
for sin, remain obscure and in the background. Real possi
bility is still not actuality. To regard all humanity as
reconciled and sanctified as matter of course, because the
Incarnation took place in a certain spot of humanity, leads to
physical and false sacramental theories of redemption. The
Church was therefore compelled, not merely in the interest of

4 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Gnosis, but also in order to secure its faith against falsifica
tion, to advance from the general, from th6 totality of the
principle, to the special, because to stop at the principle
would be to falsify the principle itself. But to do this was
to initiate movement in reference to the dogma.
2. But despite all the variability exhibited by the history
of the dogma in the Church, it is not without an identical
and fixed element. This was the case not merely because
man's need of redemption in presence of a holy God was
always acknowledged, and both the mission and work of
Christ — the Sinless One — among sinners were always re
garded as a gift of God's paternal love, but also because the
way in which Christ carried out His mission to mankind,
under every aspect in which it is^ viewed, bears a twofold
character. It bears, on one side, the character of substitu
tionary love, which makes our misery its own, in order that
we may make what belongs to it ours. And again, while
justice is very unequally treated as regards clearness and em
phasis, the presupposition remains, that Christ accomplished
redemption, not in opposition to but in unison with the divine
justice, in unison not merely with legislative justice, but also
with the justice that denounces punishment against sin. He
represents neither Love without Justice, nor Justice without
Love. 3. As relates, then, to the dogmatic development of this
doctrine or the variable side of the dogma, it will be helpful
both to the understanding of its history and to its thetic con
struction, if we consider preliminarily to what extent the
shaping of the doctrine of Atonement depends on these three
dogmas — Christology, Ponerology, Theology.
First. The more completely both sides in the Person of
Christ are defined, — the divine and the human, — and the
more correctly their relations are apprehended, the greater
must, be the importance attributed to the work of Christ.
For nothing but the divine side in this Person gives us that
sharp contrast between His suffering and His dignity which
suggests a mysterious depth in His love and a divine import
in His sufferings. On the other side, nothing but His
humanity secures the reality of the historical revelation in
Him and the verity of His suffering and acts, while nothing

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTEINE. 5
but His uniqueness secures the possibility of His being a
substitute for us. Hence it is clear that the Christian
doctrine of Atonement depends on the rejection of Ebionism
and Docetism. But even after both sides were acknowledged
completely in thesi (as was done at Chalcedon), the unity of
the Person might be so conceived that the divine side pre
ponderated in a one-sided way. The consequence of this was,
that the humanity became a mere selfless organ of the
Divinity. But in this case the humanity contributes nothing
essential towards procuring the forgiveness of sins. Rather is
the atonement then only revealed through Christ in the sense
that it is exhibited in Him or by Him, — whether the meaning
be that God is essentially and eternally propitiated for sin, or
that we are told how we are to make atonement to God, —
this exhibition taking place through His teaching, or sym
bolically through His sacrificial death. But the humanity of
Christ then retains a merely accidental import. In order to
the enlightenment of men on this subject, or to the office of
teacher, no divine Incarnation was necessary. But the
doctrine of Atonement is no less affected by a false pre
ponderance of the human side in Christ's Person, such as
prevailed after 1750 ; for then Christ is little more in what
He did and suffered than a martyr for truth and pattern
of inorality.( A principal part of the truth, it is said, for
which Christ died, is that God forgives sin in virtue of His
love, and is essentially and eternally propitiated for it, pro
vided only it comes to an end in the future. Thus the two
extremes are again at one in the doctrine, that reconciliation
was not first procured through Christ's historical Person, but
that God, instead of standing in essential opposition to evil in
virtue of His holy Justice, is eternally reconciled with the
world's sinful reality on account of the possibility of good still
dwelling in it. The aim of the Reformation, as shown before,
is to secure both to the divine and human sides in Christ's
Person their full rights, thus rendering possible a satisfactory
doctrine of Christ's atoning work.
No less, secondly, must the idea of Atonement be different
according to the condition of Ponerology, i.e. according as that
from which deliverance is necessary is found mainly in some-
thing objective, in physical ill, perhaps as a punishment (whether

6 THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
the ill be 0dvaTo$, or' the bondage of sin, or the mastery of
Satan) ; or according as this is discovered mainly in something
subjective, whether in the consciousness of discord, or in ungodly
volition, in evil acts or states; or, finally, according as the
objective and subjective are united, as was done at the Refor
mation. The one-sided objective theory of Atonement places the
process altogether outside man ; it is, e.g., a process merely
between God or Christ and Satan. Just so, when death or
the guilt merely of another — Adam's — is regarded as the
enemy, the process of its conquest or abolition may take place
in a purely objective way, without man being compelled to
take an essential part therein. Conversely, when that which
has to be vanquished is found simply in subjective moral
character, the process of reconciliation is placed solely in man,
as is done by the purely subjective theories, and nothing is
left for Christ to do and merit. The Reformation, on the
contrary, goes back from what is external, from physical HI
and objective punishment to the culpa, which is no mere
debitum inherited from another's guilt, and finds the ground of
the objective punishment in guilt. The physical ill is punish
ment through its connection with sin and through the divine
justice. Punishment and sin, the objective and subjective
sides, while different, are also connected by the intermediate
idea of guilt,1 which is the main idea in relation to the
doctrine of Atonement, and that not as mere debitum ex
aliena culpa contracture.
Thirdly. Both the purely objective and the purely sub
jective theories of Atonement may assume different forms
according to the concept formed of God, with whom the
reconciliation is necessary (although, as already said, every
Christian theory of Atonement at least includes justice in a
negative aspect and love in a positive). Still, the concept
formed of man and sin on one side and of Christology on
the other, depends in the last resort on the definition of the
doctrine of God. Now, as we know, God may be conceived
either in a merely physical way, or in an aesthetic way as the
Principle of Harmony, or in a logical way as supreme Truth
and supreme Knowledge and Wisdom, or in a juridical way as
Justice, or in a moral (i.e. in the sense that His sole concern
1 Form. Cone. 799. 818. Apologia, I.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE. 7
is for amendment and obedience to His law), or in a religious;
as Love. These views determine at the same time the Pone
rology and Christology, and therefore the doctrine of Atone
ment ; and we are justified in hoping to be able under this
division to include a survey of all the more important theories
of Atonement possible. The theory of Atonement may there
fore take either a physical, or aesthetic, or logical, or juridical,
or moral, or one-sided religious form, according as it is deter-!
mined, either really or in pretence, by a doctrine of God; and
all this both on the one-sided objective and subjective mode of
considering the question. At the same time, such a review
will suggest important dogmatic hints towards a suitable con
struction of the doctrine. The idea of God, rightly conceived,
is adapted to guard against the one-sided objective and subjec
tive theories of Atonement, requiring as it does the union of
the objective and subjective elements ; for in God lies the
reason that He willed men to be not impersonal instruments,
nor deistically independent, but images of Himself. For this
very reason, by the divine will they are on the one hand
capable of personal culpability, and on the other destined to
blessedness in divine communion, but without violence to
justice or indifference to wrong. And thus the main question
is : How, despite sin and guilt, which in virtue of the divine
justice expose men to punishment and separate them from
God,1 a combined revelation of divine justice and love may
take place in the world, as they are eternally combined in
God, whereas through sin and guilt the two seem necessarily
at variance in the world. Since, further, all possible aberra
tions in the doctrine of Atonement — the objective and the
subjective — correspond to a true element in the idea of God
and of man made in God's image, the true Christian theory
of Atonement must combine the elements of truth scattered
in those theories. It will include, therefore, the abolition of
physical ill, the restoration of harmony, the return to wisdom,
to true self-consciousness and moral amendment, but all in
due moral order. In the same way, it can neither obscure
justice by love, nor love by justice, but will reveal both in
their divine harmony. 1 §§ 87-89.

8 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
1. History of the Doctrine up to the Period of the Reformation.
§ 115.
The ancient Church - teachers, in proceeding to lay down
the rudiments of a dogmatic theory, as well as the
Middle Ages, predominantly favour objective theories of
Atonement; whereas the period of the Reformation
began to blend the subjective with the objective side.
1. Although the fact of deliverance through Christ's self-
sacrificing love was always certain to the Christian conscious
ness, the common Christian faith did not include as matter
of course an immediate certainty of the mode in which He
brought about salvation, and therefore did not include an
immediate certainty of a definite theory of Atonement, or of
the necessity of the mode realized historically. Nevertheless,
one thing may be said : the idea of substitution is common to
all the Fathers. Thus Irenseus says: "Christ must needs
become what we are, that we may become what He is ; what
He did and suffered held good, therefore, for us. Longam
hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit." 1 Athanasius
teaches : " Men were created for eternal life, but fell a prey
to death as a punishment for their sin. Thus the Logos, the
aino^mri, became mortal, in order as a vicarious sacrifice to
vanquish death through suffering death." 2 We may say that
the idea of the substitution of Christ forms the common germ-
point or ground-thought in all attempts at dogmatic theories,
however different, whether the chief idea is sacrifice, or Christ
is described as a means of exchange or a ransom-price to God
or to Satan, or whether, finally, the matter is presented more
after the Pauline manner, in an abstract way apart from
figure. But, as concerns the mode in which the work of
redemption is carried out, the Church in all ages is united on
1 Adv. Hareses, v. 23. 2, iii. 17, 1. 18, 7. Cf. too, Ep. ad Diognet. c. 9.
2 De Incarnatione, c. 6-10, c. Ar. ii. 68. Similarly Eusebius of Csesarea,
Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, c. Nest. iii. 2.
John of Damascus, de Fide orthod. iii. 27. Cf. Nitzsch, Doamenaesch. t>
370 ff. > » v I

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE TO THE REFORMATION. 9
two points r that redemption must not be effected by sheer
might or in the way of violence, but in the way of suffering
and dying love; and, indeed, the necessity of mortal suffering is
always brought in some way, directly or indirectly, into con
nection with the divine justice. Especially for the sake of the
latter point, or in order to prove that the relation of Atone
ment to the divine justice, which is so often placed in the
background in modern days, formed an essential part of the
faith of Christendom in all ages, and was by no means foisted
into theology by Anselm (as may seem to be the case, when
the history of the doctrine is dated only from him and Abe-
lard), we will review the beginnings of the different theories
before Anselm, which certainly for the most part leave room
in their breadth for various dogmatic interpretations of a
higher and lower kind. Here come specially into view the
ideas of sacrifice, of ransoming from Satan and of ransom to
God, or satisfaction to His justice.
Almost all without distinction call Christ a Sacrifice} Cer
tainly this common word, however well-grounded its liturgical
position, expresses of itself no definite theory. Were Christ
compared with the peace-offering, were He simply well-pleas
ing to God (oa-fir) ei/coStas) because of His love for God and
for sinners, the relation of His Person to the removal of
sin and procurement of forgiveness would become secondary.
The same would be the case were He only called a Sacrifice
on the ground that He presented Himself in His purity to
God, giving us a pattern of surrender to God and self-con
secration, or, finally, on the ground that by the sacrifice of
His death He was the cause, so to speak, of the world's
repentance, on account of which God then forgives sin. And,
in fact, all these conceptions are found in the Fathers.2 But
they by no means stop there, but at the same time consider
Christ's sufferings in relation to our sins, not merely in so far
as His spontaneous surrender to death is said to be a pattern
1 Cf. e.g. the passages in Hase, ut supra, p. 236 f.
2 The first class, which leaves out of sight Christ's mortal sufferings, occurs
most of all in that mystic theory, according to which in Christ a humanity well-
pleasing in God's sight is presented to God, who accepts this gift and beholds us
in Him. So Irenseus, Justin, who regards Christ as the Paschal Lamb, Dial. e.
Tryph. a. iii. Cf. Semisch, Justin d. te. 1840, pp. 413-418. Origen, cont.
Cels. iii. 28, and others.

10 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
of self-consecration to God,1 etc., but also in such a way that
Christ is viewed as a sacrifice for the general good, or as an
expiatory sacrifice for sin. So by Origen, Athanasius, Hilary,
Augustine, and John of Damascus.2 It is true the question
still remains : Is He an expiatory sacrifice merely as a symbol
of forgiveness to us, given by God as a pledge of His love,
which love is no mere fictitious creation,3 or did Christ bring
about some real and objective result, which without Him
had not existed ? But still, despite ambiguity of figurative
phraseology, it remains certain that wherever Christ is regarded
as an expiatory sacrifice, a relation between His suffering love
and divine justice is supposed.
The expiatory sacrifice forms a transition to the second
figure, that of Ransoming. For if Christ's death is an ex
piatory sacrifice, this at once suggests that we are bought at
great cost, that He is the means by which we are purchased
for Christ's kingdom, or the ransom by which we are delivered
from ruin. But to the figure of purchase or ransom a
series of various theories might attach themselves, always,
however, implying that a grave hindrance to the salvation
of mankind could only be removed at the price of Christ's
death or blood. The ruin from which deliverance is necessary
might then be found either in the power of Satan over man
kind, or in death, or in the guilt inherited from Adam, or in
sin and personal guilt, or, finally, in God's just displeasure.
All these various phases, again, are closely interconnected.
For it is only sin and guilt, personal or inherited, which justly
incurs God's displeasure. Further, it is only through God's
just displeasure that Satan possesses power over men, while
this power again is displayed in death, which is inflicted by
Satan, as well as in the dominion of sin. But this connection
was by no means clearly perceived at once. The conscious
ness of penal desert gave the impulse first of all to seek and
find in Christ deliverance from a penal state. The predominant
view up to the Middle Ages of the evils from which redemption
1 And according to Clement of Rome, ad Cor. i. 7.
2 Origen, cont. Cels. i. 81, vii. 17, in Num. Horn. xxiv. 1, ad Rom. t. iii.
7. 8 ; Athanasius, ed. Col. 1686, i. 73, 426, 366-69 ; Augustine, cont. Faust.
Man. xiv. 2. 3, de Trin. xiii. 14 ; John of Damascus, de Fide Orth. iii. 27.
^ 3 Thus Gregory of Naz. Or. 42, says : " God accepted the ransom by way of

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE TO THE REFORMATION. 11
is necessary was merely objective, and the view taken of the
nature of redemption harmonized therewith. The hostile
power which threatened man's welfare, and from which Christ
rescued us at the cost of suffering and death, was predomi
nantly conceived as a power external to man ; and since
mankind was viewed as subject to the dominion of Satan and
death through Satan in virtue of the guilt inherited from Adam,
it was natural that the power of Satan, who is the ruler of
death, should be regarded as the central-point of the ruin from
which deliverance is necessary, and that Christ should be pri
marily regarded in His suffering and death as engaged in conflict
with Satan, — ideas favoured by passages in the New Testament.
2. The most elaborate theories adhered for a long time to this
line. The doctrine of the vanquishing of Satan by Christ was
advanced by Church-teachers with a variety of application,
only that the conviction always recurs therein, that redemp
tion or atonement could not be effected by means of violence,
or in the way of mere caprice or power, but in that of
justice.1 Men were subject to Satan's dominion by God's
righteous judgment,2 and ought not to be wrested from him
by violence, or in such a way as to give him cause to complain
of violence done to his rights. On the ground of these as
sumptions, the victory over the devil was achieved, according
to some, by legal means. After the manner of justitia com-
mutativa, the person of Christ, on which Satan worked his
pleasure, is the ransom-price, for the sake of which the devil
had to release men. Christ's soul was offered in the way of
exchange to the devil, and for its sake he was to set men free ;
for that soul was the noblest possession, by reason of its
perfection surpassing the whole of mankind in value. The
devil agreed to the exchange. But he was unable to retain
this pure soul, it was torture to his hand, and thus Christ
became the conqueror of the devil and death.3 On Satan's
1 According to Irenseus, man must not be redeemed from death and perfected fiia
or by caprice. According to Augustine, Christ must overcome Satan lege justitiae,
not violenter. In the same way speaks Gregory of Nyssa, Or. Cat. c. 15-27.
a E.g. according to Augustine, Diabolus jure cequissimo ornnem prolem primi
hominis vindicabat. Iniquum enim erat, ut ei quern ceperat non dommaretur.
Cf. de Trin. xiii. c. 12.
3 So Origen, Comm. in Matth. xvi. § 8, Exhort, ad Mart. 12. Similarly
Theodoret and Augustine.

1 2 • THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
part, accordingly, there was self-deception. As the deception
was intended by God, this view led to the formal theory of a
deception of Satan by God1 This application, although
starting from the idea of justice, makes the divine majesty and
power, not justice, finally decide the victory of Christ ; and
the deceptive craft, although represented as military strategy,
fails to harmonize with the divine holiness. Although the
ransom to Satan is never, of course, represented as a sacrifice
to him, he is still, with a touch of Manichseisni, viewed as a
sovereign Power, co-equal with God, a Power with which God
treats, or which He outwits and thus strips of its rights.
Better, therefore, are the theories which place the deliverance
from Satan's power and right on such a basis, that Satan is
put in the wrong, and a just conflict with him ensues.
Gregory of Nazianzum and John of Damascus expressly reject
the notion of a ransom to Satan.2 They say: Christ was
slain by Satan, and Satan was deceived as to Christ's divinity
by His birth of a virgin and humble condition, so that he did
not know Him ; but Satan thus sinned against the Holy One;
for God had only conceded to him power over sinners. As a
punishment, he lost his right in mankind by sentence of God's
just law. It is true that even thus a dualistic element re
mained, the reason of which perhaps lies in the following
considerations. The Christian consciousness, in seeking to
regard Christ as a Substitute for guilty humanity, does not
venture directly to subject Christ to the divine justice and
punishment, and make Him without further ado the object of
the displeasure of the just God. For this reason Satan is
interposed, God's punitive justice is placed in Satan, nay, in
mythological phraseology is hypostatized as it were in him,
of course on the basis cf God's cosmical government. On one
1 According to Gregory of Nyssa, the divine wisdom led the devil to the
exchange mentioned. In his view, the divine Incarnation is an artifice of the
wisdom of divine love, since it seemed to render accessible to the devil the
essentially inaccessible, Or. Cat. I.e. Gregory the Great describes Christ's flesh
as the bait held before the Leviathan by the divine stratagem of the Incarnation,
in order that he might try to swallow the hook of Christ's divinity, and thus
come to shame. Similarly, according to Origen, the cross is the net, according
to Peter Lombard, the muscipula in which Satan was caught. In like manner
Augustine, Ep. 130, 134, 263. Ct. Philippi, iv. 2, p. 65.
2 Gregory of Naz. Or. 42 ; John of Damascus, iii. 27. Many Fathers who
include Satan, regard Christ again as an expiatory offering to God.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE TO THE REFORMATION. 13
side it seemed necessary to assume punitive justice as an
active factor in the redemptive process ; on the other side, were
Christ directly subjected to it, there was danger of a conflict
both with Qod's love and with the dignity of the Son of His
love. But when punitive justice was placed in Satan, outside
God, it was made to appear as if justice were not an objective
determination of the divine essence, as if God might be recon
ciled with sinners without further ado, provided Satan's right
and power were out of the way, whereas this right can still
only flow every moment from God.
Moreover, the theories which, without attributing importance
to Satan, go back to the Adamic debitum as a debt contracted
by Adam and to be paid by his posterity, or to death as the
just punishment of God, from which redemption is necessary,
do so in such a way as to imply that it would be well with
the world and everything would be in harmony, provided
these hostile powers, standing outside the personality, were
out of the way. For this reason opposition to these theories
was never quite suppressed, and traces were not wanting of a
representation more in harmony with facts ; e.g., according to
Gregory of Nazianzus, the devil cannot be the recipient of a
ransom, but the Father received it. According to John of
Damascus, Christ presents Himself as a sacrifice and ransom
to the Father, whom we have offended — not to the usurper
was the blood of the lawful Lord offered,1 recourse being
thus had again to the idea of an expiatory sacrifice under the
figure of a ransom to God. Nay, long before Anselm there
was mention in a non-figurative, abstract way of a satisfaction
offered by Christ to God. So by Ambrose, Cyril of Alex
andria, Hilary, Augustine, John of Damascus.2
The exposition given above shows, indeed, how the Patristic
doctrine applied all the divine attributes in regular order to
Christ's work of atonement, — Love and Mercy, Power, Vera-
1 Cf. Nitzsch, ut supra, p. 374 ff.
2 According to Origen, Christ rendered the necessary propitiatio. Ambrose,
de Fuga, 7 ¦ "Christ died, ut satisfieret judicato ;" Gregory of Nazianzus and
John of Damascus, ut supra ; Cyril of Alex. c. Nest. iii. 2 : " Only the Logos,
because &*tk%h>s ™» S'Xmv, could die for all, and thus take away the punishment
of our disobedience ; " according to Eusebius of Caesarea also, Christ vicariously
assumed our penal suffering — death ; His death is equivalent to the infliction of
the punishment on all. Cf. Nitzsch, p. 373 ff.

14 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
city and Immutability (both in reference to the threatening
of sin with death and to the promise of salvation), further, the
Divine Wisdom, and finally, Justice. But still it is, above all,
the latter upon which, although so inadequately, the necessity
of the saving process through Christ's death is made to
depend ; and, moreover, Justice is regarded not as the divine
consistency in manifesting His Love, but as that which acts
as a bar to the communication of His love until a way is
found in which the divine love is able to realize its thoughts
of salvation without violence to justice. The defectiveness of '
the theories before Anselm consists, therefore, in the following
points. It is wrong to find that which renders redemption
necessary in something merely external to man. It is wrong
so to distribute the several parts as to make Satan represent
the energy of justice, and God with Christ the pure forgiving
love, which only evinces its justice in refusing to infringe on
Satan's right. It is wrong, finally, to make the process of
reconciliation only issue, as it were, from God. On the
contrary, we must have the courage to bring God's justice and
Christ into mutual relation.
3. But the idea of justice first receives independent and
systematic notice in the juridical theories, of which that of
Anselm is by far the most profound.1 Anselm endeavours to
demonstrate the necessity both of atonement by Christ, and of
divine incarnation in order to atonement. He starts from the
honor Dei as an inviolable good. God's honour is the preva
lence of justitia in the world ; by obedience to God's will the
creature pays the honour due to God. God's care for His
honour is not egoistic, justice being the universal law inviol
able even to the divine volition. It would be inconceivable,
as well as unworthy of God, that He should will anything
opposed to justice. In this way God's power and plenary
authority are placed beneath, not above, His justice. In His
character of justice He must require righteousness or obedience
to His righteous will from rational beings. This is the solus
et toius honor which they can offer to God. Hunc honorem
debitum qui Deo non reddit, aufert Deo quod suum est Deumque
exhonorat, et hoc est peccare. Sin is a contumelia Deo illata.
To it God cannot and ought not to be indifferent. He must
1 Anselm Cantuar. Cur Deus Iwmo ?

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE TO THE REFORMATION. 15
demand satisfaction for it ; and this requires plus reddere quam
ablatum erat, in order to efface the wrong to His honour and
atone for the injuria. Baumgarten-Crusius here strikingly
calls attention to the Old German expiation or penance, and
to that conception of sin as an outrage to honour which was
in keeping with the chivalrous spirit of the age. Notwith
standing, the divine honour is not regarded as a mere private
good, so that God might, like a private person, in virtue of
His free plenary authority, renounce claim to satisfaction or
not. On the contrary, it would be against God's honour
to forgive sin without satisfaction ; for otherwise evil would be
freer than good. In the absence of satisfaction, poena must
follow. Now, man cannot render satisfaction for the past ; for
what he has and can do he owes as a rational creature to God.
Punishment, therefore, would be necessary ; and how grievous
this must be is evident from the consideration that the
violated good — the honour of God — is of greater value than
the whole world, and therefore the violation of this honour
is of infinite import. But, on the other hand, the infliction
of the punishment must entail destruction on the world.
This would be the destruction of the fair world-order, the
overthrow of the fair world-plan, which willed along with
the angels the perfection and happiness of the race of human
beings.1 Thus, in order to render punishment unnecessary,
God must give to humanity the means of rendering the satis
faction which it cannot render out of its own resources.
Humanity must render it. It cannot do so as mere humanity,
but it can as divine humanity (Gottmenschheit). Now, Christ
is the God-man. He can render it, because He is the eternal
Son as well as man, His person and His work thus possessing
infinite value. As man, indeed, His active obedience is due
to God ; and by it, therefore, He cannot acquire merit capable
of transference to us. But it is otherwise with His spontan
eous suffering, which was not matter of obligation. Accord
ing to Anselm, this suffering is not penal suffering in virtue
of the jus talionis; but Christ creates meritum by His love,
which yields not even to deatL This is a good plus amabile
than sin is hateful. Not merely, therefore, does God regard
1 The race of human beings is not merely designed to supply the place of the
fallen angels. It has also to Anselm a worth of its own.

1 6 THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
this suffering as an action, a plus reddere quam ablatum erat,
and thus an adequate satisfaction ; 1 but Christ's suffering
begets an overplus of meritum, a reward being conferred on
Him. This reward He cannot receive on His own account,
for He is already in possession of divine majesty. But in
His love for us He counts it a reward to Himself to be
permitted to impart the reward due to Himself to those who
follow His word and example, and whom He calls His kins
men. His satisfaction holds good objectively for all ; His
reward secures the happiness of believers. The fact of Christ's
work not merely being a legal satisfaction, but being also
regarded by God as transferable merit, involves a convenientia,
although not a strict legal arrangement.
It deserves unceasing acknowledgment that Anselm employs
the idea of justice not merely in the disguised and impure
form peculiar to the theories which refer to Satan, nor simply
in the manner of mere civil law, which requires the payment
of the debt contracted by Adam after the fashion, as it were,
of a money debt. In the place of mere debitum appears in
Anselm the culpa, possessing infinite significance ; and in place
of the payment of a debt and the defeat of Satan, the satis
faction, which God must require in virtue of His nature, of the
justice which is not subject to His will. The satisfaction is
brought into direct relation to God and to His justice ; Christ,
who renders the satisfaction, stands directly face to face with
justice. Although Anselm at the same time treats sin as
injury, which according to Old German law requires along
with an equivalent for the insult or damage a tribute of
honour, still he does not regard it as a mere private matter,
but as an absolutely culpable offence, directed against the
absolutely good order in heaven and on earth, and thus against
the honour of God. ¦ In law, injury forms a sort of inter
mediate sphere between civil and criminal law. And since,
according to Anselm, God cannot in His plenary authority
dispose at pleasure of the gravity belonging to the injuria to
His honour, as a private man may decide what importance he
will attribute to an attack upon his honour, his theory leans
to a conception of sin allied with criminal justice. But, as
1 He regards the divine justice as God's maintenance of Himself in His moral
glory, similar to the use in the 0. T. of the idea of 1133.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE TO THE REFORMATION. 17
relates to satisfactio, in excluding therefrom Christ's active
obedience, Anselm has indeed properly nothing but a satis-
passio, while attributing to the spontaneous (according to him,
non-obligatory) suffering (in harmony with the mode of view
met with elsewhere in mediasval theology) the character of a
good work, meritorious, because non-obligatory. Instead of the
rendering of the obedience or good works due from men,
appears a spontaneous, non - obligatory, supererogatory suf
fering on the part of Christ ; instead of the idem, He thereby
rendered a tantundem, the divine estimation assigning to the
sufferings the value of positive good acts. This confounding
of the worth of suffering with positive acts plainly implies
something of an arbitrary nature, and to a certain extent
reintroduces the notion of private right. Moreover, the idea,
appropriate to Roman Catholicism, that there are actions at
once good and non-obligatory, and that such actions acquire
merit ; and further, the opinion that sufferings, because involv
ing renunciation, are in themselves pleasing to God, and to be
set on a par with good actions, are both faulty. Add to this,
that Anselm, because viewing Christ's humanity as impersonal,
cannot properly say that humanity has satisfied God in the
way justice requires. Besides, scarcely any but physical suf
ferings come into view in this theory. For, had he regarded
the spiritual sufferings, which are the consequence of Christ's
high-priestly love for men, he could not have said of these that
they were not obligatory on Christ, i.e. not included in His
office. Had Anselm seen that what is spontaneous and what
is done in virtue of office — the officially obligatory — are not
mutually exclusive, he might have conceded importance also
to Christ's active obedience in relation to the work of redemp
tion. Nay, the way in which He bore His sufferings must have
its ground in His positive moral power. Supposing, finally,
that sin demands an infinite satisfaction on account of the
infinite wrong to God, sin might indeed be covered by Christ's
spontaneous suffering, so far as it possesses infinite value, and
therefore by the suffering merit of Christ, but without overplus
or reward for Christ capable of being transferred to us.1
1 An altogether similar theory of reconciliation was advanced by Nicholas of
Methone in the Greek Church about the same time. Cf. Ullmann, "die
Dogmatik in der griech. Kirche, sc. xii.," Stud. u. Krit, 1833.
Dornbr.— Christ. Doct. iv. B

18 THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
Scholasticism, after Anselm, only partially preserved his
thoughts. The reference to Satan indeed, still maintained by
Peter Lombard, is more and more generally given up, and
Thomas Aquinas holds fast the satisfaction (satisfactio). The
spontaneous, non-obligatory humiliation and sufferings assumed
by Christ as Head, are said, by reason of the love for us which
they reveal, to be an acceptable sacrifice to God, a meritorious
ground, for the sake of which He forgives us, so that they may
be called a ransom paid to God. But the satisfaction of Christ
was on this theory as little necessary as the Incarnation. It
is true the satisfaction by Christ's sufferings was fitting (modus
conveniens) ; for as the suffering of the God-man corresponds
with the gravity of the guilt, so it corresponds also with the
divine mercy and justice. But this modus was not neces
sary in itself. Although simple, immutable Being, considered
as knowing and willing, forms the basis of Thomas Aquinas'
concept of God ; although, further, the world, to which
that knowledge and consciousness refer, is conceived as in
deterministic dependence on God, — still no special place is
left by Aquinas in God's eternal essence for the justice of God
in particular. Justice, as a special determination of God's
essence, is not in keeping with his view of the abstract
identity of God with Himself. On the contrary, God's
absolute plenitude of authority now gains most essential
influence. But in this case God might just as well accept
(acceptare) a mere finite worth as satisfaction as that infinite
worth which dwells in Christ, and which transcends the
amount required by justice.1 But He chooses the modus
convenientior, that of satisfaction by suffering. Duns Scotus
differs still more widely from Anselm.2 The necessity of
atonement by Christ is to him altogether immaterial, because
to him God in His innermost essence is nothing but free
plenary authority. In addition, he not merely denies the
infinity of the wrong done to God by sin on account of the
finitude of man, but also asserts the finitude of the merit
1 Cf. the Art. "Thomas v. Aq." by Landerer in Herzog's Realencyc. vol. xvi.
5 ; Ritschl, " Studien uber Genugthuung u. Verdienst," Jdhrb. f. deutsche
Tlieol. 1860, 4. In his view, Christ's work becomes efficacious by awakening
love ; but love is awakened by Christ's love for this very reason, that what it
does and suffers is a ransom to God.
2 Respecting Duns Scotus, cf. the Art. by A. Dorner in Herzog, ed. 2.

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE TO THE REFORMATION. 19
of Christ, which he derives wholly from Christ's strongly
emphasized humanity. Thus the argument for the necessity
of a satisfaction by the God-man, deduced from the idea of
God as well as from the nature of evil, is entirely given up.
In place of this necessity he puts the meritum, the value of
which is determined by God's free plenary authority. That
authority permits an acceptatio of the merit of Christ to avail
for the circle of believers. Thus, as relates to the demon
stration of the necessity of Christ's work, Thomas Aquinas and
Duns Scotus fall behind Anselm, while not denying the fitness
(convenientia) of the divinely-appointed economy of salvation,
and endeavouring to give more scope than Anselm to the
manifestation of God's spontaneous love. Thus is their theory,
although unelaborated, a transition to the one which recurs to
the wisdom of divine love and freedom.
Observation. — The theory of Abelard cannot be regarded as
worked out with precision, nor has it exercised any influence
worth mentioning on the subsequent development of the
dogma. On the one side, he seems to diverge from the usual
path of Church-teaching, and to look for reconciliation to
righteousness of life, to the love implanted in us by God
through Christ. The love of God, displayed in Christ's
Incarnation, suffering, and death, awakens responsive love in
us, by which we are justified and saved. On the other side,
in allusion to Gal. iii. 13, he emphasizes the expiation of
the divine justice by Christ, who on the cross became a curse
for us (cf. Reuter, Geschichte der Aufkl'drung im Mittelalter,
L 320) ; an aspect which Ritschl, who has selected Abelard
as a testis veritatis, ought not to have passed by in silence.
But Abelard cannot claim the high scientific importance in
relation to the present dogma which Ritschl attributes to
him. For how he combines both conceptions — the more
moral and the juridical — is not apparent, because he says
nothing expressly on the point. It is conceivable that he
held both without reconciling them, and without conscious
ness of any contradiction. But it is also possible that
Abelard did not intend to advance the former theory, which
is the more modern ' in; tone, and specially commended by
Ritschl, in opposition to the other one, which recurs to the
expiation of the divine justice, but still presupposes the
latter. In favour of this is the fact that he would have our
imperfect righteousness supplemented by Christ's. intercession,
which accompanies the life of believers, and by Christ's

20 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
righteousness, after the manner of the mystic theory, which
sees in Christ's objective righteousness our expiatory sub
stitute. But further, when he specially finds in Christ's
sufferings and death a manifestation of God's love powerful
enough to kindle responsive love in us, the question is
reasonable, how far a manifestation of love ought to be found
in Christ's sufferings and death if no expiatory and sub
stitutionary meaning belongs to them (a question doubly
warranted in relation to Ritschl's own theory, since he
neither favours the mystic view nor regards an expiation as
necessary). Thus Abelard's moral theory only seems to gain
intrinsic strength and consistency on the supposition that he
has not framed it in opposition to the expiation offered to
justice, but presupposes the latter. In this way, certainly,
the form of Abelard's theory becomes essentially different
from Ritschl's account of it, since it is then similar to the
views held by many Church-teachers before him, who ascribe
to. Christ's sufferings and death, along with the expiation
of justice, the awakening of responsive love.
2. The Evangelical Doctrine of Atonement.
§116.
In this dogma also the Reformation proves itself to be the
conclusion of an old and the beginning of a new age.
Its advances in Ponerology and Christology contributed
to this result, but especially the Evangelical principle of
faith, which strove to realize to itself in Christ's work
the objective foundation of the peace of conscience it had
gained. That from which deliverance is necessary is no
longer considered as something merely external to man and
objective, as the dominion of Satan and the power of death,
or as an alien inheritance, but as personal guilt which
subjects to desert of punishment.1 On this account it
is not merely freedom from punishment or moral amend
ment, but above all the abolition of guilt and the pacifying
of divine justice, which is recognised as the first requisite
to man's redemption, in order that filial relationship to
God and righteousness of life may be added to the state
1 Cf. above, § 75.

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE. 21
of peace with God., To this end the Evangelical
doctrine bases the work of salvation on both sides of
Christ's Person in their unity,1 while Christ Himself is
brought into direct relation with divine justice, which
He perfectly and vicariously satisfies by means of His
righteousness in active and passive obedience. Thus, in
the objective reconciliation of God by Christ the basis
is laid in respect of God for the application of His grace
to us, while in respect of man the possibility is opened
of elevation from consciousness of guilt and punishment
into peace of conscience and filial relationship to God,
or into consciousness of justification through faith.
Literature. — The Evang. Symbols : Conf. Aug. iii. iv. xv. ;
Apol. 92 ; Form. Cone. 684, 696, 894 ; Heidelb. Cat. Qu. 38 ff. ;
Conf. Helv. c. 11 ; Dordr. Syn. pp. 213-218, ed. Augusti ; Colloq.
Lips. 400; Form. Consens. Helv. 450; Gallic, xvii.; Scot. ix. ;
Cat. Genev. 526 ; Westmonast. (in Niemeyer's appendix to the
Reform. Symbols, 1840) c. 8, p. 12 ff.
Observation. — The notion that the Reformation doctrine is
simply a repetition of that of Anselm, is as erroneous as it is
common. It is true that the former holds by the necessity
of that mode of reconciliation which was realized historically,
as firmly as Anselm ; but in place of God's injured honour,
which demands satisfaction, — a view still retaining somewhat
of the spirit of civil law, — the Evangelical doctrine, and
especially Calvin and Melanchthon, put punitive justice,
with which Christ is placed as Atoner in direct relation,
which Anselm had not done. For Anselm said: Either
punishment or the substitution of satisfaction for punish
ment. But the Evangelical doctrine finds the satisfaction in
the pacifying of the justice which demands punishment from
man. According to the Evangelical Church, the satisfaction
consists not primarily in the offering of good works as a
tribute of honour, nor, as in the case of Anselm, in the
innocent sufferings endured by Christ, not at the hands of
God and His justice, but simply at the hands of men, those
sufferings being merely treated by God as good works, which
are of benefit to us ; but according to Evangelical doctrine,
Christ enters into direct relation with the just punishment
due to us. Moreover, whereas Anselm leaves out of sight
1 Cf. § 94.

22 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Christ's active obedience, because as man Jesus was bound
to render it, the Evangelical doctrine brings Christ's active
obedience into direct relation with, the work of atonement
and with divine justice. The active obedience is necessary,
like the passive, to the pacifying of divine justice. Instead
of the civil or political conception of justice, we have here
the absolute view and a correspondent theory of punishment
to place in contrast with the violation of an infinite good —
the divine will — by the doing of wrong and the omission of
obligatory good. — As concerns Luther in particular, in him
the old theories, as Weisse, v. Hofmann, and Held rightly
remark, revive and enter upon a new course. It is thus with
the reconciliation of heaven and earth through the Incarna
tion, or through the meritorious life by which Christ presents
Himself in His proved righteousness as a perfect sacrifice
to God; and again with the theory of the vanquishing of
Satan and death. But this is not all, for he also takes God's
justice into account, as Thomasius proves in detail.1 Again, .
he treats Satan in a different way from that in which all the
old theories treat him, bringing him into close connection
with the law. Through Satan's temptation, the law provokes
the sinner to rebellion and disbelief of God. Through sin,
the law became Satan's handle to effect man's destruction.
Now Christ's triumph over Satan is complete, because He
raises above the sole authority of the law, above the legal
standpoint. But since, in Luther's view, the law in its
commands and ordinances, its threats and penalties, is of
divine origin, and has its roots in the divine justice, his
teaching rightly takes the ground, that Christ led beyond
the legal stage by satisfying the law in every respect, and
therewith triumphed over Satan, death, the world, and sin.
But certainly it was Melanchthon who worked out the relation
of atonement to the divine justice, and in this Calvin is
essentially one with him.
1. The Evangelical principle — the experience of Justifica
tion through faith in Christ — necessarily reacted on the
doctrine of Atonement ; and here, indeed, the fruitfulness of
the advance made by the Reformation in Ponerology specially
shows itself. For Justification is the disburdening of the
personality from guilt at the tribunal of God's punitive justice,
and therefore from punishment ; but this in such a way that
1 Cf. Kostlin, Luther's Theol. ii. 404 ff. ; Harnack, ut supra, i. 557 f. ; cf.
" The New Year's Sermon " in Luther's Kirchenpostille ; Hauspostille, Erlang'. ed!
iii. 137, 305 ; Thomasius, ut supra, 260 ; Philippi, iv. 2, p. 114 ff.

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE. 23
the believer has the consciousness that divine justice itself has
been satisfied by Christ ; that no exception has been made at
the cost of justice ; that his is not simply the experience of
divine long-suffering, including neither definitive forgiveness
nor satisfaction made to justice. On the contrary, the
believer knows that, despite his own unrighteousness, harmony
with the law and with justice has been restored by Christ.
In this knowledge is rooted his assured peace of conscience,
his elevation above those doubts as to the Christian economy
of salvation which conscience would always suggest, in case
forgiveness came to the sinner in the way, so to speak, of a
partial act of exception, through a breach with justice and
violation of the eternal law. But by this means, since it is
only faith in Christ which knows itself justified, Christ's acts
and sufferings enter into direct relation with the penal law
and with our guilt which has to be blotted out, Christ being
thus the Atoner, to whom the consciousness of justification
attaches itself. The Reformers and Evangelical Confessions
state the matter thus : Christ's sufferings are penal sufferings,
to which He submitted,1 not an opus super erogatorium, but
having relation to our liability to punishment. He bore the
maledictio, the jus legis contra nos. God's law is absolutely
immutable, and therefore brooks no exception. Lex divina est
immota, ergo legi satisfieri debet; obligat vel ad obedientiam,
vel ad poenam. Peccato, malo infinito, debetur poena infinita,
abjectio, mors ceterna. Puniendo Deus justitice suae satisfacit,
non remittit peccata ex levitate, vel futilitate. For this reason
has God provided a means of reconciliation, temperamentum,
copulatio justitias et misericordice. In poena quce debet esse
placaiio, oportet punienti tribui laudem justitice. As innocens,
Christ does this.2 Thus is the jus legis observed, and indeed
satisfied on our behalf ; for Christ has satisfied the claim of
the law or satisfied justice, in order that the law may not
condemn us.3 As He has spontaneously, so He has innocently
suffered for men (or at least for the elect, see below), and
thereby averted punishment, because He has caused guilt not
1 Apologia, 92, 93.
2 Cf. Melanchthon, Corp. Ref. xxiii. 338, 549, xxi. 1042, 1077.
3 Conf. Aug. iii. iv. ; Apol. 92, 195 ; Form. Cone. 696, 57 ; Heidelb. Cat.
38 f. Without this imputation even sins of omission could not be forgiven.

24 s THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
to be imputed to us. Nay, in order that we may not merely
escape punishment and the imputation of guilt, but that God
may regard us as righteous and holy in Christ, and so His
whole paternal grace may become ours, Christ's own righteous
ness — as well that of His active as of His passive obedience
— is imputed to us.1 Only a portion of the Evangelical
Theologians (among the Reformed Piseator, among the
Lutherans Karg, among moderns Tollner) have declined to
include Christ's active obedience. Even the Reformed
Theology on the whole holds by this view, which is again
linked to the doctrine held in the ancient Church of the merit
of Christ's life. Schweizer, Schneckenburger, Schenkel go so
far as to assert that the chief stress of the Reformed Theology
rests on Christ's active obedience.2 But in doing so, they
confound Christ's active obedience with the communication
of new life, and forget how decisively Calvin, Wolleb,
Maresius, and others emphasize the expiation of just punish
ment rendered by Christ.
2. The fruit or benefit of Christ's Atonement is, above all,
found in this, that God placatus est, homo expiatus. This
implies a change brought about in God's relation to' sinful
humanity through Christ's historic work. The change relates
to the remission in the heart of God, rendered possible and
actual by Christ. Above all, Christ procures the forgiveness
of sins, i.e. the cancelling of guilt. This is opposed to the
eudsemonistic, servile view, which puts the chief stress on
freedom from physical ill, from punishment, not on the just
claims of the law being satisfied and the conscience relieved
from the burden of guilt. In opposition to this view the
Apology says: Remissio pcence frustra quceritur, nisi cor antea
qucesiverit remissionem peccatorum. Moreover, the Evangelical
doctrine is opposed to the notion that sanctification, the
obliteration of sin, is first in importance, and that forgiveness
of sins takes place on its account, although of course for
giveness is, with Augustine, referred to grace (as justitia
infusa, or inhmrens, hdbitualis). Still, the benefit of Christ's
1 Form. Cone. 684, 696. '
3 Schweizer, Olaubl. d. Ref. Kir. ii. 399 f., and die chr. Olaubensl. nach prot
Grundsatzen, ii. 171 f. ; Schneckenburger, Verglekfiende Darstellung d. luth u
ref. Lehre, i. 124.

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTEINE. 25
merit is not exhausted in the negative blessing — the removal
of guilt, remission of punishment, and abolition of the con
sciousness of guilt and punishment. On the contrary, Christ's
purpose is also to impart to those whom He represents the
divine favour, which brings us salvation and sheds peace
abroad in the heart of believers, — a result completing the
revelation of the reconciliation of God effected by Christ.
Thus Christ's entire obedience secures for us, that for Christ's
sake God does not merely not impute our sins to us, but also
regards us as righteous and holy in virtue of Christ's whole
righteousness — the obedientia activa also — being imputed to
us. Again, the extent to which the atonement by Christ
refers is of importance in deciding its value. Christ's entire
obedience is viewed as of infinite value, sufficient to cancel
infinite guilt and punishment, and to present eveiy believer
holy and righteous before God. According to both Evangelical
Confessions, therefore, this value is all-embracing, i.e. refers to
all sins, — original and actual, — sins not merely before but
also after baptism,1 whereas the Catholic Church limits the
efficacy of the atonement to original sin and sins before
baptism. As relates to persons, the Lutheran Church ascribes
universal value to Christ's atonement more definitely than the
Reformed. But even the Reformed theologians teach that
Christ's merit, because infinite, would be sufficient for all in
itself, only the application of this universal power is rendered
particular by the twofold decretum. Along with this idea the
doctrine occurs in the Form. Consensus Helv. (which was not
adopted as a Symbol), that it was neither the will of God nor
of Christ that Christ should taste death for all, but only for
the elect. But, in order to atone even for these, a piaculum
of infinite value, sufficient in itself for all, was necessary on
account of the infinity of guilt. Both Confessions teach that
neither human penance nor good works can supplement the
merit of Christ and the value of that merit.2 Christ's atone
ment possesses this value through the character of His person.
He is Mediator between God and men, because of His standing
in the most intimate relation to both through the Unio in
1 P. II. Conf. Aug. iii. de Missa, .p. 25, § 21 ff.
2 Conf. Aug. xv. § 3, p. 13 ; Apol. 193, 51 ; A. S. 305 ; Cat. Heidelb. ed.
Niemeyer, pp. 431, 443, qu. 60 ff.

26 THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
Him. The Form. Cone, says: The divinity and humanity
must not here be separated, else the work loses its value. On
this account Stancarus was condemned, because he wished to
regard only the human side as mediatorial, and for this reason
to ascribe finite value to Christ's obedience, enhancing it by
means of acceptilatio.^ On the other hand, Andr. Osiander was
condemned, because he treated redemption as secondary, and
regarded justification as effected only by the divine nature of
Christ dwelling in us, while severing it from the atonement,
which to him was something external and subordinate, "the
payment of our debts 1500 years ago." The doctrine of the
Church seeks to secure the historic truth and reality of Christ's
entire obedience by His humanity, and its infinite value by
His divinity ; and in this way the Christological advance
made in the age of the Reformation in respect of a more
living conception of the unity of Christ's person, has its
influence on the dogma now under consideration.
3. From what has been said, it is clear how definitely the
Evangelical Church advances beyond mere convenientia, or
adaptation in Christ's work, to the necessity of this mode, and
how by the consciousness of God's immutable justice it avoids
everything arbitrary or capricious, even where arbitrariness
shelters itself behind God's free plenary authority. On the
other hand, it firmly lays down the ethical idea of God. And
it is worthy of note that here the Reformed theology does
not, as in the doctrine of the decretum Electionis and Reproba-
tionis, go back to God's supreme authority, but to the divine
justice, which it reckons a part of God's essence, and there
fore does not subordinate to God's supremum arbitrium. But
from this it also follows that Christ's atoning action procured
a blessing of a moral nature most precious to God Himself, a
blessing which did not previously exist even for God, and
that consequently a change was made by Christ's work, in
accordance with the decretum, not merely in the relation of
men to God, but in the relation of God to men. Thus has
the Evangelical Church, in asserting the necessity of Satis
faction, afforded proof that, advancing beyond the mere le^al
stage, and for this reason visited with the reproach of
Antinomianism, it pays greater honour to the inflexible honour
of God's law than those theories which assign to that law the

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTEINE. 27
precarious position of a positivity which might be other than
it is, and which therefore do not regard atonement by Christ
as the essential mode of salvation. When the Formula of
Concord says : Gratia Dei, Meritum Christi, Fides belong to
Justificatio, this triad shows how, according to Evangelical
teaching, the process of Atonement, starting from the depths
of the Divine Essence, proceeds onward to the historic
Mediator, until it reaches its goal in fides, with its joyous
assurance of the divine forgiveness. The decisive factor is
the terminus medius, Christus per quem Deus placatur ; but
still the process is not concluded with the objective trans
action through Christ outside us. It first comes to rest in
fides, because by faith the peace, which exists through Christ
in God's heart, is received into our heart. Mere objective
atonement, on the other hand, however important and funda
mental, would avail us nothing.
4. The advance made in the Evangelical doctrine of Atone
ment, and continued by the theology of the Church, cor
responds to the advance made by the Reformation in
Ponerology, Christology, and Theology. But the defects also,
which, as formerly indicated,1 were not overcome in these
doctrines, exercised their influence, giving rise to a number
of points needing explanation or more satisfactory verification.
We shall consider these defects, as they appear in part in the
Symbols and old Evangelical theologians of both Confessions,
following as closely as possible the defects, previously discussed
and still remaining, in Ponerology, Christology, and the doctrine
of God. First. We saw previously that the old Evangelical theology
made too little distinction in the doctrine of sin between
generic and personal sin, especially that of definitive unbebef,
which is inevitably followed by damnation. The consequence
of this on the present dogma is, that the statement : Christ
died for all the sins of the world, as to form gives the im
pression that His atoning work avails even for the sin of
definitive rejection of Christ,2 which neither was nor could be
the meaning. On the other hand, it gives the impression
1 § 75, 6 ; § %. Cf. §§ 94. 95.
2 Certainly Quenstedt does not seem to shrink even from this. P. ii. p. 163.
ell. iii. 324.

28 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
that Christ, in order to make satisfaction for sin at all, must
endure the punishments of hell for us, those punishments
being due by divine justice to all sin, not merely to that of
definitive unbelief. This defect in dogmatic precision acquires
greater importance from the fact that the idea of punishment
was not investigated with sufficient thoroughness. The usual
supposition was, that the satisfaction of divine justice con
sisted in the same amount of suffering befalling Christ which
would have befallen those destined to obtain forgiveness, on
which view the amount of Christ's sufferings would neces
sarily have been greater if the number of sinners had been
greater, and smaller if smaller. When this quantitative
, conception of sin and of Christ's sufferings is carried farther,
: those sufferings appear as a numerical amount, which Christ
; was bound to discharge for all without distinction, in order to
I create for them the possibility of deliverance, since those for
\ whom He did not pay the amount would be those excluded
a priori from election. A further consequence would be, that
if the numerical sum due had been paid on behalf of those
remaining in unbelief, punishment for their sins, which had
been expiated, could no longer be demanded of them, because
Christ had made satisfaction for them, and a double satisfac
tion would be unjust. But even if the sin, to which Christ's
atoning work could not refer, were separated from that
capable of forgiveness, and it were said that Christ had only
to do with the latter, the old theology is still inclined to
maintain that it was necessary for Christ to endure the pains
of hell, because the infinite significance of sin demands infinite
punishment.1 But in opposition to this view the question was
early asked, Whether the comparatively brief duration of Christ's
sufferings could come into comparison with the punishments
1 The Reformed theologians in part teach that on the cross Christ suffered the
pangs of hell. The Lutheran Confessions, while not excluding this view (Frank,
d. Theologie der Concordienformel, ii. 32, 1861), do not teach it, as is often
done by theologians on both sides. But the impotence of rebellion and despair
form a part of those pangs, and these cannot be thought of in Christ without
dissolving the Unio. It is true, the Lutheran Confessions speak of the eternal
death to which we should be exposed apart from Christ's suffering for us. But
it is not said that Christ endured this eternal death. For this reason, moderns
like Kahnis (iii. 397), Frank (Syst. d. chr. Wahrheit, ii. 181 ff.), and Gess,
reject this Theologoumenon of the old Protestant theologians. It is otherwise
with Philippi, iv. 2. 136.

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE. 29
of hell, and as relates, for example, to those dying before
maturity, whether original sin alone could be an adcequata
causa damnationis to the punishments of hell 1 The disposi
tion to externalize the idea of punishment, in order to seek a
quantum of suffering in Christ answering to the amount of
sin, followed naturally from the assumption, that the satisfy
ing of divine justice by Christ's suffering for men's sins rests
on the jus talionis of the compensation-theory, which was
confounded with the absolute theory of punishment formerly
discussed ; 1 and then the question was asked, What sufferings
of Christ in particular make expiation for definite, particular
kinds of sin ? But therewith it is overlooked that suffering
as suffering is no good in God's sight, and divine justice is
not revenge ; the only good is the revelation of justice. Such
a' treatment of the matter is repugnant to the Evangelical view
of sin, that view being averse to such piecemeal division, and
rather drawing attention away from the endless diversity of
sin's manifestations to its single source. Thus the revelation
of the divine justice demanded is not to be of a kind implying
punishments as various as the manifestations of sin. Nor can
it be shown that retributive punishments, various in kind and
corresponding to all human sins, were borne by Christ.
Generally speaking, this tendency to a quantitative equivalent
in Christ's sufferings for human sins must lead to undue, one
sided stress being laid on Christ's physical sufferings, whereas
the suffering of His soul alone exceeded the delight and joy
felt by any sinner in sin. On the supposition of the sum of
general guilt and punishment on the part of the world having
to be cancelled or paid by a mathematically equal quantum of
suffering on Christ's part, we should have before us in the
cross a sum in arithmetic instead of a wondrous mystery of
love. From the quantitative we must advance to the in
trinsic view of the matter, to an intensive estimate of the
work of Christ. Further, were Christ's work considered in
the light of a calculation and counter-calculation, Christ being
made the payer of a money debt, this evil consequence would
follow, that Christians might demand remission of punishment
and justification from God as their strict right ; and if the
satisfaction were of this nature, gracious forgiveness would be
1 § 24, 6 ; 32, 4. Cf. § 88.

30 THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
out of the question. But, on the contrary, Christians are
conscious that not merely Christ's mission, but also the
imputation of His righteousness, is not indeed an act of
arbitrary favour, but of grace, so that they would of necessity
look on it as impious to ask forgiveness as a legal due from
God, on the ground that God, after the debt has been paid by
Christ, cannot again require its payment from the debtors.
Instead of this, the Christian consciousness only requires that
forgiveness clash not with divine justice, Christ having
satisfied that justice. Evil with its culpability, like Christ's
merit, must be conceived dynamically or intensively. Christ's
merit is not to be measured by weight and number, because
it is a potency intensively infinite, equal to the guilt incurred
by the violation and rejection of an infinite good. But Christ's
sufferings owe their intensive import to the fact that they are
not merely physical, but spiritual sufferings, sufferings of His
divine-human person. By God's just ordinance sin draws
upon itself His wrath and displeasure — that intensive power
(Gi'dsse). As the divine displeasure is the source, so it is the
innermost core of punishment, the sting in every other punish
ment. Wherever a sinner, though the subject of outward ill,
regards it not as a sign of the divine displeasure, he is still
superficially blind to his penal state. On the contrary, although
the ills, which were punishments, still continue, if that in
tensive element in punishment — the divine displeasure — ho
longer rules, but the enjoyment of the peace and favour of
God, then that which was punishment is no longer punish
ment, but the remaining ills are, as it were, swallowed up by
the sense of infinite good, of the divine favour, which trans
forms even ill into a proof of love. Thus under every aspect
we are directed from the mere quantitative, arithmetical view
of sin and guilt, of the divine grace and divine punishment,
as well as of Christ's merit, to a higher mode of view, from an
extensive to an intensive power (Grbsse). But that which is
intrinsically infinite in worth or demerit refuses to be measured
by weight and number.
Observation. — Another common defect in the Church theo
logians, is in making the satisfaction contained in Christ's
sufferings the chief matter to such an extent, that they regard
the mere execution of punishment as identical with the

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE. 31
restoration of divine grace. But that the mere objective
execution of punishment, even when tending to the benefit
of the sinner, could not suffice, is easily apparent. Even in
the State, when a criminal has expiated his punishment, he
is not on this account so restored to citizenship and confi
dence that all is forgotten, and honour and cordial confidence
are completely regained by him ; for he might submit to the
punishment reluctantly. Restitutio in integrum, the return
of full confidence, is only possible when the sufferer acknow
ledges the justice of the punishment, thus doing honour to
justice. Then only is atonement made to justice. For these
reasons, in the case of Christ an objective execution of
punishment is by no means sufficient ; i.e. it is not sufficient
for the ills and sufferings, even the death, ordained as a
punishment to men, to be inflicted on and endured by Christ
for men's good. In order to the restoration of God's spon
taneous communion with sinners, and to the fresh bestowal
of His favour, besides suffering, this is necessary, that Christ,
in the suffering coming to Him as Mediator through the
injustice of men, honour and acknowledge God's justice in
His judicial displeasure at sin, and submit to the feeling of
that just displeasure ; and this is a new and broader act, in
cluding not merely willingness to endure outward sufferings,
but to descend for the sake of a sinful world to the feeling
of just subjection to punishment.
Second. As relates to Christology, a firm, intimate connec
tion must certainly be maintained between Christ's physical
sufferings and those of His soul, the conscious sense of life
and suffering on its physical side having its roots in the ^Jrv^rj
of Jesus. But however important, according to the N. T.,
those physical sufferings of Christ, by which He entered into
most real fellowship with sinners, the reasons just advanced
show that His spiritual sufferings should receive more con
sideration than is commonly the case.1 Sin, as the infringe
ment of an infinite good, and guilt, are only comprehensible
in relation to the soul ; only the soul can have the sense of
God's just displeasure. But the reality of Christ's human
soul must also influence the doctrine of atonement, inasmuch
as the really human will is most important in relation to His
1Matt. xxvi. 36 ff., xxvii. 46. Cf. Isa. liii. 7, 8, 11; John xii. 27; Mark
x. 39 ; Luke xii. 50. It is especially the Catholic theologians who are disposed
to dwell unduly on the physical sufferings and the sense of them. Cf. Cotta's
Dissert, on Gerhard's Loci Th, t. iv. 75.

3 2 ' THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
obedience, in order both that His suffering may be voluntary,
and that He may do honour to the divine justice, feel the
divine displeasure, and confess its justice. But we pointed
out as a leading defect in the old Lutheran Christology, that
it confounded the States of Humiliation and Exaltation by the
Communicatio idiomatum, supposed to be absolute from the
beginning, and inconsistent with the admitted reality of the
humanity.1 This has. critical consequences for the present
dogma. For, according to this Christological theory, Christ
was necessarily after the Unio, even as man, in possession,
not to say exercise, of every divine prerogative, and in
undisturbed divine blessedness. But this would be inconsis
tent with the reality of His suffering. And if Christ's
humanity, as this theory must properly assume, even before
the Exaltation entered into fellowship with the Godhead, then
the Godhead is so preponderant in Him, especially if Christ's
humanity is supposed to be impersonal, that only God the
Son, or the Logos, as it were, stands over against God the
Father, and therefore God over against God, or over against
Himself. But if in this work it is God who at once pays
and receives, and therefore pays to Himself, atonement is in
danger of becoming a mere internal calculation of God, and
the history of atonement a mere epideictic or symbolic trans
action, a sign of that which God possessed eternally in Him
self even apart from Christ. Then would Christ by His
historical work procure nothing new, nothing which did not
really exist for God before. Lutheran theology, it is true, did
not intend this. On the contrary, even the old Kryptists
endeavour here most of all to treat Christ's humiliation as
real, and regard Christ not as God merely, but as true man.2
But this proves that, where those Christological propositions
ought to have evinced their truth, they had to be given up as
unpractical and useless, and that, on the other hand, where a
practical application of the doctrine of Christ's Person was in
question, recourse was had to the propositions of another
Christology, lying in the line of the one sketched by us. But
1 See §§ 94, 95.
2 According to Luther's postulate : Here must Christ be regarded as man
pure and simple (Walch, xiii. 547, xii. 1677-85. My Geschichte der Christol.
ii. 555), a view which certainly goes too far, because it would dissolve the Unk.

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE. 33
the Reformed doctrine also was not free from the danger of
Docetism in the form of apprehending Christ's historical work,
nor does it adequately secure the procurement of an infinite
blessing by Christ's historic work. For if the divine Predes
tination and Election alone, and therefore God's will, are viewed
as the ultimate, all-conditioning and decisive cause both of
Christ's work and of faith, while Christ's work and man's
faith are not viewed, in accordance with the demand of the;
divine essence, as conditioning the attainment of God's counsel,
of salvation to historical realization, then again the history
and work of Christ are in danger of being viewed in a mere
docetic light, whereas the strict Reformed doctrine of God's
justice and of Christ as the causa meritoria salutis repudiates-
everything docetic.
There must be added, in the third place, the defect, for
merly indicated in the Doctrine of God held by the old Church
theologians, namely, the false conception of God's immutability
and elevation above the world In order to exclude temporal
change from God's knowledge and volition, that doctrine
would make God's relation to the world eternally the same,
and assign all change to the world. But the consequence of
this must be, that neither could evil produce an alteration
in God's relation and disposition towards the world, nor
for this very reason would the atonement of Christ influence
the way in which He is disposed towards men. But if
Christ's atonement does not remove real divine displeasure;
and again render possible a favourable disposition on God's
part, His atoning work cannot be understood in its entire
earnestness and depth. Then no place remains for objective
discord between God and the sinful world, nor for the removal
of such discord. The only question could be of a discord on the
part of men with God, and of a change in their attitude to God.
5. Again, the greatest importance belongs to the question
respecting the Transferdbleness of our guilt to Christ, and of,
Christ's righteousness to us, — a point upon which the opposition
to the Evangelical doctrine of atonement, especially on the
part of the Socinians, first of all and early fastened. Against
the transferableness of our guilt to Christ is the consideration,
that it seems to run out into caprice, and only to be possible
at the cost of the immutable, law, because the guilty one is,
Dorner. — Christ. Doct. iv. C

34 THE DOCTEINE OF ATONEMENT.
exempted from punitive justice, while the innocent one is
punished. The earnest emphasizing of justice seems thus to
pass into crying injustice. Justice — that guardian of distinc
tions, and therefore of the rights of the personality — seems
necessarily regarded as mutable, whereas it is part of God's
essence. Now, as regards, first of all, the transference of our
guilt and penalty to Christ, the Symbols certainly remind us,
as an argument in favour of its possibility, of Christ's position
as the /cetjxikij, a position forming the ground of a substitution.
But the way in which this substitution is to be conceived
was not settled more precisely. Many theologians speak as
if it implied a sort of commutatio personarum, and as if in
consequence of this Christ were directly subject to God's
wrath, an object of the divine displeasure and punishment,
whereas others' opposed both notions. And as concerns the
transferableness of Christ's righteousness to us, the commutatio
personarum seemed to be avoided by the person of Christ
being distinguished from His work or merits, and an attempt
being made to show that there is objectively in Christ some
thing over and above, which is available for transference to
us. This the Form. Cone, seeks to establish in the following
manner.1 As Son of God, Christ was not personally subject
to the law, but Lord of the law, even as to His humanity, in
virtue of the communicatio idiomatum. Since, nevertheless,
by an obedience well-pleasing to God He submitted to the
law, merit was the consequence, which He needed not for
Himself, and which was therefore available for others. This
theory, reminding us of Anselm, cannot be approved even in
its confirmatory aspect (in which aspect it is put forward), to
say nothing of its intrinsic merits.2 It has much in common
with the Romish doctrine of supererogatory good works avail-
1 684, 15 ; 697, 58.
2 When Philippi, I.e. (as also iv. 2, pp. 146 ff., 134), and also Harless (Zeitschr.
f. Prot. 1839, No. 7), defend these propositions of the Form. Cone., whereas
Frank gives them up (die Theol. der Ooncordienformel, ii. 38, 1861), and when
Harless reminds us that Christ's appearance in the world, as well as His servant-
form, was not His duty but voluntary, it is overlooked that what is voluntary
is not therefore arbitrary (i.e. must n6t be handed over to caprice), but may
be official duty, and what is done officially and therefore as matter of duty
is not unfree or necessitated ; and it is overlooked that the law or the imxi
is the efflux of the divine essence, and not a matter of mere free plenary
authority. It is true that men have no right to demand the Incarnation or

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTEINE. 35
able for others. The law — that efflux of God's holy essence
— is here directly made no part of the essence of God (and
therefore of Christ's also, as the Son), but is treated as the
efflux merely of supreme authority, and therefore derived
from the physical category of power. But Christ is not exlex,
but evvouoi. He is certainly free even as man, but free in
gladly and spontaneously realizing the will of the Father, the
ethically good and necessary. It would be contrary both to
His Deity and humanity, were He able to deal with the law
by arbitrary will. What He did in obedience to the law or
the ivroXri of the Father is an official, and certainly unique,
fulfilment of the law of love binding on all men. In this
fulfilment, therefore, and not in anything material, not in any
work or merit divorced from His person, must the grounds of
the legitimacy and force of His substitution be sought. For
the rest, in order to secure the benefits of this substitution
and intercession of Christ to us, the Confessions rightly refer
to the correlate of Christ's love — faith in man. His merit
avails for fides, inasmuch as faith respicit in personam Christi,
quatenus Hie pro nobis legi sese subjecit, peccata nostra pertulit}
The transference of the merit of Christ to us is mediated on
His side by His intercession with the Father, on our side by
that believing surrender to Him which loses itself in 'Him.
sacrifice of Christ. But this does not abolish the official character of Christ's
free action. Philippi supposes (ut supra, pp. 23-42), that were Christ under
obligation to holy action, and were only His holy death vicarious, this would be
equivalent to saying that by His active obedience He procured eternal life for
Himself and by His passive obedience for us. Here, withal, a false idea of
substitution betrays itself, as if the same love, which by action and suffering
manifests the vicarious spirit, could not at the same time be the means of
attesting and glorifying one's own person. The converse of suoh a view would
be, that what has really vicarious force would exclude the personal ethical
conduct of him for whom the substitution avails, and therefore would be without
productive power. When he says further, that, were Christ under obligation,
He would not be One Person, since the Logos oannot be under obligation, but
is Lord of the law, apart from the error of supposing that there may be caprice
in God in relation to the law, the counter-question is necessary, whether the
humanity of Christ can be real, if He is as little under obligation as man as He
is as Logos, whether Docetism or Monophysitism would not be the conse
quence ? It is certainly unbecoming to assert obligation of God, since He is
Himself the ethically necessary. But the ethical necessity, according to which
God acts, even as the Incarnate Son, coheres very well with the official action,
in which the ethically necessary expresses itself for men.
1 Form. Cone. 684, 13 ; 697, 58.

36 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
The consequence is, that our injustitia is not imputed to us, but
His justitia. Thus, in laying hold of Christ we lay hold of our
righteousness.1 But this teaching rather indicates the factum
of the transference and the way thereto, than shows how the
transferableness harmonizes with personal responsibility.
6. That Christ's merit did not consist, as Anselm supposed,
merely in passive, but also in active obedience, was distinctly
acknowledged by the Evangelical doctrine.2 But the right
way of combining and applying the two was not as readily
found, while the wrong one gave rise to early attacks on the
whole doctrine. The supposition, certainly, that personal
obedience is no longer due from us, because Christ's vicarious
righteousness dispenses with it, was utterly rejected on Evan
gelical soil, obviously as it seemed to be suggested when the idea
of substitution was not rightly laid down. But the demon
stration of the obedientia activa was vacillating from the first.
Some said: We not merely need the cancelling of past guilt
in order to please God, but, if the law is to be satisfied, we
must also appear righteous and holy before God, so that even
our past may no longer disturb the world's harmony, but
appear in God's sight as normal and as positive obedience.
Christ's suffering, then, cancels the guilt of disobedience ; His
obedientia activa, on the other hand, presents us holy before
God. But this division of the One complete obedience is
insufficient. For if the obedientia Christi activa by itself has
the effect of presenting us holy and obedient before God even
in reference to our past, liability to punishment is thereby.
excluded, and Christ's vicarious suffering is needless as penal
suffering. Conversely, if His passive obedience has atoned
for all guilt, substitution through the obedientia activa seems
superfluous, for then even the guilt of omitted good is can
celled, so that the non-existence of righteousness no longer'
forms a punishable gap. Quenstedt refers the obedientia
passiva to the poena, the activa to the culpa? But when the
culpa is cancelled, the penalty is no longer penalty ; and the
1 Form. Cone. 584, 5 ; 696, 55 f. ; 685, 15.
2 Form. Cone. 685. 686. 696. The obedientia. activa resulted from the fact
that Christ sine peccato peccati pcenam subiit, Apol. 118.
s Cf. Thomasius, De obed. Christi activa, on the historical development.
Quenstedt, I.e. sec. ii. qu. 3.

THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE. 37
abrogation of the penalty is impossible, unless the guilt is
first abrogated. Just as little is it admissible to refer the
obedientia passiva to our sinful past, the activa to our im
perfect present and future, which are covered by it. For
Christ's obedientia passiva cannot be referred merely to the
sinful past before faith, the subsequent operation of pre-
Christian sin in the believer still needing Christ's atoning
efficacy. Further, the obedientia Christi passiva would not
really be atoning in character unless it were also an act of
active obedience — both an act of love and an act done in
acknowledgment of the divine justice. It thus appears that
it is wrong to cut in two the one complete merit of Christ,
seeing that Christ's obedience under both aspects must
always co-operate. The relation of the obedientia passiva and
activa to each other cannot be such as to allow the supposition
that either of the two without the other effected a special
part of the expiation or covered a special defect. But as
they did not exist apart in time, and doing and suffering
were always combined in Christ's Person, so, although rela
tively opposed, they must be treated dogmatically on the
basis of their interdependence and mutual interpenetration.
Mere physical sufferings would halve no atoning import ; but',
as the sufferings are sufferings of the soul, they necessarily
imply action, because love. Thus, His obedientia passiva,
because a free volition to suffer in the interest of justice, is
also an action, and His action included the will to satisfy
God by suffering Jforne in virtue of office.
Observation. — When Schleiermacher apprehends the obedi
entia activa, so far as it is vicarious in nature, as a communi
cation of life and the principle of sanctification, we are led
at once into an altogether different sphere (see above, p. 24).
For the whole old Evangelical theology places the obedientia
activa and passiva in relation with the justification of the
sinner before God, but not with sanctification. It would be
more in keeping with the spirit of the Evangelical doctrine
to regard the obedientia Christi activa as the ground on which
man obtains not merely remission of guilt and punishment,
but also a new bestowal of the divine favour, and thus, for
the first time, full justification. So Philippi, who remarks,
however, that even this may be derived from Christ's penal
suffering, so far as it is an act of obedience.

38 , THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
3. Subjectivistic Theories of Atonement.
§ 117.
The transition to theories of atonement of a one-sided sub
jective kind was made by Socinianism and Arminianism.
In these systems, justice and law, like punishment, have
no necessary importance in themselves, but only in rela
tion to the consciousness of man, whose welfare is to
Arminianism the highest end. The eudsemonism of the
popular philosophy denies punishment altogether, as
it denies the absolute worth of the moral. And
the subjective theories of Kant, Fichte, Jacobi, while
teaching a self-redemption on the part of man in the
way of volition, knowledge, feeling, do not rise above the
self-forgiveness of sin and guilt — the pseudo-Protestant
counterpart of Romish Indulgence.
1. Hugo Grotius, with whom the Arminians are here
essentially in sympathy,1 does not wish indeed quite to give
up the idea of divine justice and punishment ; but, according
to him, both these have no inner necessity of an absolute kind
(as little as the divine law), but only a relative one, namely,
in reference to the wellbeing of men, which is the supreme
end. The world, as now constituted, can only be made happy
by obedience to God's will and to the law given by Him.
That regard for the welfare of the creature, which is decisive
for God, is also the reason of the penal sanction with which
God's positive law was invested in relation to sin. But the
same regard also forbids the simple forgiveness of sin ; for
such relaxation of the law would beget recklessness and corrupt
the world, although in the abstract God might bestow free
forgiveness, as, too, in the abstract no necessity having its
ground in God compelled the giving of this particular law.
But since the original purpose of the law, to secure the welfare
1 Defensio Fidel Cath. de Satisfactione Christi adv. F. Socinum de J. Chr.
Sera. 1617. In opposition to him, J. Crell, Reap, ad libr. GrotU de Satisf.,
£lbl. Fr. Pol. iv. 1623.

SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 39
of mankind through fulfilment of the law, was frustrated by-
sin, another economy recommended , itself. In order still to
maintain this ultimate purpose, which would of necessity be
injured by the infliction of punishment on mankind, God's
administrative wisdom hit upon a scheme,- which does honour
to the law and its penal sanction without involving the
sinner's ruin.1 The expedient used is, to set forth Christ as a
penal example with a view to terrify, and as a sign of God's
abhorrence of sin, notwithstanding His forgiveness of it.
Christ is the Head ; like a king He answers for His people,
presenting to God in symbolic penal suffering the acknowledg
ment that grace ought not to be extended to the presumptuous.
But after this act of Christ men may think of God as for
giving upon condition of amendment ; what their virtue lacks,
grace supplies in the case of the upright. Here, therefore, we
have indeed a divine arrangement, but its sole purpose is to
beget in the subjective consciousness of men the idea that
Christ satisfied the divine justice — even penal justice —
for us ; whereas, according to Grotius, the truth is that
justice threatened with punishment, not for its own sake,
but solely on account of man's welfare. Thus, justice takes
here but a precarious, subordinate position, the highest position
being due to the divine wisdom, into which justice resolves
itself. The latter is supposed to be directed solely to the
welfare of men, even amendment or obedience being simply a
means of happiness. This theory involves a, strong eudse-
monistic spirit, making God a means to the good of the
individual subject ; for both the divine justice and the law —
the divine action in general — have here no absolute signi
ficance, no worth in themselves, but only outside themselves,
in relation to the wellbeing of men. Absolute plenary
authority is regarded as the innermost thing in God ; and this
authority settles by its beneplacitum — according to the teaching
of Duns Scotus and some of the defenders of absolute pre-
destinationism — what the law shall be and whether punish
ment shall follow, while at the same time acting according to
the rule of wisdom, of harmony with the welfare of the world
1 Leibnitz also views justice as a species of wisdom. Administrative wisdom
is also the basis of the " Governmental theory " widely current in the theology
of New England.

40 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
(convenientid). This no doubt implies a certain goodness,
which aims at the eudaemonism of the creature, but not holy
love blended with justice; for otherwise the morally good
could not be kept in the position of a mere means in order to
wellbeing. 2. Even before Hugo Grotius, the Socinians had relaxed
the ideas of law and justice — in the same way as Duns Scotus
—by regarding them both, not as necessarily grounded in
God's essence, but merely as necessary in relation to men,
whereas in the abstract God might have given another law.
For this reason, the conflict waged by Grotius with the So
cinians of necessity remained without result. The Socinians,
however, attacked both the ecclesiastical doctrine and Armini
anism with keen weapons.1 Forgiveness and satisfaction, they
said, are mutually exclusive ideas. Where the satisfaction is
complete no debt is left to pay, and there is nothing to forgive.
Conversely, where a real forgiveness obtains, no place is left
for demanding a satisfaction, for this would be to demand
what has been already settled by gift No forgiveness is
possible on the theory of the ecclesiastical doctrine, but merely
a commutation between our punishment and the suffering or
acts of Christ. This objection rests upon an external con
ception of the guilt to be cancelled, which very conception is
again described by Socinianism as inadequate, when it teaches
that money-penalties may be paid by another than the debtor ;
but (and thereby it passes to a more weighty objection) the
essentially personal penalty of eternal death cannot be trans
ferred from the guilty party to another, and least of all to an
innocent one. Moreover, it is said, the idea of Head avails
nothing, because Christ has only been Head since His resur
rection. He therefore did not suffer as Head, but was Himself
bound to fulfil the law. Hence there is no real merit capable
of transference to others. Satisfaction on the part of Christ
by means of His obedientia activa is impossible, because a
virtuous life is the duty of every individual. This, it is
alleged, is indirectly acknowledged by the fact of the Church
doctrine requiring an imputatio meriti Christi to fid,es; for,
were the satisfaction by Christ complete in itself, its efficacy
lCf. Fock, Der Socinianismus, 1847, ii. 610 ff. Cat. Racov. qu 61 ff
379 ff.

SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 41
could no longer depend on the individual's faith. But even
Christ's suffering and death, it was said, were insufficient for a
satisfaction ; for Christ did not taste eternal death and was but
an individual, whereas, according to the ecclesiastical doctrine,
eternal death had to be endured by each individual. We see
that these objections fasten on defects and unsolved difficulties
in the working out of the ecclesiastical doctrine, the idea of
substitution especially being exposed to various misinterpreta
tions. Against the doctrine of Christ as a penal example, the
Socinians object that Christ would then be unjustly made a
mere, means.1 Adopted by Rationalism in the 18th century,
the Socinian objections were scarcely carried much farther.
The theory of the Socinians themselves is to the following effect.
It would be a contradiction to the divine omnipotence or free
dom for God to be unable to forgive freely, without demanding
penalty or expiation. In order to forgiveness, God merely
requires amendment and sanctification in man. No change in
God's relation to men is necessary, but merely a moral change
in man. Those in the way of self-amendment God can freely
forgive. But Christ contributes to that amendment by His
example and His obedience unto death, His death sealing His
doctrine, the doctrine of forgiveness among others. And the
objective sealing of His doctrine lies in the Resurrection and
Exaltation of Christ. Socinianism transforms religion into
morality, and fails to transcend the legal stage.
3. The Eudcemonism of the pre-Kantian popular philosophy,
after lurking in the Arminian system, goes still farther in
dissolving the ideas of punishment and penal justice, and in
subordinating even the moral law to physical categories of
power, caprice, or pleasure. According to Steinbart, God is
merely to be conceived as absolute goodness, which overlooks
the mistakes of its children. The God of the Old Testament is
cruel, bloodthirsty, vengeful. God's justice is rather merely
wise, symmetrical goodness. At the same time, men are
certainly supposed to be permanently undeveloped, scarcely
responsible beings. Loffler and Eberhard deny the remissible-
ness of punishments, because, according to them, the only
possible punishments are benefits, salutary chastisements, not
1 Notwithstanding, Tollner, Doderlein, and Reinhard adopt this idea. Cf.
Philippi, iv. 2, p. 181.

42 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
real punishments. Thus remission of punishment is super
fluous, nay, impossible. To this must be added the exaggerated
representations of the natural excellence of man. In this case
there can be no question of criminality as a violation of absolute
good ; all that is injured by evil is our own happiness, which
even now is inconsistent with evil. But the issue of this
presumption in the subject of making his happiness the end
of the world and the world-order, and God a means in order
thereto, is that man is robbed of all share in absolute worth,
and degraded into a mere finite being with ends of mere finite
wellbeing. The Eudaemonists may serve to teach us, that we
can only give up the idea of punishment by abolishing the
absolute worth of good in itself, and the absoluteness of our
destiny. Christ's death under its sacrificial aspect appears
to these Eudsemonists an impossible horror, or on Christ's side
idealistic fanaticism. It is spoken of indeed in the New
Testament, but only by accommodation to notions of the
age — what notions, forsooth it is hard to say, seeing that the
cross of Christ was to the Jews a stumbling-block, to the
Gentiles foolishness.
4. The Subjective Theories of Atonement from Kant onward
relate to Will, or Knowledge, or Feeling.
First, Theories of the Will. Kant successfully opposed
Eudaemonism, and consigned it to the contempt it deserved.
Not happiness, but morality is the good of absolute worth
and the ultimate end. Hence the punitive justice which
guards the absolute right of the moral element is well-
founded; a proportion between moral worth and wellbeing
is a demand of the practical reason. From these premisses
some Kantians (e.g. Flatt the Elder 2) deduced the following
conclusions : — Forgiveness of sin is an impossibility, nor is it
necessary in order to amendment, — a view which Flatt strove
to vindicate by Scripture. Punishment must necessarily
follow ; the opposite supposition would be moral laxity, and
would involve morality in self-contradictions. Nevertheless,
moral effort must be honestly carried on in reliance upon
divine help, even without hope of remission of punishment.
But to require such effort is to require the impossible ; for
1 C. Christ. Flatt, Philosophisch-exegetische Untersuchungen uber die Lehre
von der Versohnung des Menschen mit Gott, 1797, 98.

SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 43
how can confidence and love blend with consciousness of
punishment and fear, especially when no mere external
punishment is in question, but also self-condemnation and the
sense of condemnation before God? Others, like Siiskind,
insist that execution of the punishment may have injurious
moral effects, and in this case remission is possible ; God may
communicate the reality of forgiveness by revelation. But
Tieftrunk assumes an a priori cognizable practical necessity
for the remission of punishment, at least of the heaviest,
sharpest punishment. According to him, no true amendment
is possible without inner joyousness and cheerfulness in moral
effort, in order to which the assurance of reception into the
divine favour is necessary ; for what is required is no mere
legal obedience, but love for the law, while love for an
absolutely implacable law is impossible.1 The inference from
this seems to be that remission of punishment, forgiveness,
must take place before real amendment, in order for the latter
to be possible. But the moral standpoint must not be untrue
to itself in working out its theory; the command and the
penalty proceed from one and the same moral law. Were
God without further ado to regard with complacency the man
who stands morally condemned before Him, He must of
necessity be indifferent to the distinction of good and evil.
It thus becomes necessary to acknowledge that the commands
of the moral law which aim at realization and its penalties,
do not contradict, but agree with each other, and that there
fore the infliction of punishment is reconcilable with such
realization. Kant2 sought to escape this difficulty in the
following way. He knows nothing of divine displeasure, or
of discord in man with God, in the strict sense, but only of
discord in man with himself. As legislation is to him only
self-legislation, so chastisement is only self-chastisement, inner
unhappiness. External punishments would be tolerable, and
no injury to goodness; but self-condemnation and self-
contempt would of course disturb inner progress in goodness,
1 Siiskind in Flatt's Magaz. St. i. 1796. Tieftrunk, Censur des prot. Lehr-
begr. vols. ii. iii. Cf. Flatt, ut supra, i. 127 ff., 143 ff.
2 Religion .within the Limits of mere Reason, Pt. 2, 1793, vol. x. ed. by
Rosenkranz. Respecting the personified idea of the good principle, p. 69.
Respecting guilt and punishment, p. 83 ff.

44 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
and paralyze cheerfulness and moral energy. There is
especially radical moral evil within us, which is a constant
source of such discord This discord to him is no mere
subjective notion, but rests on an objective basis. The guilt
of sin exposes to punishment (and on account of radical evil
such guilt pertains to every one). Even the reformed man,
who after his change of heart contracts no fresh guilt, cannot
regard this change for the better as paying the old debt.
Any overplus in a life well-conducted subsequently is out of
the question. From this antinomy, according to which punish
ment is morally necessary and yet morally injurious, Kant
seeks the following way of escape. Despite all this, he con
tinues, man may carry within himself a better element, —
better will, good disposition, — which may still of course be far
removed from completeness of moral strength. It answers to
the idea of humanity well-pleasing in God's sight, called by
the Church " the Son of God." Although now every one is
only in a course of endless approximation to the goal, we
may still conceive to ourselves that " One who knows the
heart by pure intellectual intuition judges our ceaseless
progress, on account of the supersensuous pure disposition
from which it springs, to be virtually a completed whole."1
In his new disposition, man is morally a different man from
what he is empirically. He has received into himself the
disposition of true humanity, which may be called "the Son
of God." Or, personifying this idea, we may say: As a
Substitute this Son of God bears the guilt of sin for him and
for all who virtually believe in Him, as Redeemer satisfies
supreme justice by suffering and death, and as Advocate
secures to them the hope of being able to appear just before
their Judge. The suffering, of necessity progressively assumed
in life by the new man in dying to the old man, is represented
by the Church as a death assumed by the Representative of
humanity once for all.2 In any case, whoever has adopted
the volition of the good as the supreme principle of his will,
is warranted in regarding himself as born again and just
before God. Thus we are reconciled through the idea of
man, or of God-pleasing humanity, of " the Son of God,"
which renders us well-pleasing to God, so far as we are one
1 Ut supra, pp. 87, 88. s p. 86 f.

SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 45
with it in the good ground of our disposition. There is here,
therefore, a representation of our actuality by our idea, a sort
of substitution, without which it is impossible for us rightly
to know ourselves reconciled and free from unhappiness. In
addition, the new man, to whom as such no punishment is
due, has still to suffer for the sins of the old man. He really
bears these sufferings, which may be called vicarious sufferings
on the part of the new moral personality for the physical,
sinful personality, and which again help to free the conscious
ness from guilt and the sense of .penal desert.
This Kantian theory is exceedingly instructive. It con
fesses that the unhappiness and condemnation of conscience,
so injurious to moral progress, must be abolished, if it is ever
to be better with us ; further, that in order thereto, our
actuality must be left out of sight, and replaced by a substitute
better than itself; and that God must look upon us through
our idea, instead of judging us according to our works. This
implies that the mere legal standpoint must give place and be
transcended in order that the law may be fulfilled. More
over, Kant's principles imply that if this idea is mere law
and in no sense reality, it cannot be a substitute for our
empirical reality. But to what reality does he appeal ? To
our good disposition. But therewith he suddenly assumes, as
much against expectation as without warrant, a realization of
the idea of the perfect man in ourselves, without our' being
able to see how this is to be arrived at, if radical evil has
poisoned the inmost ground and highest principles, and if the
actuality, in which disposition constantly shows its impotence
and vacillates between good and evil, needs atonement, and no
immediate certainty of moral progress, such as is necessary in
order to hopefulness in a better moral walk, exists before the
end, and therefore no right to comfort oneself with the idea of
substitution through the ideal man. He therefore confounds
what is to be a substitute with what needs substitution, the
idea of man with its realization, the ideal righteousness which
man ought to have with its reality, and instead of solving the
problem, assumes its solution. Thus, precisely at the point
where he deviates from Christianity and wishes to evade
Christ's substitution, he falls away from himself and evades
his own principles. How can the resolve on a better life

46 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
guarantee or represent the reality of goodness, seeing that it
is merely a desire after goodness, not goodness itself, as Kant
himself acknowledges in holding only the possibility of an
endless approximation to moral perfection ? Such approxi
mation is a wretched comfort, seeing that, while it affirms a
constant growth, it affirms also a never-ending distance from
the goal. Before, therefore, it is satisfactorily proved that our
ideal really exists in some form for God, and is put to our
account in God's esteem, according to Kant himself (and
therein he is right) there can be no claim to a consciousness
of Reconciliation. Observation. — It deserves notice, that in his Criticism of the
Faculty of Judgment (p. 329 f., ed. by Rosenkranz), Kant
describes the moral community, not individuals per se, as the
aim of the world, and at still greater length in Religion
within, etc. (p. 114 ff). But whereas Kant teaches self-
redemption through the moral votition of the subject in the
moral community, many with more external proclivities
expect a harmonious existence, free from all trouble and
discord, as the result of the best State, or of the best con
stituted society, or of the rule of man over nature. On this
view the religious and moral needs of the personality and
conscience come under consideration at best indirectly.
In the second place, others seek Reconciliation in the way
of Knowledge or Intelligence. Right knowledge brings every
thing into order and harmony, because it has power to
determine the will ; instruction, culture, brings the world
redemption from every ill. Or, according to the scheme of
absolute Idealism : The possessor of knowledge comprehends
his true Ego ; the Ego is free and pure, and in comparison
with it everything empirical is mere semblance, even sin.
Evil is a mere nonentity, or at least the non-being of good,
lethargy, or defect. But, alas ! the true Ego is no actuality,
but bare possibility. But in the moral sphere the very first
requisite is a better actuality, for in the actuality sin and
guilt do not remain bare possibilities.
Finally, some of the Romanticists seek Reconciliation in
Feeling, in part in connection with Kantian criticism.1 The
Romanticists proper seek the reconciling harmony in the
1 So Fries, H. Schmid, de "Wette, together with F. H. Jacobi.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 47
aesthetic, in Art and artistic enjoyment, especially Music.
With more show of refinement, the literati of the Weltschmerz
(World-Agony) find Reconciliation in a blending of pleasure
and pain, chiefly in a proud sorrow for the low, poor, pitiful
world, to which they feel themselves far superior. They seek
their pleasure in the self-complacent suffering of an utterly
empty self-consciousness, in which there is as little of divine
sorrow as of divine joy. For the pleasure is here nothing but
vapid superiority or irony over the joys and sorrows of men,
a negative, blighting pleasure without even the power to make
itself the object of irony. An offshoot of this school is the
modern Pessimism of a Scliopenhauer and a von Hartmann,
who, at least in theory, treat the misery in the world with
seriousness, and to whom nonentity is the only object of hope.1
Far higher stands the school of Jacobi. According to it,
Reconciliation consists in elevating the subject into the ideal,
divine sphere, through the inner consciousness of God and of
the ideal, noble Ego. The Ego, it is true, is not free from the
dualism of idea and reality, and fails to rise above alternation
between the sense of happiness and unhappiness on account
of unabolished dissonances, not merely in the moral, but also
in the intellectual life. From the historic Christ and His
work the school of Jacobi and Fries is able to derive little
more than a symbolic meaning.2

4. Reaction against Subjectivistic Theories of Atonement.
(From 1800 to the present time.)
§ 118.
After one-sided subjectivity had again inclined to acknow
ledge the necessity of attaining unity, not merely with
self but also with God, the theories of Atonement current
1 His latest writings in part approximate more to the Hegelian theory of
reconciliation. Cf. A. Dorner, Stud. u. Krit. 1881, 1.
2 According to de Wette, Christ's death is the symbol of divine reconciliation,
and shows God's earnestness in forgiving. Staudlin and Tieftrunk also speak
of a symbolic meaning in Christ's death.

48 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
in the ancient Church revived, only that now the
Reformation-principle of penitent faith so far asserted
itself, as, along with the objective provision gained in
Christ, to make the requisite room for the subjective
side of the atoning process. But so long as evil of a
physical or logical nature, or sin, is regarded as the only
thing which has to be overcome, and not guilt in relation
to the divine justice, so long is the development in the
Reformation - doctrine required by Christian faith and
Holy Scripture impossible (§§ 113-116).
1. Were the question at issue merely man's reconciliation
with himself, or with his surroundings, instead of with God,
atonement would not be a religious question at all. Subjec
tive Idealism in various ways denies the need of objective
communion with God, at most with the partial exception of
Jacobi, who after all rather recognises the need for man to
become conscious of God, than the need for enjoying those acts
of God which are the basis of communion. The reaction from
subjective Idealism to desire after real objectivity, which, on
the whole, characterized the beginning of the present century,
again caused God to be recognised as true Being and the
supreme Good, the consequence of which for the present
dogma was, that an atonement of a merely subjective nature
was seen to be inadequate, the chief stress being laid upon
the restoration of unity with God, on which everything else
must depend. Thus Schelling and Hegel form a turning-point
to a spiritual tendency more favourable to the present dogma.
But certainly this change was only a preliminary condition;
the cause was not yet won.
The Pantheistic systems of modern days speak (it is true,
on the surface only) of a sort of reconciliation in the process
of the divine life. That life steps forth from its eternal
unity and self-identity into its antithesis, into other^being
(Anderssein), in order to the creation of the world, which is
Nature and Spirit ; but the third stage is its return from the
antithesis into itself through the Spirit, which apprehends
itself in its other-being and again coalesces with itself. Since
these systems directly postulated God as the essence or the

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 49
reality of man, they made this process permanent in the divine
life even as to its subjective side, and proceeded to investigate
how the consciousness of reconciliation may be reached in us.1
It is then affirmed : In himself man is one with God, being
divine by his essence, only he knows it not at first ; his con
sciousness is at variance with his essence, and thus he is
estranged from himself. But when he reaches the knowledge
of his essential unity with God, the variance is done away,
reconciliation becomes his, he knows God as his Father, and
himself as God's son. The position belonging to Christ is,
that He is the first self-conscious man, free and certain of His
divine essence. And this consciousness of God's Fatherhood
and man's sonship is the good news which He proclaims.2
According to this view, Christ has kindled the consciousness
of reconciliation in mankind by teaching that God is eternally
reconciled. Thus, no procuring of reconciliation by Christ' is
necessary. The unity of God and man is here thought as
substantial, indestructible : all that is necessary to reconcilia
tion is to know it. But seeing that tbe mere appeal to the
substantial unity with God ignores ethical and religious
requirements as well as the consciousness of sin, such a theory
can give no peace to the consciousness of sin and guilt, when
once awakened, but only stifle the need for the true atone
ment. Simply to refer us from the evil actuality to the
essence, which in the best case is mere possibility, such as
can never satisfy God's holy law, implies indifference to the
distinction of good and e*ril. Further, this theory depends for
reconciliation on a mere change in the consciousness, not in
the being of the entire personality in a moral and religious
respect.3 1 Hegel, Relig. Philos. ii. 191, 218. God is a process ; He (1) exists in His
eternity in and for Himself ; (2) He passes over into His other-being in order to
the creation of the world, which is Nature and Spirit. To the diremption (3)
the return into itself — the reconciliation — joins on. The Spirit distinguishes
itself from itself, and again coalesces with itself. This theory claims to be at
once a doctrine of the Trinity, a Cosmogony, a Ponerogony, and a Soteriology.
The process is part of the divine life. The philosopher knows and passes
through the process.
2 So, for example, Marheinecke, Grundlehren d. chr. Dogma, 1827, p. 227 ff. ;
Biedermann, ut supra, pp. 675-688 ; Baur, Gnosis, 1835, p. 700 ff.
8 Biedermann would make this process ethical and religious, not merely
intellectual (cf. § 866) ; but since he treats the human side not as receptive
Dorner. — Christ. Doct. iv. D

50 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
2. The majority of modern writers lay stress on the
necessity of sin being overcome, and seek to establish the
importance of Christ's intervention therein. But they do this
in very different ways. Some1 think of sin as an objective
power, hypostatized in the " flesh." This power Christ was
obliged to assume with human nature, in order, by the
sacrifice of the sinful flesh, to give a new birth to human
nature, to render that nature sinless through His Person, and
present it pure and holy. According to Menken, human
nature is corrupted, physically and psychically, by the for
bidden fruit of the poisonous tree. This poison is the
principle of sin, inhering in us without fault of ours. Christ
has again removed it from human nature by His death, which
became a second birth of the human flesh, after Christ had
resisted all Satan's temptations to acquiesce in the propensity
to evil. Whoever receives Christ in faith, receives the
principle of cleansing and sanctification. Thus Christ's death
benefits us in virtue of His mystical community of life with
us (through faith). But on this theory Christ had first of all
to die in order to His own cleansing from sin and His own
sanctification,2 while the fruit of His sanctification by His
death would be, that He also became to us the principle
of sanctification mediated by an act of death, and thus the
principle of atonement. But the idea of sin obtaining here
is a physical one, as if sin would die through physical death,
as if the flesh were essentially sin; and this view leads to a
physical theory of redemption, as if a holy corporeity, instead
of the Pneuma imparted to the conscious volitional person,
were able to cleanse and sanctify us. Guilt and penalty are
here ignored to such an extent that it is accepted as self-
evident, that to one who is sanctified in principle God is able
of divine communication, but as immediately divine, he is again led to a theory
of self-redemption. And in this process the intellectual element— the vanquish
ing of the stage of presentation by the concept or the true consciousness— plays
again the chief part. See below.
1 So Menken, Rud. Stier, Ed. Irving, Stroh : God the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, pp. 48-51. In reference to the Pauline doctrine, Holsten reaches from
the exegetical side a similar result.
2 Stroh, ut supra, p. 51 : Christ's death on the cross is a destruction of sin
to its roots and in its seat, therefore not a suffering of the penalty of sin, not a
payment of the debt of sin, not the death of a sinner or of a suffering, dying
Just One, who stands by imputation in the sinner's place.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 51
and willing to give reconciliation and justification ; and that
real sanctification may exist before sin is forgiven. The case
would not be different if, as others wish, we were to go back
to those theories (§ 115) which discover the evil needing to
be removed by atonement in the power of Satan.1 The first
thing requisite cannot be the overthrow of Satan as an
external power, but the undoing of the bond by which men
are connected with Satan ; and that is guilt. Christ's atoning
purpose must refer to this guilt directly, not merely indirectly,
or in the sense that Christ subjected Himself to the just
penalty of guilt incurred by the guilt of men, i.e. to death,
over which Satan had acquired power in virtue of the divine
ordinance (Heb. ii. 14). Even were Satan annihilated, or his
right to inflict death on sinful humanity abolished, yet if sin
remains unexpiated there can be no atonement ; God could not
for Christ's sake regard the humanity, which He patiently bore
with, as reconciled. For God's relation to every man is
direct ; the relation of His justice to sin and guilt is direct,
and not merely through Satan. The divine work of atone
ment is able so to undo the bond, knit by guilt between us
and God's penal justice, that this very bond is transformed
into a bond of communion in love.
3. Schleiermacher struck out a new path in respect to
the present doctrine also. His fundamental conception has
become the most influential in modern times, although it
almost entirely ignores the divine justice in relation to the
work of atonement, and in consequence of his Doctrine of God
strictly excludes all influence upon God !2 Since the con
sciousness of God grew in Christ into God's perfect being,
not merely is there in Him personal holiness, and therefore
untroubled blessedness, but He has also the power and the
vocation to draw men into the communion of His. holiness
1 To this view Frank (like v. Hofmann, see below, p. 54) approximates
(Syst. d. chr. Wahrheit, ii. 153, and Theol. der Concordienformel, ii. 45), when,
according to him, the chief stress in the work of atonement falls on Satan being
stripped of his power. "The only way," Frank says in the latter passage, "in
which the penalty of the sin of the world could be laid on a sinless man is by
the tyranny of Satan being laid on him,, that tyranny including all the woe
and all the suffering of the world." Philippi justly censures this view,
iv. 2, 136 f.
2 Der Christi. Glaube, §§ 100-104. ii. pp. 94 ff, 102 ff, 128 148.

52 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
and blessedness, and by this means to redeem and reconcile
them. Nor is this done in a magical way by a purely
objective transaction. On the contrary, faith is necessary in
order to our partaking of His holiness and blessedness. And
just as little is it a satisfactory course to reduce Christ's
redeeming work to the prophetic office, to His teaching and
example. This he calls the empirical heresy, corresponding
to the Ebionite conception of the person of Christ, because it
is forced to lay the chief stress on self-redemption. How
then does Schleiermacher, after excluding these errors, conceive
of Christ's atoning office itself? The way, first of all, in
which he presents Christ's high-priestly communion with men,
is most excellent and suggestive. If Christ really desired to
participate in the life of men, the sufferings, ordained to
every member of a sinful race as afflictions, must necessarily
light upon Him.1 Nay, the deeper He saw into the nature of
sin, and the more earnestly He contended against it, the more
must the power of evil have pressed upon Him ; and thus He
suffered through the sin of men not merely in His last days,
but during His whole life. But it was in His last days that
the depth of suffering disclosed itself to Him, when the two
representatives of the world's sin — the heathen and Jewish —
turned, and, as it were, conspired against Him. But it was
not so much His personal suffering, due to the sin of the
world, which He felt so keenly. This suffering is only
understood aright when it is recognised as His act; and
here Schleiermacher gives a place to Christ's active obedi
ence. For His suffering proper consisted in this, that His
outer suffering, caused by sinners, presented to Him as in
a mirror the depth and extent of sin, and stirred His
sympathy in the most powerful way. This sympathy, spring
ing from the energy of His love, leads Him into unhappy
communion with us in order to transform it into a holy and
blessed communion. This sympathy constitutes Christ's
proper high-priestly action in distinction from His prophetic
and kingly office. It has the power of drawing us into the
communion of Christ's holiness and blessedness, after He, by
His sympathy, had let Himself be drawn into communion with
us. The Teacher and Prophet remains outside the scholar as
•P. 136 f.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 53
his example ; but Christ, as High Priest, draws us into His
communion by His sympathy with us, — that sympathy by
which He feels our sin and its wretchedness, while allowing
its power to burst on Himself. This high-priestly love of
His, endowed with such power of attraction, is matter of
delight to God ; and since God now beholds us in this union
with Christ, which is established by faith on our part, Christ's
person renders us objects of the divine delight, and presents
us pure before God. God has determined to let all salvation
flow to us through Christ's mediation, and looks upon us
in Christ, who is therefore our substitute. According to
Schleiermacher, the kingly office also is distinct from the
high-priestly one. From it proceed our personal sanctification
and the founding of the community.
But although, according to Schleiermacher, participation in
Christ's blessedness is objectively conditioned by participation
in Christ's holiness, still, according to him, we have not the
consciousness of atonement through knowing ourselves to be
already holy, even in a merely initial sense ; for, should the
consciousness of our reconciliation merely result from the
consciousness of our holiness, which is always imperfect, the
former must always remain imperfect and vacillating. On
the contrary, the atonement and the consciousness of it have
their security in the fact of Christ standing in communion with
us, and our standing in communion with Him.1 For Christ's
sake, faith is warranted in treating present sin as non-existent
and future, completed sanctification as already present.
According to this view, Christ's high-priestly sympathy, which
finds its most perfect expression in His suffering, is the climax
of His redeeming work, by which we are freed from punish
ment and the sense of it ; for that sympathy has the power of
drawing us into His fellowship. Only in the fellowship of His
sufferings can His blessedness be felt, because the consciousness
of how God was in Him, and therefore of His holiness and
blessedness, .chiefly arises in us from absorption of the spirit
in His sufferings ; and by this very means the communication
of holiness and blessedness to us may become fact.
Unquestionably, the view here given of Christ's high-
priestly office is spiritual and forceful, compared not merely
1 P. 133.

54 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
with the Rationalism, but with the Supernaturalism of those
days. By the Biblical doctrine of Christ's sympathy and
living communion with us, He seeks to impart movement to
that which had become rigid in the Christian dogma. Nitzsch
developed this still farther in representing Christ's suffering
and death as the principle of repentance to the world, as
judgment upon sin, which is forced to reveal its innermost
essence by killing the Holy One, who, however, by the purity
of His person, stands security to God for this, that those
receiving forgiveness of sins through communion with Christ
shall also become partakers of His holiness. The defects of
Schleiermacher's theory are in the closest connection with his
\ Doctrine of God. While Omnipotence preponderates over
S justice in God, no adequate place remains, either for guilt or
¦ punitive justice.
The reason given by Schleiermacher for prefixing Christ's
redeeming to His atoning work, is, that otherwise the first
regard would be paid not to evil as such, but to evil so far as
it is a source of suffering, and that deliverance from suffering
would be sought first. But the desire for atonement is not
eudaemonistic. It is desire for deliverance from guilt ; and
this is something eminently moral. Further, according to
Christi. Glaube, ii. 107, those conceptions of the atoning
work, which make the communication of Christ's blessedness
independent of reception into living communion with Him,
are magical in character. But magical it cannot be, if Christ
as Atoner enters into communion with us by anticipation,
without our returning the communion at once. On the
contrary, it would be magical if we enjoyed communion with
Christ before guilt was blotted out. For the sake of Christ's
communion with us, God is able to look on us with com
placency, just as Christ's high-priestly function has a value
for God in itself, and not merely through our faith.
Hofmann' s theory is partially akin to Schleiermacher's.1 He
calls the ecclesiastical theory an artificial mystery. Christ is
an Atoner to him, because of His having proved Himself
righteous despite the uttermost that sin and Satan could do
against Him. By this self-attestation Christ vanquished Satan,
and established a relation no longer dominated by the sin of
1 Schriftbeweis, i. Schidzschriflcn.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 55
Adam, but by the righteousness of the Son, i.e. a state of life
holy and well-pleasing to God. This holy righteousness,
which was also passive obedience, does not effect expiation as
penal suffering, but because He fulfilled the demand of the
divine law, — holiness, — thus rendering a service well-pleasing
to God, and making reparation for sin. So far as by faith in
Him we receive into ourselves the same principle of holiness
which He exhibited in His attestation of Himself as righteous,
we have the right to regard ourselves as well-pleasing to God
and reconciled. Therefore we have atonement by at least
initial sanctification. That Christ's personal self-attestation
exhibits Him as righteous and holy is true, but this belongs
to His prophetic office ; but thereby nothing is affirmed in
relation to the high-priestly office. Thus von Hofmann is
behind Schleiermacher. He does not once take into account
Christ's high-priestly sympathy. The only point he has in
common with Schleiermacher is the mystical union with
Christ through faith, and that he makes Christ a substitute
in God's view in relation to our holiness. But to him
Christ's substitution is in no sense an act of Christ, or a
means impelling us to convert Christ for us into Christ
in us.The controversy which arose against him1 was of no
essential benefit to theology, because his opponents almost
entirely maintained the ecclesiastical doctrine without remov
ing the difficulties which it left. They especially omit a
searching examination of the ideas : Justice, Punishment,
Expiation. Philippi and Thomasius place justice and love,
even in God Himself, in opposition instead of in distinction,
thus losing a supreme unity. Philippi frankly connects there
with the other proposition, that the divine attributes are not
objectively distinguished, but merely in relation to our finite
thought.2 He would also have Christ's sufferings regarded as
penal sufferings in the strictest sense, vicarious in nature it
is true, but in such a sense that we have a right to demand
forgiveness for their sake. He comes very near to placing
Christ's sufferings under the jus talionis (see below), and to
i On the part of Philippi, Thomasius, Harnack, and others. See Literature
above. 2 Philippi, iv. 2, p. 44. See above, vol. i. p. 191.

56 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
simply identifying Christ's person with those to be punished:1
Others, like Schoberlein, start from love as the supreme unity,
but because in that unity they fail to distinguish between
self-affirmation and self-communication, they gain no secure
position for justice.
4. Two Jurists have given closer attention to these ideas,
Goschel and Stahl? Goschel's leading thought is: Justice
and Love in no sense form an antithesis. Punishment is an
outflow of paternal love, certainly a necessary counterstroke
to law-opposing volition, in order to effect its conversion.
But even in the act of punishing, the judge cannot be with
out love to the offender ; he cannot but sympathetically feel
his guilt and sin. The more pure and unreserved such
sympathy is, the greater its power to subdue and amend the
heart of the sinner, and by this very means to render the
fullest satisfaction to justice. The fact of the judge bearing
the punishment in poignant sympathy constitutes a satisfac
tion to the righteous government of the world. Christ had
this sympathy in the purest and profoundest degree ; we are
reconciled when, following in His steps, we feel His sorrow
by penitent faith. These are the sufferings left by Christ
(Col. i. 24) to believers as a remnant, which they bear. His
feeling of our punishment must pass over to us. Forgiveness
is not the abolishing, but the perfecting of punishment ; for
real penal suffering — such as satisfies God — carries forgive
ness in itself, because it is the expiatory feeling of the justice
of the punishment, without which no forgiveness is possible.
But here it is the consciousness of guilt which is conceived
to be the punishment of men, this consciousness being identical
with dying to sin, and therefore with initial sanctification.
1 IV. 2, pp. 38, 41. According to p. 28 ff., sin is the attempt absolutely to
annihilate God the Infinite One Himself — Deicidium. It is consequently an
infinite offence, which can only be absolutely expiated by the same infinite penal
suffering of absolute death with which the Infinite One is Himself threatened.
Thomasius, who accepts a vicarious, expiatory, penal suffering, is censured by
Philippi (p. 234) because he merely regards a passive obedience as necessary to
atonement, without including active obedience. Respecting Sartorius Gess
Weber, cf. Philippi, p. 238 ff.
2 Goschel, Zerstreute Blatter aus den Hand- und Hulfsacten eines Juristen,
1832, Th. L pp. 468-494 : Das Strafrecht und die christi. Lehre von der
Satisfaction. Stahl, Fundamente einer christi. Philosophic, 1846, Abschn. ii.
cap. 6 : Die Gerechtigheit und die Strafe. Cap. 7 : die Suhne.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 57
And Christ is here represented as Judge, which contradicts
the N. T.,1 although the Judge is at the same time credited
with sympathy. But, according to Goschel, Christ's suffering
is merely the principle of repentance.
Stahl's view is different. While rightly refusing to separate
justice and love in God, he desires the two to be separately
revealed in the world in opposition to sin. The function of
justice, he says, is by guarding the divinely-established moral
government of the world, and by retribution to maintain the
validity of that government, and therewith God's glory or
supremacy. Now the sinner is a rebel, virtually denying
God's supremacy. In- opposition to this, God must reveal
Himself as the Lord, and this is done by using His Omni
potence, which reveals to the sinner such power as nullifies
his physical strength, and thus reveals his nothingness. This
retributive justice restores the glory of the moral government
of the world, but only by physical means, by force and ex
ternally, not by transforming the law-opposing volition. But
the justice of the world's moral government, he continues,
may also be satisfied by internal means, the glory of God may
be restored by expiation. The first form of satisfaction —
punishment — can certainly only be undertaken by the guilty
one. But expiation may be undertaken by an innocent
person, in order by this means to bring the sinner to repent
ance and inner acknowledgment of the glory of God and His
moral government. Now Christ's suffering was not penal
suffering, but an expiation to the world's government, an
expiation which can be offered best by an innocent person.
It was an expiatory suffering of love undertaken for our good.
This theory has much in common with that of Anselm, as
Philippi rightly perceives. On one hand, punishment for the
past is supposed to be necessary, and the blotting out of past
guilt to be demanded by the law, like repentance and acknow
ledgment of the majesty of the law for the future. On the
other hand, expiation is not placed in relation to punitive
justice, but the atoning element is supposed to lie in the new
acknowledgment of the moral government of the world for
1 John iii. 17, xii. 47. The Redeemer has not come primarily for judgment.
The Judge would only here come into question, if merely the divine side in
Christ's person came under consideration in reference to atonement.

58 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
the future, and expiation is supposed to be substituted for
punishment. Akin to Goschel's are the ideas advanced by Dr. W. Simon
of England1 Atonement is not to be conceived as self-
redemption, but exclusively as God's work in us, for in 2 Cor.
v. 18 it is said: "God reconciled the world to Himself."
It is with this reconciliation as with command. When from
a feeling of inward helplessness we ask God for help, He
gives strength for the fulfilment of His command. Thus He
Himself gives that which He requires. Through us He
fulfils that which is our duty towards Him, thus taking our
place. But there is a command of God not merely to do, but
also to suffer, for it is normal and God's will that we suffer
for sin (punishment). But we could not bear the sufferings,
which are just according to divine appointment. Now, as
God's Spirit works vicariously in us in order to satisfy God's
command, so is it also with suffering. God can suffer in us,
bear the punishment which we cannot bear. All help to a
sufferer, especially to one whose sufferings are moral, is only
possible through co-suffering. If we are acquainted with a
co-suffering and yet strong heart, able to show us how to
suffer, then the disposition and courage are awakened in us
to suffer in a way well-pleasing to God. This we have in
God, and thus God is security for the right method of
suffering. While we can suffer for one another, we can only
bear outward sufferings for others, not the inner burden. On
the other hand, it is God's prerogative to relieve us of spiritual
burdens also. Nevertheless it is a moral law, even for God,
that He can only help sinners at the price of atonement, that
He suffer with us, that He take on Him our burden, share
our anxiety and sorrow ; but since He is God, He is able also
to turn them to our good (Rom. viii. 25). He can bear our
punishment, regard and impute it as ours, nay, He effects
that we bear it in Him. He is bound by Himself, by the
ethical necessity in Him, to characterize spiritual pain as
righteous pain. Forgiveness, which abolishes the; exacting
or condemning law, would be frivolous, nay, no forgiveness.
Dr. Simon would make not merely the man Jesus suffer, but
also the Logos. How this is possible without objectionable
1 In the treatise, " Atonement and Prayer," Expositor, Nov. 1877.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 59
anthropopathism, he does not inquire more closely, while not
allowing any loss to the Godhead through the origination
of Christ's Person, or any confounding of His Ego with man.1
Co-suffering, so far as it is a demonstration of the strength of
love, cannot be described as unworthy of God, — a view which
Frank rightly developes.2 On the other hand, another objec
tion lies near at hand. This theory gives us only a suffering
of God in us in order to expiation, but not the necessity of a
divine-human suffering. The historic Christ brings us here
merely the knowledge of God's co-suffering and yet strong
heart. Bushnell, in saying : We can only forgive and forget
entirely when we have also done good to an enemy,
transgresses the limits of the admissible in reference to
divine suffering. It is said to be thus with God. Only
after He has suffered for us is there full forgiveness in His
heart, is His heart, so to speak, free. — To say that only the
divine beneficence perfectly reconciles God with us (not
merely shows Him to be perfectly reconciled), is an inner
contradiction ; for a love that does good to an enemy is more
than pardon, and must therefore certainly have been already
forgiving love. Without doubt, beneficence towards foes acts
like coals of fire on the head, and is more adapted than
anything else to change the disposition of a foe and incline
him to acknowledge his fault, and therefore (to apply the
matter to the present dogma) to reconcile man with God.
But this refers to the ethical sphere, belonging to the appli
cation or use of prevenient love for our sanctification; and
therewith no explanation is given, how God can both forgive
and do good to sinners without prejudice to the divine penal
justice. This is certain, — and therewith we return to the
theory of Goschel and Simon, — that God regards sin with
abhorrence, and cannot forgive it offhand ; nay, that He ought
not to allow His love to prevail, unless it acknowledge the
justice of the punishment, and therefore affirm soixow for
1 This line of thought recalls the words of Sartorius (die heilige Liebe, i.
Abschn. iii. cap. 2) : " God can only forgive sin by forgiving nothing to Himself,
by Himself bearing what He forgives, and Himself performing what He com
mands, as is done by Jesus in His servant-form, who by fulfilling the law
makes possible the forgiveness of its unfulfilment."
2 Syst. d. chr. Wdhr. ii. § 35.

60 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
sin to be just, and participate therein. But here, if any
where, Christ's humanity is to be taken into account. For
if His entrance into our unhappy condition is left out of
sight, the chief matter in the process of atonement was a
transaction within the divine nature. But in this case the
whole would wear a Docetic look; for, since God even as
Logos is true God, it follows that God would then demand
homage to His justice alongside or in His love from Himself
alone, and would therefore receive satisfaction from Himself
simply. But this would render Christ's humanity useless or
needless in order to atonement. That humanity would then
at most help to exhibit the inner, super-historical process of
atonement in God Himself, while contributing nothing to the
realization of atonement. This would be opposed to the
mediatorship of the God-man.
Ritschl also occupied himself at length, though in quite
a different way, with the idea of justice. To state and
examine his theory on this point is of as great importance
for understanding as for criticizing his doctrine of atonement.
In this criticism the thetic exposition given previously
(vol. i. § 24) must be brought to bear.
According to Ritschl, God is to be conceived absolutely
and exclusively as love, the one concern of which is to
realize the divine world-plan (i.e. the kingdom of God), which
consists in the freedom of men, i.e. in their dominion over
nature, and in the mutual improvement of the members
of that kingdom. The justice of God is simply the con
sistency with which God's love provides for the welfare of
members of the kingdom. Of retributive, especially punitive
justice, there ought to be no mention in the moral and
religious sphere. The sense in which theology usually
employs the word justice only has its place in public or
civil right,1 and is alien and inapplicable to the moral and
religious sphere ; a position which Ritschl tries to prove by
a series of reasons,2 which can by no means be regarded as
relevant, and in great measure refute Ritschl himseff. With
the Socinians, he censures the ordinary doctrine, that justice
and the necessity of punishment are grounded in God's
essence. If justice belonged to the essence of God, God's
1 Cf. ut supra, iii. 211 ff. s jjj 211-225.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 61
will, he says, would be subject to this justice as to a physical
necessity. But, on the contrary, everything must be under
the divine will, even as character itself is only shown in
permanent volition and action.1 Ritschl does not see that
for the same reason, if it held good, there ought to be no
mention of the divine love, in which he yet would discover
God's essence; and he overlooks the fact, that a free will
not determined by the ethical essence of God would be
simple caprice, and therefore unethical in nature, a mere
physical force. In relation to God and God's kingdom, — the
moral sphere, — he continues, only the moral law comes into
account, not legal right (das Recht). For legal right refers
merely to the outward order, the system of actions, which
subserve the ends of a particular State ; it is nothing but a
human, civil arrangement for finite ends. On the other
hand, the moral law or the divine will refers to inward dis
position, and is comprised in the demand for love, but not
as a legal injunction. It refers to the system of dispositions,
aims, and actions, which follow of necessity from the all-
comprising end of the kingdom of God, and from the sub
jective motive of universal love of man. In view, therefore,
of this opposition between the moral law and public right,
it is a contradiction to conceive the moral law in the form
of public right.
It would certainly be a mistake to regard love as that
which the State has to create by the means at its command,
of which force is a part; or so to lay it down as a prin
ciple of State-action, that the State, instead of employing
its own means which operate after the fashion of physical
necessity, should leave everything to the freedom of love in
individuals. It must work with the instruments of retri
butive justice, to which reward and punishment belong.
But, nevertheless, it would be a great mistake to affirm on
this account that the State, Right, and Justice have nothing
to do with the moral sphere. Right and Justice are them
selves moral ideas, in no sense of mere finite, transient
significance; as negative pre-conditions, they themselves
belong to the complete notion of the moral. If the State
would be corrupted in its essence by identifying legal right
1 Cf. iii. 213 f.

62 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
with love, still more would the moral sphere be shattered to
its foundation by severing right and justice from the moral
sphere. A love that did . not embody justice would result in
the distinction of good and evil being made a matter of
indifference, and become weak, blind goodness ; and whilst it
fancied itself moving in divine heights above everything
natural and finite, it would fall back to the eudaemonistic
and therefore physical stage. The principles of Ritschl
would result in emptying human, civil right of moral import,
and in leaving it without basis. Certainly the ideas of
right and justice stand in need of supplement ; they do not
represent the all of morality. But , still the State has no
such ignoble origin, that its sole concern is about finite
interests. In administering justice, it represents on its part
a divine idea. The hard, narrow framework of the State,
representing what is compulsory and morally necessary for
the commonwealth, is the indispensable guard as well as
school of moral freedom. For the rest, the State does not
embrace the entire sphere of justice, but merely the public
sphere of human society ; so that, supposing it demonstrable
that civil right has nothing to do with morality, it could
not be concluded from this that morality has nothing to do
with right and justice in general. And yet Ritschl permits
himself to draw this false inference, in supposing that an
idea of justice, involving reward and punishment, has no place
in the moral sphere, the kingdom of God, but merely in the
State. The special reasons he gives for this conclusion are
the following. If we may speak of punishment in the moral
sphere, reward may be spoken of with no less right. But
the bestowal of eternal life cannot be treated as a " return
ing " (rewarding) of the observance of the moral law.
Moreover, the consequence of admitting the notion of reward
into the kingdom of God or the moral sphere would be that
the law of love would be fulfilled for the sake of reward,
instead of from love, which asks for no reward.1 There
would then necessarily be a possibility of speaking of a legal
claim, and Pharisaic mercenary virtue would be justifiable.
But if for such reasons the idea of reward in the moral
sphere is objectionable, the corresponding idea of punishment
1 iii. pp. 214-219.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 63
must be given up. In addition, experience shows that the
idea of punitive justice involves contradictions ; for just
men suffer, unjust flourish. Finally, no outward evil can
be named which ought to be described as punishment ; for
all may be regarded as good, e.g. as chastisement, and can
only become punishment (namely, to the sense of the sub
ject concerned) through the consciousness of guilt — a sub
jective power, whereas in itself or objectively nothing is
punishment It is correct to say that love neither ought to desire nor
does desire reward ; but it would be a mistake to deny that,
in the same degree in which the desire is wanting, it is the
more worthy of and actually partaker in reward. The
demand for reward would not merely offend against humility
and gratitude, which are conscious of owing everything to
God, but would also betray an egoistic, eudaemonistic spirit,
which has its reward below, a disposition to which goodness
would not itself be the highest thing and its own end, but a
mere means to something else in reality of a subordinate
kind. But certain as it is that love, as the sphere of
the positively good, is higher than the sphere of mere
legal right, still retributive justice is in no sense incompatible
therewith. Although the virtuous man ought not to aim
at -reward, — for the essential test of pure virtue, such as
alone renders worthy of reward, is precisely that we give
from love, not expecting to receive again, — still reward,
inward or even outward, follows virtue as certainly and
necessarily as the shadow the body, provided only that virtue
is first present, i.e. provided the reward is not sought or
made the end to which love is the means.1 This follows
from the harmonious, creative co-ordination of the moral and
the physical, a co-ordination which stamps the ethically good
as the supreme reality possessed of power to unite everything
in harmony with itself. It is a sort of ethical Docetism
(Spiritualism) for any one so completely to sever nature from
the spiritual and moral sphere as to undertake to be in
different to everything physical.2 And not merely has retri-
1 Matt. vi. 33.
2 Ritschl not merely makes the relation of God's retributive justice to nature
as loose as possible, but denies such a relation, and tries to frame his doctrine

64 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
bution in its rewarding aspect its necessary place in God's
government of the world, thus proving the co-ordination of
everything natural with the moral, and the use of that
co-ordination as a means in order to the moral ; but we also
should act immorally, if in our intercourse with men we did
not return (of course we do not repay) love, and in general
refused to be guided by the law of justice. But certainly
the more important point for us here is to maintain the
right and reality of & punitive justice in God. The objection,
that experience presents to view the opposite of such justice,
has been already treated above (§ 88, 3. 4), and, moreover, is
refuted by the other objection of Ritschl, " that all external
evils may be regarded as chastisements," for this implies that
no good man has to complain of wrong in God. But although
to Christians external evils are no longer punishment (which
is to be proved later on), it does not follow from this that
they were not so originally, or that these evils would have
had a place among mankind if sin, which makes punishment
and chastisement necessary, did not prevail among them
of God in general on this basis. According to him, it is indifferent to Theology
whether God is thought as Creator (consequently as Almighty), Theology
having to do only with the causa finalis, not the causa efficiens ; inquiry as to
the cause of the world, and in the same way knowledge of the world, is
indifferent to it. The sense of absolute dependence on God as the causa
efficiens is rejected by him as the independent basis of religion. Faith in God
is supposed to be first derived from the consciousness of moral freedom, and
thus to be a merely secondary thing, i.e. to indicate a source of help, where
with we are able to preserve the consciousness of being worth more than the
whole world, as well as a courageous heart for the discharge of our calling (see
above, § 98, 3). It is scarcely necessary to call attention to the contradictions
in which he hereby involves himself. Nevertheless, the only security given
him by the conception of God for that harmony between nature and the moral
in which it is morally necessary to believe, is that God is the one sole
(einheitliche) causality (causa efficiens) of the world. Whereas, further, he treats
nature so churlishly ; almost the only definition he is able to give of freedom,
and therefore of the morality of the Christian, where he endeavours to describe
it, is as dominion over the world. And the only position of religion in his
esteem is that of a means in order to such freedom. That it is also, and
indeed primarily, an end in itself, is a view which he does not reach. In his
contention against the punitive justice, which employs even nature as a means
for its own purposes, Ritschl proceeds as if we had not one world, in which
even the natural is subordinate to the supreme law which holds together the
natural and spiritual, but as if we had two worlds independent of each other,
which would be flatly to deny that the ethical is the supreme power in the
world, the principle determinative of worth and fate.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 65
When the divine reason, clothed with omnipotence, has
created morally free beings, the right of punitive justice
cannot be refused to it without exposing the moral world to
the danger of falling a prey to chaos. The very prerogative
of God as the "World-ruler," unless omnipbtence be wanting
to Him, is not to treat evil and good, guilt and innocence,
with love unalterably the same, and by this means to throw
doubt on the distinction between good and evil themselves.1
On these premisses it may be surmised by anticipation that
Ritschl is unable to lay down a special theory respecting the
divine work of atonement. Rather, the gist of his great work
is the doctrine, that no Expiation or Satisfaction is necessary,
because there is no punitive justice in God, just as in experi
ence there is said to be no punishment (except in the State).
Nay, the question suggests itself, whether in his eyes even the
ideas of guilt and penal desert do not resolve themselves into
mere subjective representations (Vorstellung), and whether,
above all, he does not deny even moral freedom of will ; for
certainly his contention against a punitive justice would only
be conclusively demonstrated on the supposition that there
is no capacity in man to contract moral guilt. As matter of
fact, Ritschl has been so understood. Let us then test his
doctrine on this point in order.
While he calls the problem of moral freedom a crucial
question in theology (iii. 251), he does not venture to give,
but avoids giving, a straight answer of his own in respect to
it. Rather, he again evades it by turning aside to real or
1 Schweizer expresses himself far more to the point (Chr. Glaubenslehre,
ii. 187) : To us the moral attribute stands without any doubt above the natural ;
next, the fatherly attribute above the universal moral; and therewith the
sphere of love, grace, and fatherly wisdom above holy goodness, justice, and the
wisdom of universal Ruler ; only the higher revelation of God cannot contradict
the lower. The kindly attributes of the Father are an enhancement of the
moral attributes of the Ruler (i.e. the latter are not set aside, not dissolved, but
fulfilled in the Fatlter), and especially is this true of wise justice, which is ever
united with kindly disposition, because it becomes an element absorbed and
involved in the fatherly love, which takes the form of grace towards sinful
children. (But to show grace is to affirm, not to deny, guilt and penal desert.)
He rightly censures (p. 184) the opinion of the Socinians, that God can forgive
apart from all condition and expiation. Certainly his doctrine of absolute
predestination prevents his conceding to Christ's historical work a real causality
in reference to the reconciliation of God, and impels him to accept forced inter
pretations by Calvin, Maresius, etc., see pp. 173 f., 177 f.
Dornee.— Christ. Doct. iv. E

66 THE DOCTRLNE OF ATONEMENT.
theological freedom so called. That he denies moral freedom
and objective guilt seems confirmed by the fact, that he would
have all sin proveable by experience regarded as sin flowing
from the ignorance with which human development universally
begins, and that he speaks much indeed of consciousness of
guilt, but not of objective, actual guilt occurring in experience ;
that, on the contrary (iii. 43, 67), he only concedes validity
to the idea of guilt in so far as sin is associated with
consciousness of guilt. Nay, because empirical human sin
is sin in ignorance, it is said not to need expiation. But,
on the other hand, he would still regard the will as partici
pating in moral evil, even if only in consequence of human
ignorance (pp. 40, 44). He even says that the definite
rejection of Christianity, were it to occur (which, however,
cannot be established by experience), would be real guilt of a
gravity not admitting of expiation (pp. 332-338). Certainly,
expressions of the latter kind do not confirm beyond doubt
the supposition of actual moral freedom ; for even if volition
is present in sins of ignorance, it is not on this account free
volition. Further, the supposition of an actually occurring
definite rejection of Christianity, which becomes the object of
divine wrath and punitive judgment, would involve him in
difficulties and self-contradictions, for a capacity would thereby
be conceded to man of incurring punishment and guilt in the
most real objective sense, and of offering resistance to God.
But when such a capacity of incurring guilt (which, however,
Ritschl cannot wish to be described as merely the gift of
Christianity) is once conceded to man, the right is entirely
lost to ignore this capacity in pre-Christian days, and to say :
Man can indeed freely incur the highest, inexpiable guilt, but
not slighter guilt, such as is pardonable though still requiring
atonement. Further, were the necessity of a punitive justice
in God (although at first, and until the final sin is present, of
" quiescent " justice) seriously acknowledged in relation to the
sin of definitive unbelief, it would be no less an illogical
course to say: God's retributive justice can indeed punish
the highest guilt with eternal death, but cannot visit any
other guilt, at least with milder punishment. Considering,
further, that his entire investigation respecting atonement is
built upon the contention against a punitive justice in God

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 67
and its supposed incompatibility with His fatherly love, it is
strange that no clear, connected doctrine respecting punish
ment, God's punitive justice, moral freedom, and guilt is to be
found in Ritschl. Nor is this improved by the summary
words: "The Christian view of the world 'judges' sin, which
is universally diffused both in act and inclination, to be the
antithesis of God's kingdom, without necessitating cause either
in God's government of the world or man's gift of freedom ;"
for the remark is only too obvious, that these words recall the
circumstance that Ritschl also goes back to a twofold judg
ment in respect of the Person of Christ. The scientific, historic
judgment regards Him as mere man, the religious "judges"
Him to be the Son of God, and ascribes divinity to Him. The
same dualism between the religious and the intellectual or
scientific mode of view seems also to be the last word that
Ritschl has to say respecting the ideas of freedom, guilt, penal
desert, and God's retributive justice. That word is no doubt
again capable of a twofold interpretation. His indefinitely
ordered language may either signify : The mode of considera
tion belonging to the Christian religion presupposes indeed a
true, actual guilt, but in truth and according to the divine con
sideration there is no such guilt. But in this way the
Christian mode of consideration would be convicted of an
essential error. For this reason it is probably more correct to
reckon him among the maintainers, in these days not rare, of
two-faced opposite truths, both equally justified from their
respective standpoints, — the religious and the scientific,— but
both just as certainly to be renounced from the other stand
point, so that, finally, nothing would be left but a sceptical
agnosticism, a renunciation of objective truth.
Thus the question still remains : Is not the very idea of
sin itself drawn into the vortex of such uncertainty, of such
opposite streams, and thereby all need of even mere subjective
reconciliation of man cut off by anticipation? This consequence,
indeed, is ascribed to Ritschl's doctrine, but the objection is
without justification. Even supposing retributive justice to be
denied, the giving of the law or the divine will, which wills a
kingdom of the good, is not thereby directly abolished,
although shaken. Further, even were not merely the idea of
divine punishment, but still more that of objective guilt,

68 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
denied, sin, i.e. moral imperfection, might still be spoken of,
if only a definite moral aim, which he has not yet reached in
the beginning of his existence, remains prescribed to man. If
this duty occurs to his consciousness before his discharge of it,
and if he compares what he is with what he ought to be, he
will see himself to be in antagonism to that good aim ; and
this all the more if, while still at a lower stage, he perceives
how his desires seek something else than that aim, and there
fore are relatively averse to it. No doubt, the idea of sin and
guilt cannot escape deterioration, nay, corruption, if moral
freedom is not definitely taken into account and emphasized.
For the rest, what Ritschl retains of all these ideas he applies
to his statements respecting the doctrine of atonement as
follows. Humanity, it is true, only stands in God's presence as still
imperfeet. Its perfection is the fixed goal towards which He
is leading it. Nor is God On His side alienated from humanity,
or far from it. As already said, there is no punitive justice or
penal desert in man, and in so far no objective guilt which
could expose to punishment before Christianity came. Rather,
all sin is mere sin of ignorance, which rather challenges helpful,
saving love than punishment. There is no removing of God to
a distance, which would be a withdrawal of His fellowship on
God's part, an anger of God M7ith sinners. It would there
fore be an error to suppose the necessity of an expiation or
satisfaction. But, on the other hand, he continues, we all — individuals
and the entire race — stand in antagonism to God through the
initial non-fulfilment of the law or of the divine will. We
are destined for divine communion, and so long as we fail to
'find this, and, on the contrary, remain for our part at a dis
tance from God, we miss our destination. The consciousness
that man is not what _h_e should be, is reflected in religious
contemplation as guilt. But this notion of guilt or subjective
" consciousness of guilt " fills man with discontent to such a
degree that he feels as if in a penal state, and imagines God to
be far off, nay, his enemy, from which springs again a mistrust
of God which renders man worse.1 By this means he falls
into a misery and dread, which makes him shrink from God
1 iii. 44, 49.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 69
and keeps his soul at a distance from God, whereas the con
sciousness of fellowship with God is the indispensable means
to enable him to apply himself to his moral work with courage
and inner security. This condition of distance from God
cannot be described as mere misfortune, for there is human
(although unfree) volition (see above) in those very things to
which the consciousness of guilt refers. Nor is that condition
divine punishment ; for in virtue of His immutability God
ever remains in paternal, loving communion with man, and
never withdraws to a distance from him. But the '"conscious
ness of guilt " is the expression of a defect in religious
communion with God, and is the primary manifestation of
punishment or of the abatement of the " religious " privilege
cf communion with God, i.e. consciousness of guilt is associated
with distance from God ; and then from this consciousness
follows the consciousness of penal desert and the notion of
punishment. For, generally speaking, only those evils possess
the character of divine punishment which every one imputes
to himself as punishment through his consciousness of guilt.1
How, then, would Ritschl conceive of redemption or atone
ment, which certainly even on his view seems necessary to
human consciousness ? It must be confessed that he does
not require first the fulfilment of the divine law, and does
not seek to derive the consciousness of divine communion or
of the divine fatherly love from the at least initial realization
of the law. He sees that, as the Evangelical Church teaches,
distance from God, dread of God as Judge, must be first
transformed into consciousness of communion with God, be
cause this, as already said, is the indispensable means to
enable man to apply himself with success to his moral work.2
1 iii. 339. So far as the consciousness of guilt is supposed to be forced on us
by the constitution of our nature, it has for Ritschl a certain objective — more
precisely, psychological — backgrounds On the other hand, the opinion that
distance from God is at once guilt and punishment, in this indefiniteness which
confounds the two, is a part of the error criticized above (§ 88. 1), that evil, the
contraction of guilt, is itself also punishment.
2 He expresses this thus : " Justification is a synthetic, not an analytic judg
ment" (iii. 68 ff.); but does not mean this in the sense that justification is a
fruit of Christ's atonement or a divine act, but to him it is the consciousness of
one who belongs to the Church of God's eternal, and therefore anticipatory, love,
which with unchangeable fidelity conducts the Church to its consummation ;
and atonement is the reconciled subjective consciousness given in Justification.

70 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Of course the question at issue, according to Ritschl, is not
merely that God hold fellowship with humanity, for this is
true even under the dominion of sin, since God is unchange
able love even in presence of sin, however much His image is
obscured by the consciousness of guilt as if He were hostile to
man. The question at issue must be, that man also on his
part quit his distance from God and acquire trust in God's
fatherly love, which is eternally the same. How, then, is this
reached ? Not by seeking an expiation or satisfaction. This,
according to Ritschl, would only be a new error, a confirmation
of the first one, which paints God as displeased with us, and
through our consciousness of guilt awakens in us the feeling of
unhappiness, penal desert, and the notion of God's punitive
justice. Christianity proceeds differently, and by this means
becomes the redeeming religion. It reveals God as Father
instead of as Lawgiver and Judge, as unchangeable Love,
which knows nothing of anger and punishment, since, on the
contrary, as Ruler of the world, God, with unmoved security
and " necessary sequence," realizes the world-aim consisting in
the founding of the kingdom of God, hay, in eternal fashion
(in vision sub specie ceternitatis) sees the imperfect beginnings
covered by the consummation. This revelation is given through
Christ. Christ lived in constant communion with God, prov
ing this in all He did and suffered ; this is the meaning of the
conception of His divine Sonship and divinity.1 He was always
conscious of God's fatherly love (which, moreover, is said to
be a truth of reason), and made it known by His teaching,
besides in His walk and whole personal manifestation setting
the divine patience and love before our eyes 2 (thus accelerat
ing the process of knowledge among mankind). But Christ's
love may also be regarded as a proof of the love of God. It
is love on God's part, that He brought this man into existence,
who reveals God to us as fatherly love, and thus scatters those
gloomy errors of an angry God and a punitive justice. As
concerns Christ's suffering and death, indeed, Ritschl gets so
far as to affirm that Christ attested therein His undisturbed
communion with God. But how the fact of Christ's being
given over to such sufferings is supposed to be a proof
of the Father's love, this he is unable to show. At most,
1 iii. 396 f. See above, vol. iii. § 98. 3. a iii. 395, 472 f., 490.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 71
Christ is here a martyr for the truth of His doctrine.
Abelard's position in this respect was better, because he saw
in Christ not only a teacher or pattern, but also an expiatory
sacrifice (see above, p. 19). In addition to the teaching and
pattern, through which Christ worked, there remains for
Ritschl the founding of a Church, whose members carry in
themselves the consciousness of God's universal love every
where the same and unchangeable, and therefore not the
consciousness that God forgives and frees from guilt and
punishment for Christ's sake, but that God knows nothing of
anger and punishment, that therefore the dread of punish
ment, nay, the idea of being worthy of punishment in God's
eyes, and therefore the consciousness of an objective guilt
in virtue of the supreme, decisive judgment of God, rests upon
an error which Christianity dispels. For, according to Ritschl,
punishment only could and ought to emerge, supposing some
one definitely rejected this doctrine of God's unpunishing
fatherly love, a thing not occurring in experience. The
founding of the Church or kingdom of God is the proper
divine act which God had in view from the beginning ; and
every one who is reckoned in the Church, by his connection
with it has security for the love of God applying also to him,
and therewith deliverance from those erroneous notions of
God's retributive, and especially punitive justice, which inter
fere with divine communion. But whoever, Ritschl believes,
has this communion with God, of which the Church is the
pledge, in the background of his consciousness, may give him
self with comfort and success to the regular exercise .of his
love in the kingdom of God, and in this calling may even
attain such perfection as carries with it the subjective cer
tainty of reconciliation (iii. 573-588). For the personal
assurance of salvation through the Holy Spirit, with which his
teaching ends or culminates, Ritschl would therefore substitute
the fact of belonging to the Christian Church as a faithful
member ; and hence by this Catholicizing doctrine which
relegates us to some human authority he combats not only
Pietism, but also the Reformation in its central point, alleging
that " the testimony of the Holy Spirit is a piece of mediaeval
piety," whereas the very characteristic of mediaeval piety is the
denial of a divine assurance of salvation in the heart of the

72 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
Christian. If the certainty of God's love towards us is sup
posed to be based upon nothing else than, on one side, the
successful prosecution of our moral life-calling in harmony
with God's will (i.e. on our sanctification), and, on the other
> side, upon our connection with the Church of God, it is hard
to say which of these two foundations is the weakest. A
certainty of reconciliation, resting on such foundations, is in
keeping with mediaeval, but not with Evangelical, piety.
Accordingly, it is certain that Ritschl does not retain a
theory of atonement in the proper sense, but with all decisive
ness assigns the Christian doctrine of punitive justice in God,
and the necessity of an expiation, to a subordinate, erring
religious standpoint. Hdring 1 is therefore right in desiring a
more comprehensive appreciation of the divine justice, and in
endeavouring to assure to the idea of expiation its right as an
independent correlate of justification. The point in question,
he says, is not merely the cancelling of the subjective con
sciousness of guilt or amendment for the future, but also the
cancelling of the divine claim, which demands the penitent
acknowledgment of the inviolableness of God's law and
infinite abhorrence of its violation. To him the divine for
giveness is not already self-evidently involved in God's love.
On the contrary, it follows from that very love itself, that
God only forgives upon condition of an infinite feeling of
contrition and abhorrence of eviL But rhan cannot render
this of himself, not even the believer, and consequently cannot
reckon upon forgiveness. On the other hand, Christ has
rendered both ; He supplements our consciousness of guilt
before God (Weizsacker 2). He is not merely the Revealer
of God, but also our priestly Representative with God, who
permits Him to bear this character, because He furnishes
security that all who believe in Him will also realize the
normal relation to God. What thus, according to Haring, is
supposed to be the condition of pardon, is plainly an act
belonging to sanctification. But in his opinion the complacency
1 Haring, das Sleibende in dem Glauben an Christus, 1880, a work showing
an uncommon talent for theology, but too dependent on Ritschl ; e.g. he approves
even the subjectivistic doctrine of Ritschl, that there is no punishment where
there is no consciousness of guilt.
2 Jahrb. f. deutsche Thiol, iii. 183 ff., according to his excellent historical

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 73
of God rests not directly upon the human act or faith, but
upon Christ — the security of our normal relation to God.
According to Haring, God can and does freely forgive, in so
far as our future sanctification is secured. The expiation
to be demanded is in his view, therefore, a satisfaction to
the divine holiness, not to justice, and does not refer to our
desert and remission of punishment. He says indeed : Christ
knows and experiences perfectly, and with the keenest
poignancy, the entire guilt and power of sin in which
humanity lay ; but near as he comes to the truth, even here
the reference to God's displeasure and punitive justice,
in the proper sense, is wanting, for guilt has to him the
meaning of obligation to render repentance and abhorrence
of evil, but not of obligation to suffer punishment, which
is something different from repentance and abhorrence of
sin. Observation. — Ritschl's theory is in sympathy with Kant,
first, by the position which he assigns to religion in relation
to morality. For Ritschl treats it as little more than a
means in order to the latter, scarcely leaving to fellowship
with God the position of an end in itself. He is also akin
to Kant in this, that he endeavours to obtain the certainty
of God from a moral idea exclusively. Like Kant, he would
allow scientific validity to the causa finalis only, and thinks
that the causa efficiens, together with God's creative activity,
might be excluded from theology, by which means it certainly
becomes more than doubtful whether he is able to suppose
God the active and efficient cause of a new creation like
Christianity, or, in general, to assign God any other position
in reference to salvation than that assigned to God by
Aristotle, namely, that of the attractive ideal, i.e. the deistic
position. On the other hand, Kant excels him in his high
regard for the idea of justice, as well as for the idea of the
individual personality and its certainty. It forms a point of
superiority to Kant, that Ritschl has transcended the stand
point of rigid legal right by the doctrine of the divine love,
as well as that he would make forgiveness and reconciliation
(more precisely, the consciousness that God is reconciled)
precede holiness even in its rudiments. But neither Chris
tianity nor the Church teaches an inert lax love, incapable of
anger, such as would strip the divine forgiveness of value,
and make the need of expiation an error. The unsophis
ticated conscience is unable to recognise itself in such a

74 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
doctrine, and therefore in this way, instead of reconciliation,
the inner unrest is perpetuated.
Whereas, finally, Kant, while speaking of a twofold treat
ment of the Christian tenets, — a rational or scientific and a
symbolic, which accommodates itself to a lower standpoint,
— decidedly finds truth in the former only, Ritschl, on the
other hand, if we have rightly apprehended him, keeps in the
suspense of a Dualism, which ventures to take neither of the
two alternatives in full earnest, nor even attempts rationally
to combine the truth in the two standpoints, the religious
and the scientific.
Lipsius also, by the unsolved contradiction between the
religious and scientific modes of consideration, remains
entangled in a similar Dualism to Ritschl, a Dualism leading
to the standpoint of a two-faced truth. He is unwilling to
sacrifice the former to the latter; but, separated too much
from thoughts in which science and religion should find their
unity,1 the religious mode is too impotent to be able to restore
harmony in the nature of man.
Although in Biedermann also the thoroughgoing antithesis
between " conception and idea " may seem to threaten us with
a similar Dualism, he is still in advance of Lipsius in a
formal respect, because he does not co-ordinate conception and
1 Cf. my treatise on the Dogmatic of Lipsius, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1877,
xxii. 177 ff. On one side he adopts literally in his investigation (§§ 589-655)
the thoughts of Biedermann (§ 581), that the fundamental mistake of the Church
doctrine is the identification of the eternal principle of Christianity with the
person of Jesus Christ ; on the other side, however, he would suppose not merely
a casual and transient, but intrinsic and abiding, relation between the two
(§ 624). According to him, principle and person have an " inseparableness, a
unity as matter of fact," in relation to the immediate religious "conception"
of believers. From Ritschl he takes in addition (§ 621) the importance of
Christ as a religious founder, the founder of the Christian Church. God's
purpose of atonement is not efficacious apart from His revelation in Christ as
the objective basis of the Christian community. For the Christian Church the
historic Christ (§§ 620, 621) has typical, nay, creative religious significance, and
Lipsius hopes by including the founding of the Church to advance beyond the
merely "ideal Christ" (§ 624), for a merely ideal Christ would also be an ideal
founder of the kingdom of God, — a view which, in presence of such an historic
phenomenon as the kingdom of God, already realized in the Christian Church,
gives au utterly impracticable idea (p. 545). But this is only relevant on
the supposition that the Christ who has founded the Christian Church is not
a mere man, a teacher and pattern of divine sonship, over whom the Christian
principle hovers, i.e. on the supposition that this principle has become identified
with the historic Christ not merely in religious " conception," but actually.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 75
idea, but views them as different stages, of which the latter
only is supposed to contain irrefragable truth. But certainly
he also fails to reach the Christian doctrine of atonement,
because, firstly, he considers sin and discord as a necessary
transition on man's part in the religious process, and the
natural universally as evil; nevertheless, secondly, he holds
in every man not merely capacity of redemption, but an
immanent potentiality of reconciliation, consisting in his
essential unity with God ; and because, thirdly, while regarding
the actualization of this (divine-human) potentiality as a new
element necessary to the perfecting of man (an element which
must also be regarded as a work of God, or as grace ; in brief,
as the Christian principle of God's fatherly love, to which the
divine sonship or sonship of man corresponds), he repudiates
most expressly the identification of the Christian principle
with the person of Jesus Christ, because in the latter the
Christian principle merely found its historically primitive
realization, which is now the spring of the efficacy of this
principle in history.1
If we cast a glance back at the different theories of atone
ment of an objective and subjective kind, it appears that in
their entirety they correspond to the various possible theories
of the world, which depend in the last resort on the idea of
God, as we found to be true also in Ponerology and Christology.
Atonement also may be apprehended from the viewpoint of
divine love in a one-sided physical, or aesthetical, or logical, or
abstractly juridical, or moral, or, finally, in a one-sided religious
way. As a rule, over against the one-sided objective theory of
atonement of the one kind belonging to antiquity, there stands
a more subjective theory of the same kind belonging to
modern days ; so that, upon the whole, we see the cycle of
the leading possibilities of an objective and subjective kind
exhausted in this review.2
1 Biedermann, ut supra, pp. 527-553. 675 ff. 689. 691 : "The statement of
the historical gospel respecting Jesus Christ is the fundamental vehicle of all
Christian preaching of salvation." On the premisses mentioned, Biedermann
cannot even maintain the typical perfection and sinlessness of Christ. But if
Christ has Himself to be redeemed, He can only, in a very improper sense, be
called Redeemer ; God only is Redeemer, Christ being merely the precursor in
the consciousness of redemption.
2 In the same teacher are often found rudiments of several theories, of which,

76 • THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
The physical and cesthetic theories of atonement of an
objective kind find atonement in the vanquishing of an
objective foe of man, who is an evil to man — the devil or
death. The vanquishing of the foe takes place here through
the divine might and intelligence superior to death and Satan.
If the evil, from which deliverance is necessary, is regarded
as inherited debt transmitted by physical means, it is the
riches of Christ that pays for us. The physical theories of a
subjective kind find the evil, from which redemption is neces
sary, in inner discord, in the disturbance of wellbeing, and
seek the restoration of the feeling of harmony in Eudaemonism,
or by aesthetic means.
Whereas the theory of the divine polity makes the Eudae
monism or wellbeing of the world the highest end, to which
the ethical serves as a means (the Mediator out of love
assuming the death, which is supposed to be the symbol of
the reality both of divine justice and divine love), other
theories of this species address themselves to plans for the
improvement of the world, in order to overcome evils and
disturbances in the harmony of the world. But here only a
precarious position is left to the Mediator.
The objective theory of atonement through knowledge is the
supposition, that, men being disquieted by the fear of divine
punishment and by consciousness of guilt, God, eternally
reconciled in Himself, has communicated to them through
divine revelation the knowledge of His forgiveness, or rather
of His being eternally propitiated for sin. The subjective form
of this theory is self-redemption by true self-consciousness
and the knowledge of God, who is in essential, indestructible
unity with man, or knowledge of the natural, essential nobility
of man. The one-sided juridical theory of the objective form is the
civil-law theory of Augustine, according to which Christ pays
the debitum contracted by us (in Adam), as well as the theory
of Satisfaction for our injuria in Anselm ; the subjective form of
the same is Satisfaction by the complete suffering of the
merited penalties due to the old man, on the part of the new
man, according to Kant and the stricter Kantians.
.usually, none are worked out consistently. The elements of justice and love,
•especially, are seldom altogether wanting. See above, p. 6.

REACTION AGAINST SUBJECTIVE THEORIES. 77
The moral theory finds its atonement in the sanctification
of man. Its objective form makes sanctification to be effected
through grace, and through sanctification, if it exists in prin
ciple at least, atonement. Its subjective counterpart is the
doctrine, that atonement is brought about through earnestness
of resolve to live a better life, by which a new man is con
stituted in principle, who, as well-pleasing to God, represents
to the true (even the divine) point of view the still imperfect
empirical man. An attempt is even made to turn to account
the historic mediatorship by those who say :, Atonement, it
is true, is the fruit of our amendment or sanctification;
but the latter is brought about for the benefit of those
who amend by Christ's example, and in virtue of the
doctrine, confirmed by His authority, of God's readiness to
forgive sins.
The one-sided emphasizing of a divine love apart from justice
is essentially Antinomian in nature, and in all its possible
forms, however lofty they seem, sinks back to an unethical
and, in so far, essentially physical ground. Of the same class
on the objective side are not merely all magical theories
(whether after the manner of a Marcion, or whether counten
ance is given to an absorptive idea of the substitution of Christ
as the personal atonement through His mere existence), but
in general all, which represent the divine love as active
indeed, but because destitute of an inner law of justice, as
benevolent caprice. The subjective form of the theory of
.atonement, which rests in a one-sided way on the divine love,
assumes again various forms. From the viewpoint of will it
may be said, as in the moral theory, that both moral defec
tiveness and guilt are cancelled and covered in the eye of
God's love, provided only a better will is present. On the
side of knowledge it may be asserted : The need of an expia
tion arises for the human consciousness from erroneous con
ceptions of a justice in God that demands, and a guilt
that needs, expiation; whereas God's eternally unchanging,
unchiding, fatherly love dispels these erroneous conceptions,
because it invites us to make the divine mode of view ours,
and to enjoy reconciliation in the consciousness of that
divine love which freely, without condition and expiation,
with a confidence in the realization of the world-aim that

78 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
never wavers, joyously sees temporal imperfection (at least in
faithful members of the kingdom) covered by viewing it sub
specie ceternitaiis. Finally, on the side of feeling, it may be
desired to find the atonement in elevation to the ideal feeling
of God. But a Dualism remains in all these three forms,
because morally satisfactory means for bridging over the
distance between the empirical condition and the ideal world
are wanting. This Dualism is the reason why all theories
whatsoever of this latter kind must perforce halt, if not at a
two-faced, contradictory truth, still at an unreconciled, two-
faced mode of view — an ideal and an empirical. The solution
of the problem cannot, therefore, lie in all these theories,
which, however, by the uncertainty and the profound discord
in which they plunge the spirit which has attained the
summit of the pre-Christian consciousness, convert the neces
sity of a solution, such as Christianity promises, into the
most urgent need, in order that the spirit may be delivered
from its conscious or unconscious discord.

C. — Dogmatic Investigation.
Literature. — Cf. § 114, p. 1 f. Schleiermacher, Der christi.
Glaube, §§ 104. 105. Nitzsch's System, ed. 6. Marheinecke,
Die Grundlehren der chr. Dogm. als Wissenschaft, 1827 ;. and his
Syst. d. Dogm. 1847, p. 360. Lange, Positive Dogmatik, 1851,
§ 76 f. pp. 813-908. Martensen, Die chr. Dogm. §§ 156-169,
pp. 280-293 (Eng. Trans., T. & T. Clark). Goschel and Stahl,
see above, p. 56. Sartorius, Die lieilige Liebe, 2 Abth. 1855.
Gess, Die Nothwendigkeit des Suhnens Christi, Jdhrb. f. d.
Theol. vol. iii. p. 713 ff. Ibid., Weizsacker, Der Streit uber die
Versohnungslehre, p. 154 ff. Weber, Vom Zorne Gottes, 1862
(with Introduction by Delitzsch). Delitzsch, Comm. zum Heb-
raerbrief, Anhang, 1857. Philippi, Kirchl. Glaubenslehre, iv. 2 ;
Die Lehre von Christi Werk, 1863, pp. 24-345. V. Hofmann,
Schriftbeweis, 1857 ff, i. 577. Thomasius, Lehre von Christi
Person und Werk, iii. 1, p. 15 ff. Dietzsch, Adam und Christus,
Bonn 1871. Al. Schweizer, Christi. Glaubenslehre, i. 537, ed. 1,
ii. 164 ff. Hase, Evang. Dogm. 1826, ed. 3, 1842. Schenkel,
i. 650 ff. Lipsius, Lehrbuch der evang.-prot. Dogm. 1876, see
above. Biedermann, Dogm. § 815 ff. Ritschl, ut supra, iii.
Kahnis, Syst. d. luth. Dogm. iii. 371 ff. 1868. Fr. Reiff, Die
christi. Glaubenslehre als Grundlage der christi. Weltanschauung,

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 79
2 vols. ed. 2, 1876, ii. 214 ff. § 85 ff, p. 229, §§ 88-98. F. Fr.
Bula, Die Versohnung des Menschen mit Gott durch Christum
oder die Genugthuung, Basel 1874. G. Kreibig, Die Ver
sohnungslehre auf Grund des christlichen Bewusstseins, 1878.
Fr. Frank, Syst. der christi. Wahrheit, ii. 1880, § 35, p. 153 ff.
Foreign Works. — E. de Pressensd, le dogme de la Redemp
tion, 1867. Maurice, The Doctrine of Sacrifice (both in opposi
tion to the notion of equivalence). Jowett, Comm. on the
Epistles of St. Paul, 1855. MacDonnell, The Doctrine of the
Atonement (against Maurice and Jowett). The English and
American theology of the last decennia has busied itself much
with this dogma. Dr. Park's work, The Atonement, Boston
1860, — a collection of treatises by Edwards, Smalley, Maxcy,
Emmons, Griffin, Rurge, Weeks, with an introductory treatise, —
gives a review of the history of New England theology on the
subject. His own view on pp. x. xi. The doctrine of atonement
has been treated, further, by Magee, J. Gilbert, The Christian
Atonement, 1836 (in opposition to Wright's Antisatisfactionist) ;
Horace Bushnell, Monsell (The Religion of Redemption, London
1867, pp. 51-153), Hodge, father and son. G. W. Samson,
The Atonement, viewed as assumed Divine Responsibility, 1878.
(Substitution is said to rest on these grounds: as Creator,
Preserver, Ruler of a world of free beings, God has assumed a
responsibility ; by the redemption in Christ He is answerable
for its past sins and future sanctification, whereby He Himself
submits to the law which He gave, p. 37 ff) John Miley,
The Atonement and Christ, 1879. iPresby. Review, 1880, April.)

FIRST ARTICLE : THE NEED OF ATONEMENT, AND GOD S ETERNAL
PURPOSE OF ATONEMENT.
§ 119.
The divine justice demands expiation, and without it
humanity, unable to make it out of its own resources,
is exposed to God's retributive displeasure, or to punish
ment, which does not better but clouots the higher con
sciousness, and fills with dread of destruction and death.
The sin and guilt of the world, which call forth retri
butive justice, stand therefore as a barrier in the way
of God's loving purpose, which created the world for

80 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
perfection in holiness and blessedness. But as Justice
and Love exist eternally in God in harmonious inter-
penetration, so God wills the world to be the scene of
the combined revelation of the two so long and so far as
the world is still capable of redemption. This is His
eternal purpose of atonement, i.e. His purpose to give
humanity the possibility of atonement. This possibility
is implanted in humanity by the divine incarnation in
Christ.
1. A frequent, but not on this account less objectionable,
theory is this, that we only need to be reconciled with God, but
no need exists for God to be reconciled with us, or, what is
the same, no need exists of an expiation for us. Against
the conceivableness of God wishing to be reconciled, or being
reconciled, it is urged that this would assume a change in God.
For He would cease to be angry and begin to be propitious ;
as reconciled He would therefore become what He was not
before, and this would conflict with His immutability, nay,
imply an influence upon Him from without, so that it would
not even be He who changes Himself, but He would be
changed, — a view unworthy of God. In order, therefore, to
preserve God's immutability, the change which the idea of
atonement certainly implies must be placed entirely on the
side of the world or in man, either in his consciousness or
will. Man, therefore, is reconciled by being delivered from
the thought of anger in God, or by His will being changed
for the better. On the other hand, it is out of the question
to say that God must first be reconciled with man, in order
that man may enjoy reconciliation, for God is raised above
the possibility of being variously affected by the distinction
of good and evil. But we have previously1 proved that
God's immutability cannot be of a lifeless, deistic kind, and
that the distinctions in the world and its history are not
indifferent to God, and therefore valueless in themselves, that
rather God is, above all, immutable in ethicalr vitality. But
for this very reason His relation is not the same towards evil
and good, nor can His disposition, whether of favour or
1 Vol. i. p. 244 ff.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 81
displeasure, towards the ethical mutability of men be always
the same.1 And indeed the supposition that God, in harmony
with His ethical immutability, accompanies the history of
men with His sympathy, which modifies itself, moment by
moment, according to the actual character of men, implies no
passive dependence of God on the world ; but it is His own
essence, abiding eternally the same, and His own volition, by
which He allows Himself to be determined to modify His
sympathy with the world.
2. But it must now, further, be definitely laid down, that
a reconciliation of God, and not merely of men with God, is
necessary, whether the matter be considered in reference to
man or to the idea of God.
Sin and guilt have interrupted the loving communion
which God desires to have with the creature, and it lies not
in man's power to renew this communion of God with him.
To this a prevenient act of God is necessary. The only
source of misery is not, that man is at variance or enmity
with God, and does not accept or respond to God!s ever
unchanging love. Even the desire for amendment could not
truly exist in one who did not, above all, affirm his guilt
and desert of punishment, and acknowledge the necessity to
concede its rights to the divine justice demanding punishment
or expiation. His conscience condemns the sinner, so that
by his own means he cannot have peace in himself and with
God. Nor is the love of God, although unchangeable in itself,
necessarily unvarying in its exercise, somewhat as a physical
force is always unvarying in its . operation. This leads to
the second point : The idea of God requires a reconciliation of
God in order to the restoration of communion with Him.
Against this it might be objected : Even granting a change
in the relation of God to be necessary in order to reconciliation,
no special arrangement, such as Christianity teaches, is needed
in order thereto. For there is nothing to prevent God restoring
His relation to the world to harmony, if it has been disturbed
by sin, and forgiving without satisfaction and expiation, in
virtue of His absolute freedom, without further ado. And in
1 Martensen, p. 282 (Eng. ed. p. 204) : That it is not merely man, but God
Himself, who is to be reconciled, contradicts only a dead, not a living idea of
God's unchangeableness. Cf. too, Rothe, Ethilc, ii. § 567, p. 305.
Dornbr.— Christ. Doct. iv. F

82 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
point of fact, various reasons are alleged in favour of a so-called
free divine forgiveness. It would be a denial (e.g. according to
Duns Scotus and Socinus) of Omnipotence, of God's free plenary
authority, and therefore an inadmissible limit to God's action,
if He could not forgive off-hand. On the contrary, it is said,
the love which seeks not its own and seeks not its own honour,
must be inclined to such a free forgiveness of sin ; and Christ
Himself seems to acknowledge this to be the mode of conduct
befitting God, in so frequently requiring placability and readiness
to forgive from man, in accordance with God's example and on
the ground of the divine forgiveness. • This is even required
by the policy of the divine government (so Grotius and the
Arminians continue), because unforgiven sin preys upon itself,
while forgiveness restores moral courage, and pardon, like an
amnesty at times in the political sphere, ministers to the
common good and preserves the commonweal from growing
disorganization. To these reasons the following answer may
be given. In God there is no Omnipotence severed from His
ethical essence, just as little as there is in Him caprice or the
physical necessity to will what He is able to do by free power.
Rather, His holy essence is in God the living law for the
exercise of His power. Unconditional forgiveness of private
injuries, where no judicial function is in question, may be
required of the love by virtue of which man seeks not
his own. But as the guardian of universal, public moral
order, even government cannot forgive violations of the law
off-hand or treat them with indifference and impunity, — this
would be the dissolution and subversion of moral order. Civil
amnesty is only permissible by way of exception, where it may
be supposed that crimes in themselves punishable are sub
stantially caused by corrupt states of the commonweal, which
are characterized by a common guilt, and by life in parties,
which have all something to forgive to each other. Moreover,
acts of grace, whatever the motives from which they spring,
are no denial of culpability, and therefore of the right of
punitive justice, but a ratification of it. Besides, God cannot
regard evil as mere private injury, seeing that good also cannot
be a mere private matter to Him. For good is the rationally
necessary in itself, the alone absolutely precious thing, which
cannot be sacrificed to finite good, to regard for supposed claims

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 83
of the wellbeing of individuals or the public welfare, without
subverting all right order in the world. Without ethical
worth and ethical distinction, only physical beings would be
willed by God. There can therefore be no policy even of
divine government which would prefer the physical wellbeing of
the creature to what is ethical, and to the condition required by
the ethical. An apparently exuberant, profuse love of such a
kind, since it would outsoar itself, and in ecstasy, so to speak,
emancipate itself from the fundamental laws of the world,
from sacred justice, would directly fall back to the mere
physical level of finite eudaemonism, while losing and extin
guishing the character of the infinitely precious. Despite their
mutual relative independence, the natural and the moral are so
co-ordinated in creation (not arbitrarily, but in virtue of God's
ethical essence, which is the power above even Omnipotence
and its works), that true and enduring physical wellbeing at
the cost of the ethical and its claim to dominion is impossible.
On the contrary, suffering is the physically and ethically
necessary consequence, the fruit and wages of sin. For these
reasons the policy of divine government cannot leave evil
unnoticed, first, because universal impunity would be a charter
to sin, a giving the reins to moral licence, and therefore
assuredly opposed to the common weal ; and also because such
impunity would contradict the innate law even of the physical
world, and therefore contradict wise policy.1 To this must be
added, that God's holy essence cannot look otherwise than with
disfavour and holy displeasure at sinners as such, and at the
evil present in them and done by them. In Himself He
cannot be eternally reconciled to evil ; in Him is neither moral
indifference nor caprice. Even in the world the energy
of God's holy and righteous essence remains unchangeable.2
The satisfaction of justice is the negative pre-condition of the
revelation of love as self-communication. God must therefore
perforce make the maintenance of His ethical glory and
unchangeableness, the satisfaction of His justice which is
necessarily angry and displeased with sin, the indispensable
1 The truth of this is shown by the fact that, even where guilt is forgiven, the
evils originally springing from God's punitive justice may continue, although no
longer as punishments, and yet cannot deny their connection with sin.
2 §§ 24. 25. 87. 88.

84 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
condition of His loving fellowship and favour. For this very
reason, the conscientious man could have no confidence in a re
conciliation that warped the rights of justice,and was indifferent,
although not to evil generally, yet to guilt actually contracted.1
Thus the unsophisticated conscience, like the true conscious
ness of God, knows that the divine displeasure is no mere
subjective conception, but objective truth ; else the subject
would only need to divest himself of this conception in order
to enjoy impunity. But, on the contrary, the divine displeasure
rests objectively on sinners, whether they are at once conscious
of this or not ; and it has its consequences. It is the source
of all evils to men. When displeasure emerges, the state of
peace between God and man is abolished, loving communication
limited or interrupted. And from this withdrawal of favour
and grace follows also diminution of life. Since all life has
its abiding source in God, according to the profound view of the
Old Testament, this diminution of life is in principle a dying ;
and the extremest issue — actual death in the spiritual and
physical sense — must have followed, if sin had maintained its
unchecked progress and uninterrupted increase. In fact, the
revelation of retributive justice was already in course of
development before Christ.2
1 Even Weizsaeker (ut supra, p. 183 f.) rightly says : A more independent and
natural meaning must be assigned to the idea of expiation than is usually done
at present. Biblical teaching is too decisively in favour of this view, as well as
the whole of the older theology and the moral experience of the sense of guilt,
which seems to him too powerful, to permit him to believe that that idea is
satisfied by any manifestation of grace or of divine-human love. " I believe,"
he continues, ' ' that Christ's sufferings should be considered under this point of
view, that He therewith actually did something in our place, that He suffered
what we ought to suffer and could not, and thereby remove this indebtedness
from us. Pure moral feeling, when it awakens, is always in its guilt conscious
that its penitence ought to be an infinite sorrow, and that penitence is a gnawing
worm for the very reason that it never reaches this point. But in his penitence
the Christian participates in the infinite sorrow of Christ."
8 Rom. i. 18. Cf. with the above th« excellent exposition of Martensen,
Christi. Ethilc, spec. Theil, Abth. i. p. 155 ff., in the section : " Imputation and
Guilt ; Punitive Justice," p. 156 [Eng. Trans, pp. 130-132] : The idea of guilt
implies that sin is the product of man's will, and that the man who by sin has
made a rent in God's holy world-order, is thereby liable to an expiatory punish
ment, of which not amendment, but primarily retribution must be regarded as
the aim, that right may remain right. P. 157 : What is imputed to a man is not
merely the particular action, but the entire moral condition in which he is found.
For it is by his own will that every one makes himself what he is. Even that

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 85
3. Accordingly, the question of sin and guilt is so serious
a thing, that it occasions a change even in God's disposition
towards man. For this reason, reconciliation apart from satis-
-faction of the divine justice is out of the question. Uncon
ditional forgiveness, as shown, is inadmissible. To renew the
disturbed communion of God with man, as said before, lies not
in man's power ; and yet the discord of man with God is so
opposed to His true nature and destiny, that, unless it is
removed, disorganization and ruin must be the consequence.
The condition on which reconciliation and restoration of
communion would alone be possible even to God, is in general
expiation. But the rendering of expiation to God is utterly out of our
power. There can be no overplus of merit ; consequently no
release from the bondage of guilt already contracted, besides
what we normally owe, can be found. Man is bound to do
all the good that he can do. There can therefore be no
question of making good what has been neglected; the only
result would be a new instance of neglect. Just as little
could the resolve to amend be a sufficient expiation. The
resolve is no security for amendment. It merely furnishes
the possibility of future obedience to the divine will. But
such possibility does not, as an adequate equivalent, correspond
to that violation of the divine will which has not remained
possibility, but become actuality. Moreover, indubitable
universal experience shows that even those earnestly desirous
of amendment are obliged ever to confess to manifold defects.
Just as little, finally, is the satisfaction, which our action
cannot furnish, to be found in our suffering, or in our willing
ness to bear as just punishment the divine displeasure with
all the effects that may flow from it. For even the full
knowledge of the gravity and extent of sin, the feeling of
God's just displeasure, and the will to bear these, presuppose
which we call fate has an aspect under which it belongs entirely to personal
imputation — so far as the man has himself appropriated and voluntarily continues
transmitted evil. On p. 158 ff. he strikingly explains, that not merely conscious,
voluntary transgression is sin, as held by the Jesuits, but that even sin of
ignorance so called is imputable and punishable (however it may furnish a
ground of palliation), Luke xxiii. 34, cf. Luke xii. 47 f. For the binding nature
of the law depends not upon an accidental knowledge of the same, but it is the
law of my being, by which every estimate of worth must proceed.

86 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
a measure of moral strength such as would only be possible,
in realized communion with God, and is not found in a state
of unreconciled estrangement from God. How could the
natural man, whose better resolves even are enfeebled by
discord within, be in a position fully to acknowledge his own
unworthiness in presence of the divine holiness, and in
thought, feeling, and will to do honour to the divine justice,
not merely in acknowledging the holiness of the law and the
duty of obedience for the future, but in the sense of guilt
and contrition, and in the righteous disposition which bears
as just even the divine displeasure with its effects ? To do
all this by way of expiation, remains to us an impossibility.
As certainly, therefore, as the possibility of true reconciliation
both of God with man and of man with God is inconceivable
without expiation, so certainly this expiation cannot be
rendered by sinful man. All theories of self-redemption are
false, morally lax and inadequate to the need of the conscience,
whether their tendency be to expel the consciousness of sin
and guilt, and of a Deity angry with sin, as gloomy and
essentially futile conceptions, or whether they require us to
seek rest and peace in resolves- on a better life, or in resigna
tion and willingness to suffer; or even to ascribe meritorious,
expiatory force to repentance and the unhappy sense of
punishment. It thus remains certain that the capacity of
redemption still existing in humanity has for its converse
the incapacity itself to furnish the potency of reconcilia
tion. What it still has is merely the possibility of becoming
reconciled. 4. God's Purpose of Reconciliation. — Where human
strength and wisdom come to an end, there is the divine
beginning. God's creative wisdom, animated by the impulse
of love both for the world, for whose sake goodness is meant
to exist, and for goodness, for whose sake the world is meant
to exist, not merely requires expiation, such as is due to its
holiness and justice, but also by the eternal counsel of its
mercy gives humanity the possibility of reconciliation by
sending His Son ; and the antinomy— insoluble without grace,
— to the effect that humanity cannot live without reconcilia
tion, and therefore without satisfaction to the divine justice,
and yet cannot be the originator of its own reconciliation, is

dogmatic investigation. 87
solved by the miracle of divine love in such a way, that
humanity is enabled to present the atonement by a God-
given potency. In these powers of atonement belonging to
humanity, and reckoned among its possessions, humanity finds
a substitute for its impotence to make atonement. Thus
God's eternal purpose of atonement proves itself just and yet
rich in love, and restores the combined revelation of the
two attributes disjoined by sin, nay, perfects the world in
this way, that the world gains the possibility, not indeed
immediately, but through the divinely-given Mediator, of
reconciling God, and on the ground of this of becoming holy
and happy.
It must, of course, be impossible to an abstract idea of the
simplicity of God, such as obtains with many inconsistencies
in the old Theology, but especially in Schleiermacher, to regard
Justice and Love as objectively different definitions of God,
the revelation of which may be divergent by reason of the
character of the world. On this point enough was said pre
viously.1 But even those who do not assign a merely sub
jective import to the attributes go astray when, in order to
combine the divine attributes into unity, they regard objec
tively conceived love not merely as the highest, but as the
exclusive definition of the divine essence, and therefore in
various methods consider justice as a mere form or kind of
love, even though at the same time zeal or hatred to its
opposite is ascribed to love, this hatred being identified with
justice. The correct element in this view is, that even justice
is love for goodness, zeal for its honour, maintenance of the
divine honour or self-love ; but still it is not love for persons,
for sinners, in the form of communicative benevolence. Rather
is justice in its punitive aspect the assertion of the dignity of
the holy and good which God Himself is, even in opposition
and antagonism to man whose desire is wellbeing. On the other
hand, to conceive of punishment as mere communicative love,
would in the best case lead back to the theory of amendment.2
But, on the other side, Love and Justice are indeed not seldom
distinguished, but are so conceived that they no longer blend
harmoniously in the unity of the divine idea. This is the
case when they are viewed as mutually limiting or tempering
1 § 19. 2 §§ 24. 32. vol. i. pp. 300, 456.

88 THE doctrine of atonement.
each other. At the basis of this theory lies the opinion, that
in God's essence they form two different wills, each of which
lays claim to sole authority, and is therefore involuntarily
restrained by the other. It might therewith be supposed that
this opposition remains mere possibility so long as sin does not
actually exist, but with sin the two come into conflict with each
other. Thus, were the revelation of divine Justice contrary
to the will of Love, and the revelation of Love contrary to the
will of Justice, both, instead of carrying their measure within
themselves, would be limited by each other, since a third
power — the ingenuity of wisdom — would temper both, and
restore peace among the divine attributes. The Christian
doctrine permits no such, even merely possible, inner conflict.
For us such conflict is entirely excluded, because, while firmly
maintaining the objective distinctiveness of both, we had to
regard them as so constituted that an inner mutual relation
and indissoluble interconnection are again cognizable in them.
This is rendered specially obvious by the consideration that
God is not merely the Father of His children, but also the
Ruler of the world, who maintains unhurt the world's moral
aim. In God is no unjust Love, no Love even merely detached,
emancipated from Justice. His Love carries the law of justice
within itself, it keeps in view and honours the distinction
between good and evil, because it loves and wills the holy
as such. Even in communication God is holy self-love, i.e.
He loves and wills the good which He is Himself, guarding
it from violation. Thus His love with its tendency to
communicate cannot come into conflict with justice, but
throughout wills only what is in harmony therewith. Further,
Justice as the guardian of distinctions, maintains the distinc
tion between physical good, which would be communication
without moral self-affirmation, and holy or ethical love, and
in so far is also a safeguard against the self-exhaustion of
self-communicating love. Accordingly, they are both essential
factors of " holy Love." That holy Love is secured by their
distinctiveness and mutual inner relationship. In it they are
united, and it is the supreme governing principle of the
divine attributes in general, and of their revelation. There
with also an answer is given to the question: How can God
be conceived as demanding expiation, and therefore angry, if

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 89
still He is and must be the One who bestows on humanity
the possibility of expiation ? Neither is there in God a love
capable of being indiscriminately communicative, and of
dispensing with expiation for guilt, nor can Justice prevent
Love creating the possibility of expiation; for the aim of the
world, of which expiation is the means, is itself also a revela
tion of Justice.

SECOND AETICLE : THE IDEA OF SUBSTITUTION AND SATISFACTION
IN GENERAL.
Substitution. § 120.
Atonement is only possible through the fact that there are
substitutionary forces at work for the good of humanity,
and receptiveness in humanity for those forces. As the
second Adam, or Representative of humanity before God,
Christ is the Substitute for humanity outside Him, so
far as humanity is defective in religious personality.
Literature. — Cf. Gess, ut supra. Bersier, la Solidarite, 1870,
pp. 68, 70 ff., 83. Mohsell, The Religion of Redemption.
1. There are substitutionary Forces, and a Receptive
ness FOR them in Humanity. — >As concerns the first proposi
tion, the preceding century, with its predominantly subjective
tendency, the influence of which we still feel, maintained the
most unfriendly attitude to the idea of substitution ; and the
subjective moralism, which severs the personal from the generic
consciousness, and views communities simply as products of
the individual will of the subjects, has given sufficient evidence
of its power in the idea of the Church and of the State current
in these days (to say nothing of marriage).1 But certainly on
the other side a false idea of substitution, and one hostile to
personality, is possible, which we might call magical. The
Church, for example, may be conceived as a corpus mysticum
of such a kind, that the independence which every person
1 Cf. Rousseau, Contrdt social.

90 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
should gain in Christ, and the personal participation of man
in his moral and religious edification, are abridged thereby.
After what has been established above,1 we must maintain
that neither the personal nor the generic consciousness is
rightly conceived if one excludes the other, because each can
only obtain its true form in connection with the other. The
individual and the universal do not exclude, but include each
other. Whoever wishes to sever himself from the genus is in
a false state.
2. Let us then survey the circle in which Substitution
obtains. First, Substitution has an extensive application in
the material and outwardly legal sphere. It is so in virtue
of justitia commutativa in barter and commerce, where one
class of goods passes and is exchanged for another. One
also may pay debts for, i.e. instead of another, nay, even a
money-penalty may possibly be settled vicariously. In legal
affairs also, substitution obtains in the widest extent. No
wonder that the ecclesiastical doctrine fondly attached itself
to the figure of a vicarious payment of debt, which must
retain its place as a figure, e.g. in catechetical instruction,
provided that the intensive moral and reKgious character of
the debt, which is a violation of an infinite good, is not obscured
thereby, nor the relation of man to God transformed into one
of co-ordinate compact. But further, there is substitution
in the sphere of the living. Even organic nature supplies
analogies of this. A noble branch is grafted on a wild stock,
and takes the place of the branch removed, not merely with
the result of the partially alien branch becoming native to the
stock, but also with the result of this substitution ennobling
the entire tree and changing its sap. And conversely, by
engrafting in a noble stock a wild branch may be ennobled.2
The case is similar in animal life. When one organ suffers, net
seldom another, having capacity for such a purpose, assumes the
functions belonging to the first ; and this is one condition of
the power of the organism for self-preservation. Thus, one sense
may become a substitute for another, e.g. hearing or taste for
sight in the blind, or the eye for the ear in the deaf, and even
in the case of those with all their senses, the written for the
spoken word. But especially, before the development of the
1 §§ 82. 83. , Cf. Rom. xi. 17.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 91
particular organs in an organism, the function assigned to them
is not necessarily passive, but the whole assumes, so to speak,
the place of the particular organ or part, not in order that its
germ may be atrophied or dispensed with, but that what is
lacking may be developed by means of real, i.e. productive, not
absorbing, substitution. Thus the child, before it sees the
light of the world, lives as yet no independent life, either
physically or psychically; but the life vicariously lived by
the mother for the child developes it to independence and
maturity. As in the vegetable and animal, so in the spiritual
sphere. Here also all culture is conditioned by substitution ;
and not merely in relation to culture, it is also the neces
sary postulate of moral independence and freedom. What the
child receives from its parents is not of necessity merely such
instruction as it understands as fully as they do ; and in
reference to morality, not merely ought that to be expected
from the child of which it sees the grounds, and which it
produces of its own strength, and therefore imposes on itself.
On the contrary, its productive power in reference to know
ledge and volition must first be educated by the objective
reason of its parents, whose maxims, deposited in the mind
of the child and accepted on trust by it, train it to inde
pendence. Thus the reason of the parents lives a vicarious
life in the child until it is ripe for independence. This is
the benefit of authority in its place.1 And if, in order not to
interfere with the child's freedom, it were left without . the
benefit of this spiritual authority operating vicariously, i.e. if
each generation were left to make a purely new beginning, the
gain of such a course would accrue not to personality and
freedom, but directly to the spirit of wild-growing nature and
caprice hostile to them. The reason, clothing itself in the
form of vicarious authority (for which in its ripe state it has
the power), is the true seed of freedom. The true divine
contents of reason, although not produced or spontaneously
appropriated by the child, stand in secret, friendly elective
affinity with the yet undeveloped reason of the child. Conse
quently, those contents, deposited in the region of the receptive
generic attitude, of the memoria, of good habit and obedience,
in a word, in that yet impersonal intermediate region belonging
1 Vol. i. § 6, p. 79 ff.

92 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
to the generic life, which may be called the ante-chamber of
personality, possess force to summon forth the true personality,
and conduct it to freedom through the life of the individual
spirit in knowledge, volition, and feeling being seized by and
filled with the spirit of the rational and universal. No one
will say that anything unethical is involved in free personality
being thus developed by the operation of the vicarious reason.
On the contrary, it is an admirable, divinely-instituted arrange
ment, characterizing us as an inter-connected race, that in all
points — physical, legal, intellectual, moral, and religious — we
must have guardians, tutors, and advocates, until the time
determined beforehand by the Father;1 and that the moral
form peculiar to a certain epoch of life is this, that the youth
ful reason, instead of being self-willed, render itself dependent
and behave obediently to the objective reason co-ordinated
with it, so far as that reason has still a divine and human
right to live a vicarious life in it. This is nothing but the
right childlike attitude, the postulate of true, free personality.
But as the childlike disposition involves both the possibility
of going back to the true generic nature and the capacity of
allowing its powers to operate upon itself, so conversely in the
vigorous, personalized reason, and especially in love, there is
not merely the capacity, but the inner desire and necessity, to
descend to the position of an instrument, in order to open the
needy, subjective reason to itself, to enter into it, and in
sympathy communicate itself to it. This is the happiness of
ethical i personality, and also the test of its ripeness, that it is
able to transform itself into a seed-corn, so to speak, for the
good of the developing reason, i.e. into a form in which all
egoistic, absorptive substitution is excluded, and self-surrender
ing self-forgetfulness desires to retain but one thing — the
power of being an instrument for the victory of the good, for
the powers of the universal.2
Thus in its very highest stage personality has the power,
most certainly of all, of becoming through substitution a seed
of freedom. 3. But, of course, receptiveness for substitutionary forces
within humanity differs at different stages of life. Whereas
the first period of human existence is absorbed in the generic
1 Gal. iv. 2. 2 Cf. John xii. 24.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 93
connection, in the second a distinction of the subjectivity from
the generic life emerges, which in the case of sinful develop
ment may lead to variance, severance, and repulsion. On the
other hand, at the last stage that existence coalesces anew,
and in a higher manner, with the generic consciousness. Now,
the right of substitution is disputed not in reference to the
first stage, but in reference to the second, where the subject
desires to be self-concentrated and self-enclosed. There a
jealousy for freedom on the part of the subject may even oppose
itself to God, until the subject recognises his need of God,
and sees that determination by divine powers, representa
tion of our empirical life by a divine life, harmonizes well with
freedom, since freedom may be determined to let itself be
determined by God,- and since God's aim is, that His powers,
operating at first vicariously as an impulse from without,
should become natural to the subject ; for God is a lover of
freedom. But at the stage of subjectivity it seems to be otherwise
with receptiveness for a vicarious life of the genus. The
genus operates on the subject in the form of particular indi
viduals. Were, then, these individuals to live a vicarious life
in us, the only possible result seems to be the injury or
destruction of our individuality. This is even the case in
an abnormal course, where the stronger individuality seeks to
make the others at most selfless copies of itself. But this is
not necessary. For example, in the case of parents, what is
one-sided and abnormal in their individuality need not be the
element operating vicariously in the life of the children,
instead of what is rational and universal in their individuality.
Moreover, Christ is no abnormal or one-sided individuality.
He is the centre and reality of our genus.1 Consequently, His
personality cannot absorb our individual peculiarity and
freedom ; but if we have natural receptiveness for God, we
have in a special degree receptiveness for Him in whom both
true humanity and the absolute revelation of God are given.
Since, therefore, the receptiveness is directed to Him, both the
receptiveness for the genus with its substitutionary forces and
the receptiveness for God find their satisfaction in Him.
Receptiveness for the genus and its substitutionary forces,
J § 103, 5.

94 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
directing itself to Christ, is in an eminent sense well-pleasing
to God, because it is also receptiveness for God. This is the
meaning of believing in Him, the only way in which an evil
subjective life-tendency can be plunged, so to speak, into the
sacred depths of vital powers possessed of creative force, into
the love of One who, belonging to the human genus and con
centrating its powers in Himself, is mighty to save us and to
originate a new life in us. But what has hitherto been
advanced is less doubted; substitution and receptiveness thereto
are conceded in the sense, that in place of the old man the
holy principle that was in Christ must be imparted to us, in
order that His life may take the place of the old man. But
all this lias reference merely to the life of sanctification, not
of reconciliation. And thus the main question is left : Is not
the operation of substitution excluded where the matter in
question is the guilt of the subject ? It seems as if every one
must answer himself for his free acts, and there were no room
therefore for substitution.
The answer to this has been prepared for in what precedes,
on the subjective side by the doctrine of sin and guilt, on the
objective by the doctrine of the divine penal justice.1 It
must be frankly confessed, that a substitutionary work of
Christ is not possible for every possible sin and guilt, namely,
not for the sin of rejecting Him, for the finale repudium salutis,
and therefore not for the sin, which cannot "be regarded at all
as the effect of generic sin, because, on the contrary, it is
purely personal in kind. Guilt exclusively, and in the full
sense personal, God cannot do otherwise than visit on the
sinner himself. It has no interest in the words : " They know
not what they do." 2 The sin of definitive unbelief is the sin
incapable of forgiveness. It is the sin against the Holy Ghost,
and carries with it a character indelebilis of evil, because it
rejects the good itself or as such. The person has therefore
surrendered himself without reserve to the evil principle. On
the other hand, all other sin and guilt, however great and
penal it may otherwise be, is not personal in the full sense ;
it does not impart this character indelebilis ; the general state
has an ambiguity in it which does not exclude hope.3 To it,
therefore, the divine justice stands in a different attitude, and
1 §§ 82. 83. vol. i. §§ 24. 25. p. 297 f. 2 Luke xxiii. 34. 3 § 83, 2 C.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 95
not merely is long-suffering compatible therewith, but also the
admission of substitutionary powers. Before Christ, sin and
guilt were not yet consummated, although present in different
degrees ; then a provisory state yet existed, because the good
itself was not rejected in its clearest revelation, and hence the
capacity of redemption was not yet extinguished. Thus it was
possible for God before Christ's days to regard all the sin and
guilt of humanity as the common sin and guilt of the race,
and the punishment due to it as common punishment, for
which a corresponding expiation must be required.
Despite the different degrees of guilt, which the subjects
may contract at the second stage, to the divine eye humanity
is like one homogeneous sinful life in common. The whole
of humanity is treated by God in conformity with this view,
and so are individuals. No doubt an essential distinction
here presents itself between the divine procedure and human
justice, although even the latter has to administer the divine
objective idea of right as far as it is able. Human judicial
administration is unable to see deeper into the heart, so as
to estimate the degree of energy in the law-opposing will. It
does not comprehend the entire state of man, nor to what
extent outward influences were decisive in the acts of sin. It
must consequently limit itself strictly to the visible outward
act of the legal personality, although it also makes a distinc
tion between dolus and culpa, thereby acknowledging that
knowledge of the entire inner worth of the person is necessary
to a just judgment. Human justice, accordingly, stops for
the most part at the act of the individual person and at the
judgment of the act, in order not to strike the innocent and
let the guilty go free. For it, therefore, a final principle must
be, that every one has to answer for >his own guilt ; guilt can
in no wise be imputed vicariously to an innocent person.
And were the divine action necessarily analogous to the pro
cedure pertaining to human justice even in reference to the
second stage, there could then be no question of a divinely-
given substitution. But the fact of human judicial admini
stration having to limit itself altogether to those particular evil
acts of the subjective evil will, which appear on the surface,
is not its perfection, but its imperfection and limit ; and it
knows well that its function is not to pronounce the definitive

96 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
judgment on a man, but merely to regulate and judge the
provisory state according to the idea of justice and its best
knowledge. The imperfection of human justice, which is no
searcher of hearts, is based on the fact that the particular act
is not the person, but only one of the manifestations of the
subject, whereas the punishment falls on the entire person,
which yet did not necessarily participate in the act, even as
it is not exhausted in the particular act. Those equally
punished may be very unequal in their entire moral worth or
demerit. The entire worth of the person, which is essential
to an absolutely just judgment, may elude the eye of the
human judge, because he knows not how much of the fault is
due in the particular case to education, evil example, etc., and
how much to the law-resisting will. But God's administra
tion of justice must regard the entire man, his total worth or
demerit. The first consequence of this is a far stricter and more
deeply penetrating judgment of God on the evil in the world,
to wit, the view that, on account of the universality of sin and
its power, a common guilt exists, and that even judges, nay,
the society that demands the execution of law and justice, are
implicated in the common guilt, which in God's sight is not
appearance, but reality. The consequence of this from the
divine standpoint is a universal KaraKpifia extending to the
whole of humanity, a condemnatory judgment on their state.1
In presence of this condemnation all stand in absolute need
of redemption and atonement, and the distinctions of greater
or less personal guilt in the subjects make no difference
therein, because no one can acquit himself of joint responsi
bility for the common sin. Consequently, before the divine
judgment-seat, antecedently to the rejection of Christ, all
sinners are equal in so far as this, that the difference in the
degree of their guilt is not finally decisive, but to the divine
view vanishes again in essential equality as to the universal
need of atonement and redemption. First, because all are
infected by the sin of the race, which does not remain inopera
tive, and are laden with the common guilt, which neither in its
origin nor growth springs from God, but from the subjective
freedom and guilt, in which we are implicated as members of
one family and by our own act ; secondly, because all sins
1 Rom. iji. 19, v. 18 ff.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 9 7
prior to Christ may spring from the common evil root— evil
bias, and may thus be regarded as specific continuations
of the generic sin. But the same fact which aggravates the
depth of sinfulness and the extent of guilt, both in the eyes of
God, who looks not merely at the particular outward acts, but
at their deeper source and the general state of man, and in
the eyes of the truly penitent man, the same fact which
makes sin and guilt appear in their true light, and is the
cause of a KaraKpty-a upon all,1 causes a ray of hope to shine
forth. For, on the other side, all sins prior to Christ, as formerly
shown,2 have also the character of essential equality in this,
that so long as Christ has not been rejected, the capacity of
redemption still continues. Receptiveness for the substitu
tionary forces of the genus belongs indeed to the, age of child
hood as by nature. But even a higher stage of life may
return to the childlike nature, namely, by moral means. On
this ground Christ requires us to be converted and become
as children.3 Where a man has not become a personality
hardened in evil,4 there withdrawal of the evil, subjective ten
dency of life is still possible. There, accordingly, substitution
still has its place and fruit for those who maintain a generic
attitude, or an attitude of childlike trust to the forces of
atonement, supposing such to exist in humanity. We affirm,
therefore : Substitution still has its place where and in so far
as evil is either the result of the inherited evil bias of the
race, or may be still included under the common guilt in
which we are all implicated, where, therefore, the subject has
not yet incurred the guilt, which can no longer be reckoned
at all part of the generic guilt, because it is purely personal
in kind, derivable neither from a corrupt nature nor from
temptation by the common spirit of evil, but altogether from
free decision. In all cases outside that species of guilt,
the sin of the subject may spring just as well from the cor
rupt generic life as from his subjectivity, and may therefore
be reckoned part of the common sin and guilt of the genus.
1 Rom. v. 16, 18. !§83.
8 Matt, xviii. 1-6 ; John iii. 5. He describes conversion and becoming a child
again as possible even to the full-grown, and therefore a spiritual return from
the abnormity of the second stage to the better receptiveness of the first.
4 Matt. xii. 31 ff.
Dorner.— Christ Doct. iv. G

98 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
But then the same generic side, peculiar to every one, which
was the occasion of his sinfulness, and which made him part
of an organism, in which he could not without falsehood
exempt himself from the common guilt, is also the medium
by which redemption and atonement are still possible, — pro
vided that substitutionary saving forces are not lacking to the
genus. Thus man's capacity for redemption is now defined
as receptiveness for the substitutionary forces of atone
ment. But just so we saw above 1 that the eternal unity of
Justice and Love in God in presence of man's capacity for
redemption is more precisely defined as the divine purpose
of atonement, and the latter as the supplying of the possibility
for humanity to make satisfaction to God through substitu
tionary forces in it. The possibility of salvation is restored
by this, that humanity in some way carries within itself a
saving, personal force of universal significance side by side
with its common sin and guilt, whose effect is a common
punishment. This saving force is able to answer for the
whole, because God Himself hives in it, as conversely every
individual has receptiveness for it. And this power to make
satisfaction in the name of the genus to God's punitive justice,
which has reference to the genus, is conferred on the genus by
the Son whom God's love vouchsafes to it. He through the
act of divine Incarnation has divine power to answer for
humanity, while He also became a true scion of humanity as
the Son of Man, having universal relation to humanity. The
fact that humanity in Him. transformed this possibility of
substitution into reality, thus not merely rendering the divine
forgiveness possible, but actually reconciling God with the
world, — this is the meaning of His office, which represents at
once His ability and His right, i.e. His iljovcria. The means
by which He discharges His office is, that He is able to effect
and does effect the substitution, which is the law of His life
as the Centre and Representative of humanity.
But, before considering this, we have to inquire what the
task of His substitution was, or wherein the Satisfaction,
which it is essential to make, consists.
¦ l § 119, 4.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 99
Satisfaction. § 121.
The Satisfaction which is requisite in order that God may
be reconciled with the sinful world, and His communion
with it restored, consists in expiation to be made to God.
This expiation consists not primarily in righteousness of
life, but in voluntary subjection to that law of the divine
justice which imposes just sufferings on sin and guilt,
the centre of which is the divine displeasure.
1. It is true that, so long as the capacity for redemption
is not altogether extinguished, there is no necessity in God to
require such satisfaction to His justice by punishment as
would leave no place for the revelation of His love and mercy.1
There is no justice in God to which the preservation of the
possibility of perfecting the world, and therefore of realizing
the end of the world, is a matter of indifference. Such justice
would be at variance with God's thoughts in creation, and
with His love. On the contrary, God is long-suffering, so
long as the possibility of salvation is not yet excluded. But,
of course, the divine long-suffering does not abolish the discord
and dissonance engendered by sin between God and the world,
and that on both sides. The time of long-suffering, as we
know, merely denotes an incomplete state, which must be
carried on to the point of crisis. But the remedial crisis
cannot be initiated by violating the divine justice, or ignoring
its rights. A manifestation of the divine favour and grace,
such as maintains the divine goal of the world, cannot take
place immediately in an unreconciled world, in a world
standing in unappeased conflict with God's justice. Unless
the divine justice is to prove untrue to itself, it must require
the rendering of a sufficient expiation.2 But the question now
is, wherein must the satisfaction or expiation consist, in order
to be sufficient ?
2. Simple as the common answer sounds: "The amend
ment of the sinner is the best satisfaction," still it cannot
content us.3 Not merely on the grounds previously laid down,
i § 89. 2 § 119. 3 Ibid.

100 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
according to which the power of faultless virtue is wanting to
us by nature, and there can be no question of a superfluity
of good, by which we "might cover our sinful past (on the
contrary, our old guilt is increased by new faults of omission
or commission1), but even if a germ of virtue at least were
implanted in us by divine providence from without, or by
God's Spirit from within, the goal of atonement would not be
reached thereby, nor the requisite satisfaction to God effected.
For even if it be said that revelation awakens confidence and
hope to begin a new and better life, by giving the assurance
that divine forgiveness will be imparted to a pure moral life in
the future, still good conduct in the future is not on this account
an expiation for the past, to say nothing of the defectiveness
of the moral life, which, by the testimony of experience, never
ceases in this life, — a defectiveness which itself ever needs
forgiveness, instead of having power to expiate past guilt.
Were it said : Still a better beginning may be made in
principle, and although the new good principle has still to
. develope itself in time, yet God, who stands above time,
embraces in His view the consummation with the beginning,
and sees the empirical moral life covered by the former, — or to
speak with Kant : The idea of humanity well-pleasing to God,
with which man becomes one in the resolve upon a better
life, is to the divine view a substitute for the defective
actuality of man,2 — there is no doubt in this a presentiment
of the truth, that substitution, through a perfection above us,
is necessary in order that God may by anticipation behold us
as righteous, so far as we stand in real contact with such
perfection. But a better beginning in order to moral unity
is no security for future sanctification, since the better
principle does not progress after the fashion of a physical
necessity; so that, even then, both moral perfection and
forgiveness must remain immeasurably uncertain, whereas
peace of heart and renewed fellowship with God form the
condition for attaining a harmonious moral life, while again
having the reconciliation of God with man and His forgiveness
as their postulate. Further, the idea of humanity well-
pleasing to God, as a mere idea remote from actuality, would
exercise no essential influence on man's moral transformation.
1 § 119. ! Religion innerhalb der Gi-enzen, etc. See above, p. 44.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 101
But the chief point is and remains, that the cancelling of the
guilt of the past and present is of prime necessity, if we are
to attain rest of conscience and peace with God, i.e. to know
God reconciled with us. The effect of unatoned guilt is to
diminish the moral strength. It can only be better with man
when God's wonder-working power transforms forgiven sin
and guilt itself into an impulse to moral enthusiasm by this
very means, that liability to punishment is acknowledged as
true and real, while none the less a divinely-given true, real,
and effectual satisfaction is obtained through the Mediator,
whom the gospel announces as the purport of its glad tidings.
3. Again, the expiatory satisfaction, which we cannot make
of ourselves, or the atonement, cannot be accomplished by
the divinely-given Mediator as Prophet. First, not by mere
teaching. For, since the purport of this teaching could not be
a paternal goodness that is neither holy nor just, it must, in
any case, propose a pure moral ideal that addresses its elevating
demands to us, and would therefore result in accusation
rather than atonement. But were it said : " The God-pleasing,
and therefore expiating and satisfying nature of Christ's
mediatorship lies in His personal, typical manifestation, so
far as the contemplation of it originates a new life in us,"
this would presuppose that a stimulating of our moral
strength suffices for our reconciliation, whereas what is needed
is not merely and primarily amendment for the future, but,
as shown, the purifying of our present from the guilt of our
past. Nor, for the same reason, can the Kingly power of the
Mediator, which imparts strength in order to sanctification,
. by itself alone do what is requisite. The Priestly intervention
of the Mediator with the Father is necessary for us and our
guilt. Can we, then, say with some distinguished teachers,
that He is the medium of God's forgiving grace, by becoming
the principle of repentance to the world, inasmuch as in His
suffering innocently at the hands of the world, the sin of the
world has revealed itself in its horror-striking criminality?
But, in this case, the properly atoning element would be the
act of our repentance. As certainly as the latter ever remains
imperfect, so certainly also would atonement ever remain
defective, nay, mere possibility. Nor would the case be
essentially changed if Christ came into view as supplementing

102 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
our imperfect abhorrence of evil and defective repentance
(see above, p. 72). Even then the Mediator would be merely
the principle of sanctification, which still, as often remarked,
needs atonement as its presupposition. On these terms we
could never rejoice in atonement as accomplished and availing
for us.
Nor, for the same reason, can it suffice to find the atonement
in this, that through all sufferings and assaults the Mediator
stands approved before God in purity and fidelity, both re
presenting pure humanity before God, and becoming also the
efficient beginning of a new humanity, so that His existence
forms a security to God that He may forgive without danger
of thereby multiplying sin. For even this would lead back
to the position, that God forgives for the sake of the possibly
future sanctification, which yet remains insecure and uncertain
on account of moral freedom. Forgiveness, consequently,
must of necessity remain in uncertainty. The proved fidelity
of the Mediator in His calling can only come into considera
tion here, provided His calling is not merely His own personal
sanctification and fidelity, but provided that calling brings
Him into the closest, and only by this means mediatorial,
fellowship of doing and suffering with the race.
The Mediator must be able, by force of vicarious love, to
regard and treat our sin and guilt as affecting Him. Not
indeed in the sense that He knows and feels it as His
personal guilt, for this would either be contrary to truth, or,
instead of being Mediator, He would be one of those needing
redemption. Just as little, certainly, can He wish to stand to
our sin and guilt in the relation of Judge. But His satisfac
tion, in order to be expiatory, must have a definite reference
to our sin, guilt, and penal desert. The question is, wherein
this reference consists, in order that it may be able to make
expiation for us ?
In the first place, it must be conceded that the guilt cannot
be treated on the footing of civil law like a debitum which
Christ pays for the believer (either to Satan or God), not
because too much importance would thereby be attributed to
the work of Christ or to sin, but too little, and because too
mean an idea of both, as well as of God's justice, would in this
case be held.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 103
The theory of injuria also, and of a tribute of homage to
be paid to God, is insufficient, inasmuch as it proceeds on the
supposition that nothing is in question but a private matter,
a personal pacifying of God, to say nothing of the, universal
necessity of justice as an essential aspect of the ethical
generally.1 Moreover, just as little can compensation in accordance with
the jus talionis, which runs : " Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,"
be put in the place of the absolute theory of punishment so
called, which was established in the Doctrine of God.2 This
most rudimentary, nay, most barbarous form of administering
justice, was transcended even by Anselm in his supposition,
certainly in an unsatisfactory way, of a divine exchange by
way of satisfaction, this exchange raising Christ's voluntary
sufferings, which were not due from Him, to the dignity of a
good work that makes satisfaction to God. Instead of identity
between the punishment and the ruin incurred, the only
requisite is, that the imperial rights of the divine justice be
not infringed. The divine justice has no pleasure in the suf
fering of the creature as such, it is no thirst for revenge ; suffer
ing is no end in itself to God, but justice ; and nothing is sought
primarily by divine punishment but the good of the satisfaction
of justice. In the previous historico-critical investigation,
we have already alluded to the untenableness of this com
pensation-theory. On the one hand, in reference to Christ's
high-priesthood, it asserts too much of His suffering in seeking
to point out a distinct suffering of Christ by way of penal
compensation for eveiy kind of evil human acts. He did not
endure all possible, especially physical, sufferings which men
have inflicted on one another, and thus endure compensatory
punishment corresponding to the different sins of men.
Especially was it impossible for Him to endure the actual
torments of hell, for eternity is part of the punishment of hell,
and the misery of despair because of its unalterableness.
Further, eternal damnation is no part of the common punish-
1 The counterpart to this is the truth in the so-called Governmental theory,
which goes back to the moral government of the world. Only the moral govern
ment of the world must be conceived as the divine government, and be grounded
in God's essence, which as the primary ethical is also the universal ethical
principle, which must assert itself and guard its own honour.
* Vol. i. p. 300 f.

104 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
ment, because before the preaching of the gospel God
does not visit sins with damnation, while for the sin of
definitive unbelief Christ could not intend to intervene
with a view to atonement. Speaking generally, no individual
person would be 'able in a limited measure of time to ex
perience all possible outward sufferings by way of expiatory
compensation. But, on the other hand — and this is still more important —
this theory affirms too little of Christ's suffering. In placing
the physical sufferings as the chief matter in the centre of view,
whereas others have endured similar physical sufferings, it
pays too little regard to Christ's spiritual sufferings, which
alone were incomparably severe. Further, the application of
the jus talionis or of compensation would give encouragement
to a piecemeal way of considering sin, guilt, and punishment,
as well as the sufferings of Christ. Moreover, this mode of
consideration would involve the danger that forgiveness might
be asserted by man as a legal claim, after the penalty had
been paid for him in the way of compensation (see above,
p. 29), so that the atonement would conclude with the
objective fact of the payment of the debt, instead of proving
the fruitful commencement of a subjective process. But in
this way Christ's work of atonement would not set in motion
a moral and religious process, but introduce a mechanical,
lifeless, essentially negative settlement. Moreover, mere com
pensation would by no means give what is requisite to the
cancelling of guilt and punishment. A criminal who has paid
the penalty to the State, is not thereby restored to the full
integrity of his personal honour. Public confidence remains
still withheld. Even in respect of the Mediator, it is not
merely requisite that He submit to suffering, as if some
expiatory power lay in this material element. The special
requisite must refer to the righteous disposition in which He
bears the suffering. That suffering must be related to God's
just displeasure with its effects. It must be assumed with a
righteous disposition and an absolute, voluntary surrender to
suffering, which prefers even to sacrifice life rather than leave
the guilt of humanity on the one hand, and the divine justice
on the other, without expiation. The sacrifice of life has its
significance as a palpable proof of unreserved surrender both

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 105
to the humanity which has to be reconciled, and to God's
inviolable, sacred justice. This surrender has as its conse
quence the restoration of communion on God's part. On the
other hand, an external atonement for guilt by a correspon
dent, external, substitutionary penal suffering would not imply
a new and positive relation of God to mankind in communion
and life, or the converse. The measurement of the sufferings
pertaining to the Mediator by the quantum of debts and
merited penalties, and therefore the application of the cate
gory of quantum to establish the idea of satisfaction or ex
piation, is for these reasons unsatisfactory. An arithmetical
calculation and counter- calculation are inadequate to the
matter here treated of (see above, p. 29). Instead of the
external, extensive mode of consideration, the internal inten
sive mode must be applied, both in reference to guilt and
punishment, and to Christ's merit. Christ's merit is not
measurable by weight and number, because it is of infinite
worth, and a potency intensively infinite by reason of the
high dignity of the divine -human Person — the Head of
humanity, and by reason of the depth of His spontaneous
descent into our condition, and the purity of His life and pas
sion. Conversely, the common sin and guilt have their gravity
in this, that they are directed against an infinite good, although
not with the energy of a will absolutely opposed to law, and
therefore not with absolute depravity; for otherwise even the
capacity of redemption would ' be gone. Just so we have a
right, nay, are under an inner necessity, to advance in refer
ence to punishment also from the external quantitative to the
intensive mode of consideration. We have seen that the pith
and centre of the divine punishment, as well as the source of all
further penal evils, is the divine displeasure hanging over the
sinner as such. Were that displeasure the last word, it would
beget in the man conscious of it a misery with which no
external suffering, measurable by quantity, would bear com
parison ; for the true feeling of this displeasure is the feeling
of impending perdition, of exclusion from the source of sal
vation and life, the feeling of abandonment by God. When
really awakened, it is the real and terrible feeling of death,
with which nothing else can be compared.
Of what nature, then, must the satisfaction or expiation be,

106 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
in order to effect a reconciliation down to the depths of the
conscience, and restore living, unfettered, paternal communion ?
The Mediator will not merely know the sin of the world in
its culpability, and with an incorruptible sense of truth con
demn it as a dishonouring of God, but in virtue of substitu
tionary love will feel with intensest pain the guilt of the
world as affecting Him. In loving sympathy for us He will
feel and bear the penal desert of sin, in a word, feel and bear
its curse that lies upon us, and the justice of the divine displeasure
with us. To this displeasure, He will give the honour due to
it in everything which it does and will do, in order by what
he does and suffers to vindicate its eternal truth and sacred
majesty. Wherever the divine displeasure is not merely known, but
its earnestness and justice are also sincerely acknowledged,
accompanied with a sense of misery and the feeling that this
displeasure is the just source of all other possible evils ; wher
ever, finally, unconditional and willing submission to the divine
judgment is found, there God's just displeasure is propitiated,
there God may forgive and again impart His favour to man ;
for therewith the inviolable holiness of the divine justice is
again established in its rights among men, and the unreserved
submission to its judgment in thought, feeling, and will is an
expiatory satisfaction to it. But all this is impossible to
humanity before Christ. Even supposing it to have at least
an imperfect knowledge of the divine displeasure, it is still
without the power to submit to this judgment with the full
sense of culpability. Instead of doing this, it flees from an
angry God as from a gloomy, hostile, unjust power, either by
diminishing its guilt by thoughts of self-righteousness, or by
despondency and despair when the accusation of conscience
waxes loud, and therefore by disbelieving the divine love,
which in its character of holiness requires unreserved self-
surrender and submission to justice.
But what is impossible to man is achieved by the divine-
human Mediator, because He sympathizingly takes our place,
and by His person and work represents to God the expiatory
power of humanity.
Observation.— Having considered, on the one hand, the idea
of substitution and its sphere in general, and investigated

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 107
next what is requisite for an expiation in order to divine
justice being pacified and satisfaction made in respect of the
sin and guilt of humanity, we come now to the

THIRD ARTICLE : THE SUBSTITUTIONARY SATISFACTION OF
JESUS CHRIST.
1. Subjective Aspect.
§ 122a.
Christ makes God's eternal purpose of atonement (§ 119) His
own in suffering obedience, in order to give effect to that
purpose in the world, and therewith to the divine inter-
blending of Justice and Love. The means by which
Christ carries out this His subjective purpose of atone
ment is, that His divine love or substitutionary dispo
sition transfers itself into the place of humanity, in order
with absolute surrender and acquiescence in suffering to
bear in His own sense of suffering the divine displeasure
against the sin and guilt of humanity, in order to manifest
His saving love even in face of God's punitive justice.
. 1. We stand here before the sacred shrine of humanity —
the Atonement. Hence it behoves us in a quite special sense
to bear in mind, that here are depths which no thoughts and
words of man can exhaust, depths of holy sorrow in the
Redeemer, and also treasures of divine blessing and peace,
which, springing from the cross, continually move and animate
the heart of Christendom. Every epoch of the Church has
had glimpses of or beheld rays or aspects of these depths and
this wealth ; and glowing discourse and hymnology, as well as
contemplation and theology, have from the Church's beginning,
with the understanding of the heart, lost themselves in the rela
tions which here crowd and intertwine together. But our age
has above others the gift for apprehending the natural connec
tion of what otherwise lies dispersed or apparently in hostile
relations, and for uniting in one image those elements of truth

108 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
which have so far developed themselves. Having considered
God's eternal purpose of atonement, and next the idea of Sub
stitution and of the requisite Satisfaction in general, the possi
bility of substitutionary forces and their need, principally in
reference to the divine displeasure against the common sin and
guilt of the race, the effect of which is common punishment,
we proceed now to Christ's historical work of Atonement.
Here, above all, the uniqueness of His personality comes into
consideration, in which the possibility is given of that per
sonality sacrificing itself for the race in the unique way which
the race needs.
Everywhere, it is true, the innermost heart of love must
be defined to be the substitutionary disposition and the desire
to transfer itself by sympathy and communicativeness into
the place of another, to identify another as an end with
itself, in order to make itself a means for his sake. In
accordance with this we see substitutionary forces in different
spheres, in the case of parents, teachers, husbands and wives,
kinsmen, fellow-countrymen. But Christ's substitutionary
disposition must be determined by the uniqueness of His
person, thus distinguishing itself from all others. True, the
equality with us, without which that disposition would be im
possible, exists completely in Him. He is true man, belong
ing integrally to our genus. But, in addition, by the indwelling
of the Logos or God as the Son, He has absolutely universal
significance.1 In Him dwells the perfect knowledge,2 which
comprehends both the depths of the divine holiness and
justice, and also the common sin and guilt of humanity, and
its just penal subjection to the divine displeasure. This
universal knowledge in Him is based on His perfect holiness
and absolute unity with God, which stood its ground in the
fiercest attacks of the powers of darkness in His conflict of
soul in Gethsemane and in the dark hours on Golgotha.
But His undisturbed unity with God was also the source of
His love for humanity. This love, as universal as that
1 Cf. Rothe's Nachgelassene Pred. vol. ii. p. 137. Jahrb. f. deut. Theol.
1858, p. 754, 770 f. Marheinecke, Dogm. p. 369 ff. Martensen, p. 285 ff.
2 Martensen says aptly, p. 277 : Although Christ's knowledge is not all-
knowledge, it is nevertheless perfect knowledge. This antithesis between the
unlimited and limited in His knowledge is only solved by the idea of central
knowledge.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 109
knowledge, with absolute purity and strength embraces entire
humanity and every burden lying on it. He is to humanity
like a central conscience, the heart, so to speak, in its organism,
the sensorium commune for all its suffering, especially for
its spiritual wretchedness. Although an individual, He still
suffered and lived what He was, suffered and lived as an
individual in the spirit of the Whole and for the Whole.
Through His calling, which was not arbitrarily assumed, but
involved in the uniqueness of His Person, He has not merely
a relation to a particular circle of life, but within humanity
is that member who has a primary relation to all, as all
have to Him. But this relation points, above all, to the
centre of all true, human life — divine communion. Thus
His sympathy, which is not merely natural, but moral, was
able to penetrate to the inmost depths of human need and
suffering, embracing all persons and their needs. Let us see,
then, how this substitutionary position of Christ is carried
out in reality.
Observation. — The old controversy, whether the active or
merely the passive obedience of Christ is to be included in
His high-priestly office, is not settled by our saying, with
J. Gerhard : omnis Actio Christi fuit passiva et omnis Passio
fuit activa. In reference to the atonement of sin and guilt, —
sins of commission and omission, — Christ's suffering comes
first into consideration as a special act indispensable to
expiation, although, in order to making satisfaction, it must
be grounded in the strength of the positive, holy disposition
that enters into God's will.1
2. Love seeks not its own ; the stronger it is, the greater
its impulse to make another's case, especially another's
burden, its own. To a mother's love the child's suffering is
more painful than its own would be ; she would gladly bear
the pain for her child. Now in Christ such love lived in
unique fashion, stronger than death. In contrast with Him,
all humanity stood laden with guilt. He consciously dis
tinguishes Himself from the world of sinners, but not in
1 Similarly Frank, System d. chr. Wahrh. ii. § 35. The same lies at the
basis of Anselm's theory. But it is very well consistent therewith, that
Christ's active obedience also, apart from Christ's suffering, is of the highest
importance, chiefly as security for the sanctification of believers.

110 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
order to exalt Himself in the act of judgment and condemna
tion above it, but in order in love to identify Himself with
it in its need of Him. His love shrinks not from the
seemingly impossible ; He Himself desires, at the cost of
participating in the unhappiness of the race, to sacrifice Him
self for it, and, infinitely more than this, Himself to feel the
divine displeasure and the unhappiness answering to it.
Christ bears this feeling of unhappiness, not in order to
spare mankind the sense of God's just displeasure in general,
but in order to deprive the penitent sorrow, which cannot
and ought not to be spared, of the character of hopelessness
and despair as well as of imaginary meritOriousness, and to
impart to it an evangelical instead of a legal character,
because, instead of shrinking from God, that sorrow has to
take its stand on the ground of atonement already accom
plished. Many expositors have taken offence at the question,
how Paul could wish 1 to be an avdOejia for his brethren after
the flesh ; and yet this is a mere spark of the spirit of that
substitutionary love which springs from the altar of the
cross, from the fire of love which kindled holy flames in
the martyrs.2
But the following objection is made to the Evangelical
doctrine: It is not satisfied with Christ's substitutionary
disposition, His sympathy with us, but places Him in relation
to the divine penal justice (opytf). But this, it is alleged,
is something abrupt, and implies a super-historical, purely
mysterious transaction, — a compact between Christ and
the Father, which is neither mediated historically nor con
firmed exegetically. The pragmatic, historical mediation of
Christ's passion and death, and its necessity, is clearly
apparent, but it has no direct relation to God's punitive
justice and atonement. The ecclesiastical doctrine would
imply an artificial enigma or mystery in arraigning Christ
before the throne of the Father in order to let Him — the
Son of His love — be judged and punished by the Father,
whereas the Gospels tell us indeed of Christ's suffering
through sinners, but not of a God-reconciling suffering for
sinners. To all this it must be answered: Certainly, as
already seen, the Son could not be the personal object of the
1 Rom. ix. 1 ff. * Col. i. 24. Cf. Luke xii. 49 ; Gal. iii. 13.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 1 ] 1
Father's wrath or displeasure. He was and remained well-
pleasing to God even in His act of substitution, nay, on
account of it. Moreover, in His unselfish surrender, no givin«
up of His moral personality is to be seen, no confounding of
His person with that of men, for even His feeling could
contain nothing untrue. The substitution for us can be no
commutatio personarum. He does not Himself become the
sinful personality. But as concerns the Scripture statements,
it is undeniable that Christ attributed to His passion and
death a divine necessity, a connection with the forgiveness
of sin.1 In the next place, it is certainly necessary to place
the pragmatic or historical necessity of His passion and
death in more intimate connection than is commonly done
with its divine necessity in order to atonement,2 to exhibit
the transition from His outer and inner sufferings through
men to His sufferings for them, and, finally, to recognise how
the holy relation to humanity coincides in His heart with
His living relation to the holy, just, and loving God, and how
His relation to God is more closely defined by His sympathy
with men. But it is also possible to show all this approxi
mately. In any case, this task is incumbent on Theology.
Let us then attempt to reconcile these claims, and that in
such a way as to exclude everything magical and abrupt.
3. Christ's atoning passion is not something arbitrary and
abrupt, which came upon Him by surprise, and placed Him, in
opposition to the Father and His judgment, altogether outside
and apart from the action of historical causes. He came into
these sufferings on the one hand by historical necessity, on the
other by divine necessity, combining both in His historical,
divinely-given calling. His passion was an official act, to
which He gave a relation to divine justice not arbitrarily, but
of necessity, by recognising in that which befell Him a
connection with God's punitive justice or displeasure with
humanity, while presenting an expiation to God by the manner
in which He bore His sufferings.
Even by the Incarnation Jesus entered in a general sense
into the fellowship of physical and social evils, which inflicted
1 John iii. 14 ff., vi. 51, xvii. 19 ; Mark x. 45 ; Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28 ; Luke
xii. 50, cf. xxii. 20.
2 Kreibig's discussions on this point are good (pp. 207-248).

112 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
sufferings on Him which He willingly endured. He became
poor for our sakes, and took a servant's form, whilst He
might have possessed glory.1 He did not so regard these
sufferings of humanity, in which He took part, as if they
included the real evil from which humanity needed first to
be delivered. His gaze is directed above all to the sin and
guilt, which are the greatest of evils. He sees in the entire
sum of the world's suffering its connection with the sin
which by divine appointment brings in its train evils and
punishment upon sinners. Whoever commits sin is the
servant of sin. Thus He sees in these evils a revelation
already of the divine justice, effects of the divine displeasure ;
and, entering without guilt into the fellowship of sinners,
with willing and loving mind He allows this common punish
ment to trouble and smite Him. Out of the heavy sufferings
and afflictions besetting Him, the outer and inner degeneracy
of the people without a shepherd, out of the power of death
among mankind, the consciousness grew upon Him that
humanity is in a state of bondage, that harmful powers
hold sway over it,2 in a word, that it is in a state of
punishment from which it needs to be redeemed. But
although His sympathy with humanity and His suffering
through fellowship with sinners ran through His whole life,
still His atoning passion was not spread uniformly over His
whole life. Rather, through the pragmatic, historical de
velopment of His life it came to pass, that at the close of
His life He came into such relation with the sin of the
world as became to Him the point of transition to. a high-
priestly suffering in the stricter sense, a suffering for the sin
of the world. That participation in the common evil or
dained by God to sin was for Him the condition of entrance
into our fellowship. His love and patience are therein
revealed. But it was a new thing, that at the close of His
life the sin of the Gentile and Jewish world conspired
against Him, consigning Him to a transgressor's shameful
death, a new thing that by His manifestation sin was com
pelled to disclose its innermost nature — falsehood and hate,
murderous spite against the Just One, whilst He repaid this
hate with the power of propitiatory love. By His word and
1 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Heb. xii. 2. * John xi. 33-38, xiv. 30.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 113
His holy, pure manifestation He bore witness to the sin of
the world, He discovered to it the falsehood in which it seeks
to hide itself, in order as the Physician to heal its sickness.
But the world sought to get rid of the Physician in order to
assert itself. Because He was pure amid the impure, and
had no part in sin, therefore the world grew more and more
averse and hostile to Him, and treated His existence as a
personal accusation, against which it fortified itself by
arrogance leagued with falsehood. For no one could long
remain indifferent in presence of such a manifestation.
Whoever refused to be for Him, must of necessity be against
Him. The necessary consequence of His manifestation was
to initiate a crisis for those with whom He came into con
tact. The catastrophe which the crisis must also bring upon
Him He early foresaw, and prepared His disciples for the
persecution and hatred of the world,1 neither promising them
easy victory nor glory. In the same way, too, the thought of
the divine judgments hanging over the nation, especially in
the last days, filled His consciousness.2 In the blindness
with which His foes turned against the health-bringing
Physician He sees a consequence of their sin, which shut
itself up in self-contentment and pride against Him. He
foresees that, if the nation refuses to awake and be warned,
a terrible judgment awaits Jerusalem, and weeps over the
city, for which He is distressed even on the way to Golgotha.
Nor could He be other than conscious of the condemnation
it incurred by the fact that, instead of letting itself be saved,
it raised its presumptuous hand against its Redeemer. The
sin that rejected Him must continue ever to bring forth
new sins till the fatal point is reached.3 But He had first of
all to pass through the catastrophe, which was to befall Him,
in His inner consciousness. For this end He won by hard
struggles the high-priestly attitude of soul in the spiritual
conflict in Gethsemane.4 He must also learn in actual ex
perience how humanity strove to fling Him away from it,
and on its part in sinful blindness to sever every bond of
fellowship with Him. For, however conflicting and divided
the world of sinners otherwise is, here Herod and Pilate —
1 Matt. v. 10-12, x. 16. 2 Matt, xxiii. -xxv. ; Luke xxiii. 31.
3 Matt, xxiii. 35. • Matt. xxvi. 36 ff.
Dorner. — Christ. Doct. iv. H

114 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
the Gentile and Jewish worlds — united to persecute. Him
who stood in contrast with them — alone and forsaken in His
holiness. The sin of the Gentile and Jewish worlds — and
therefore the sin of the world — here revealed itself in its
fundamental forms, confronting Him in typical shape. How
does He behave in its presence ? All the sufferings in
flicted on Him personally — physical and spiritual — stir in
Him no thought of retaliation,1 no movement of desire for
God's power and judgment to interfere and revenge Him
by punishing the evil-doers. On the contrary, although what
He suffers at the hands of men brings home to Him the
depth and extent of the sin and guilt of the world, which
He views in connection with the Prince of the world, He is
far from yielding to bitterness, or wishing to assume the
attitude of Judge towards sinners. He regards them as
exposed to the divine condemnation, and even their rebellious
hatred against Him who is conscious of being their king, is
to Him, in virtue of the purity of His love, a challenge to
His sympathy, a motive to redouble the ties of fellowship
on His part and to constitute Himself their intercessor.2
" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do ! "
In such deep compassion and sympathy He feels their sin
and guilt more than His own suffering. Nay, sorrow for
them, this sympathy not merely with their wretchedness, but
their guilt and penal desert, is through His self-forgetting
devotion His deepest suffering, the heart of that suffering.
He knows their wretchedness better than they. He knows
what they know not in their conduct, that they stand under
God's displeasure and condemnation3 for hating and reproach
ing Him. He enters into this condemnation of theirs in feeling,
sorrowfully acknowledging it to be just in His deepest soul,
and so far therefore subjecting Himself to the divine con
demnation, which He recognises.4 Whilst His body and soul
1 1 Pet. ii. 23 ; Heb. xii. 3. 2 Luke xxiii. 28, 34. a Luke xxii. 53.
* When we speak, with the Epistle to the Hebrews, of His sympathy (<rup.*£-
hix), the meaning cannot be, that He merely felt the same sorrow which men
felt. On the contrary, the world had no presentiment of His sorrow, which
was a sorrow for the sin and guiit of the world and God's just displeasure, so
that in this respect He does not properly ^suffer with men, but only suflers in
order of course to awaken in them a corresponding sorrow, Luke xxiii. 38. But
still in His at first solitary suffering He is the sympathizing High Priest.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 115
suffer at the hands of sinners, His love to them remains
stedfast, and by the very medium of the sufferings which
they inflict on Him, transfers itself into their unhappy con
dition, over which God's displeasure hangs, and into the
sense of the same, in order by suffering and intercession to
avert the ruin of that condition. And thus His sufferin°-s,
which are at the same time an inner act of love, brought
Him of course into relation to the divine Justice.
4. Let us by way of epitome consider this point somewhat
more closely. Christ is the first and only man who comprehended
the sin and guilt of humanity in its intensive, infinite signifi
cance ; for as the Head of humanity He is its consciousness.
He knows Himself to be sinless, but also to be entrusted with
the mission to become the Redeemer of the world. Ail this
He comprehends, not merely in thought and judgment, but
also with His heart. It cannot but seem to Him impious
and impossible to wish to restore God's loving relationship to
men, and a happy life to them, by ignoring and overleaping
the divine Justice (§ 119). For this reason the task is im
posed on His substitutionary disposition of confronting even
the divine Justice. And thus He is only content with desiring
to do honour to the divine Justice not merely in thought, but
also by the surrender of His entire Person, His will and
feeling, His body and life. Knowing not merely the reality
of the divine displeasure, but also its justice and necessity as
well as the significance of guilt, and penal desert, and expe
riencing the sense of that displeasure along with men, He
desires to render satisfaction to the divine Justice, and only to
effect redemption by representing humanity in this respect
also before God. This has become the expiation which
avails in God's sight, the Xvrpov dvrl iroXkSbv. For this
reason He was not content with participating in the common
penal condition, death included, but in His sympathy was
above all moved by the guilt and punishment of humanity,
not merely by that which humanity felt, but entering also
into the sense of penal desert, which it had not but ought to
have, into the sense of the divine displeasure or God-for
sakenness itself.1 He desires to bear what humanity neither
does nor can bear. He desires, in acknowledging the divine.
1 Matt, xxvii. 46. Cf. John xvii. 19 ; Mark x. 45 ¦, Matt. xx. 22.

116 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. (
penal justice, to draw the sufferings upon Himself, to turn
them away from the humanity which His love will not
abandon, preferring by participation to share the sense of the
divine displeasure as just, forgetting Himself and sacrificing
everything but love. He is therefore a High Priest in a-v/i-
¦n-dOeia, making what is His ours, and what is ours His, and
bearing that heaviest suffering, in which all other evil finds
its centre and climax — -the sense of the divine displeasure
(op^r,) with a guilt-laden world. He encircles the world with
His energy of love, so that He is willing to answer for it, to
save and cover it by His substitutionary act. In this willing
surrender He even pours forth His blood, and losing Himself
in a sense of our culpability and of God's just displeasure
which breaks His heart,1 He commits His spirit into His
Father's hands. 2. Objective Aspect.
§ 122k
Christ's purpose of Atonement, which was an acceptance of
the Father's purpose, and the course of action in keeping
with His substitutionary disposition, which took the form
of suffering obedience, have also objective significance,
and therefore objective force and effect. Contemplating
humanity in Christ as making satisfaction to the divine
Justice, God sees in Him, who suffered for us, and in
love to the divine Justice offered Himself a sacrifice to
God, that perfect security for the world, for the sake of
which not merely free forgiveness and immunity from
punishment, but also life and blessedness, may now be
proclaimed and offered to it.
1. After § 122a the question still remains open, whether
that which Christ desired to accomplish by what He did and
suffered for bur good from a love that never forgets the claims
of justice remained His subjective wish only, or whether God
also regarded it as Christ would have it regarded, namely, as
1 John xix. 34. Cf. Hanna, The Last Days of our Lord.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 117
done for the benefit of humanity, as an expiation or avriXorpov
for it in order to the forgiveness of sins. We saw that the
purpose of substitution, which does not shrink even from
entering into the misery and unhappiness of the loved object,
is necessary to His free love, and is the law of its life. Now,
if it were possible for God's justice to characterize such action
on the part of love as worthless, as an essentially futile and
impossible aspiration, then love, which yet cannot but do this,
would be severed from justice at its highest point. But no
justice can exist which could forbid love doing that which it.
must do, and without which, therefore, Christ's love in parti
cular would not be perfect. Justice is the guard of love, not
an interdict upon it. On the contrary, if justice exists for
the purpose of shielding good of essential value, and therefore
love, it wills love after its manner. This implies an objective
value in Christ's work of love even for God. Nor can we
so much as conceive that the love of the God-man, which
devoted itself to death for our sakes, could have besought any
thing in vain. Further, to the divine judgment two things
objectively exist — the receptiveness of humanity for substitu
tionary forces, so long as it is still capable of redemption and
an object of intercession, and the concentration of objective,
substitutionary forces in Christ. For Christ belongs objec
tively, and in the true divine view actually, to humanity,
namely, as its Head and Representative, and as the only one
able to save it. If, therefore, it -was no caprice on Christ's
part, but divine necessity, — the ivroXr) of love, — to desire to
answer for His brethren, and, after incorporating Himself
with humanity as its true Son, to make it, so to speak, a debt
of love to humanity to cancel its debt, how could the Father
refuse to acknowledge what He gave to Christ as an evroXij,
after Christ had fulfilled it ? Or, what could be lacking to
the perfect satisfaction of justice, after Christ had done it
honour in every respect, undertaken everything which it is
bound to require, and embodied all its demands in His own
willing act and suffering ?
2. So far as Christ is truly man (nay, in Him appeared the
inmost essence of the idea of the race), the race made in
Him satisfaction to justice for its guilt. Now, from the time
that He who did and suffered this really belonged to

118 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
humanity, it is no longer a race that does not make satis
faction to God; but as certainly as He can no longer be
thought without His humanity, so certainly also humanity
cannot be thought truly, if it is thought without Him, and
thus it makes satisfaction in Him. Thus, from its own midst
it presents to God and His justice the expiating, satisfying
Man — its Head. And God thus receives from the race in
Christ's entire obedience a good precious even to Him, which
had no existence before, which could not be produced by God
alone, which indeed He made possible by sending His Son,
but which could only be realized by Christ in earnest, painful
toil. Hence, God Himself can no longer view humanity, to
which Christ with His merit and historical power over it
belongs, without Him ; and since God views it as it has been
since Christ, He views it as one carrying in itself, along with
guilt and sin, the power of the expiation which avails before
God, nay, even the power of holiness.
3. But, of course, the process of atonement cannot conclude
in pure objectivity, in the way in which the payment of a debt
may really avail for another without his taking part in it or
knowing of it. God, it is true, on His part, is in Christ reconciled
with humanity even before its faith, not through faith ; access
to God is free, God can now offer Himself to us as a father to
his children. But He offers Himself thus, in order that we may
believe, on our part affirm Christ's fellowship with us, there
fore seek fellowship with Him, and in this fellowship not
merely have the consciousness of forgiveness, but also find in
Him the powers of sanctification. But wherever this atoning,
prevenient grace is despised or turned to wantonness, there
long-suffering is at an end, and the flame of judgment bursts
forth against irremediable wickedness. This very atoning, i.e.
absolutely revealed love, must also be absolutely condemning
love to those who scorn it.1 But, first of all, the effect of
what has been objectively done and . procured by Christ is,
that God now regards humanity as atoned for in Christ, that
in His heart He has forgiven it for Christ's sake — not merely
if or because it believes, but objectively in Himself in free
prevenient love because of the connection of Christ with it, and
therefore can offer forgiveness to it without injury to His
1 Heb. vi. 10 ; John v. 27, iii. 36.

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 119
justice. Humanity therefore possesses in Christ the efficient
power of atonement as a sacred gift, which has made for
giveness through grace not merely a possibility, but a fact for
God, although the subjective process in us is not thereby
dispensed with. Humanity is now no longer unreconciled
either by expiation or punishment, no longer a mere object of
patient long-suffering ; but in Christ it may and ought to know
itself judged, but in such a way that judgment is swallowed
up in victory. And, withal, He who thus makes Himself a
sacrifice to the divine justice for our good, has become the
personal righteousness of our race, the efficient, creative
principle of a new humanity, which by faith receives the
objective atonement for its justification, and will stand before
God in righteousness of life. By fulfilling righteousness and
the law, Christ overcomes the sole supremacy of the legal
stage, conducting it on to the revelation of love. But here
the consideration directly suggests itself, that the holy dis
charge of His office was identical with Christ's personal
exaltation. We saw that His theanthropic love did not
assume the work of judging the world, but in its willingness
to bear the full weight of God's justice on behalf of humanity
drew the judgment, so to speak, down upon itself. But this
fact has also a Christological significance for the consumma
tion of His theanthropic Person. Before proceeding, however,
to this subject, let us consider how the various theories of
atonement, which have come under our notice, are related to
what has been advanced.
4. Retrospect. — According to § 114, 3 (p. 7), it is our
duty to show that what is true in the theories of atonement
that have appeared hitherto, finds room or is preserved in the
exposition given. The purport of the theories of a pre
dominantly physical character is deliverance by Christ from
the power of death and Satan. True, death is overcome by
Christ only as the last enemy, and despite the atonement
through Him even believers are not exempted from the
necessity, of dying. Nevertheless, through Christ's atonement
the power of death is broken inwardly, or as a power over the
spirit. The fear of death is abolished for believers, death is
transformed into an object of hope ; for, through the restored
communion with God real triumph even over mortality is

120 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
made the object of certain hope, whereas the sufferings still
remaining have lost their penal character for the consciousness
of the Christian, and only continue, even as disciplinary and in
so far salutary evils, so long as their good end is not yet
accomplished. Just so through Christ's atonement the power
of Satan — the Prince of this world — is broken, and his im
potence in contrast with the Holy One, on whom he exhausted
himself, demonstrated. Christians are bought for Christ and
His kingdom, and saved from the power of darkness. Before
Christ's advent its assaults had their strongest support in an
evil, guilt-burdened conscience, which suggested the tempta
tion to flee from God as a dark, hostile being, and to sur
render oneself to the perverseness of frivolity or despair.
But through Christ's atonement the accusation of conscience
is so hushed, that, while its justice is acknowledged and its
severity even increased, it becomes a means to lead in the
way of salvation and reconciliation.
The theories, founded on the category of adaptation
(convenientia), are to be acknowledged in a formal respect,
not merely as relates to their fundamental thought, but
still more inasmuch as design implies that knowledge of
the necessity of the historically realized means of atonement,
which was the problem before us. And if regard is had to
the contents of what is given us in Christ's work of atonement,
that work implies essential gain also in relation to true
knowledge or consciousness. Not, of course, as if knowledge by
itself were atonement, whether knowledge of man's true, noble
nature, elevation to an ideal apprehension of humanity, of its
essential unity with God, in which atonement is already given
eternally, — or knowledge of a supposed, eternal reconciliation
of God with sin and guilt, or of a non-existence of sin for
God, or of a substitution of the ideal man who is born of
better resolve and is well-pleasing to God for our sinful con
dition ; for this ideal essence of human nature is mere possi
bility, and our empirical character contradicts the reality which
it desires. But when, as the faith of Christendom affirms,
the humanity well-pleasing to God — the Son of God — really
exists, He can of course be a substitute for us according to
the divine view ; and our knowledge, that on account of His
connection with us we belong to a humanity well-pleasing to

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 121
God and reconciled with Him, of course imparts to our con
sciousness a sense of reconciliation.
The theory also, which regards Christ as a symbol set up
by God, on the one hand of His hatred against evil in order to
awaken the consciousness of our sin and God's holiness, on
the other hand as a symbol of His sparing love, rightly re
minds us that God is to be conceived in the matter of atone
ment not merely as Father, but also as Ruler of the world,
and contains all the more truth as this theory seeks a point
of connection in history. To it Christ is a historic pledge
and security for God's forgiving love, without His severity
against evil being meant to be infringed thereby. He is the
revealer of the peace of God with humanity, the personal
promulgation of forgiveness by means of His teaching, which
is sealed by death. But hereto must now be added : The reason
why Christ is the most potent and true symbol of atonement
is, that He is more than a mere symbol instructing about
eternal truths or intimating them, because in Him the atone
ment has become present reality. Were His life and suffering
not operative, but mere symbol, they could then scarcely
signify what this theory supposes. Christ's suffering and
death would not be an apt, but a most obscure symbol of the
forgiveness of sins. How far is such suffering, supposed to
be a divinely-ordained symbol, from suggesting a manifesta
tion of divine love, unless such divinely-inflicted suffering
mediates and effects forgiveness, instead of merely signifying
or promidgating it ! Moreover, the teaching of Christ Him
self, which is sealed by His death, is by no means silent on
the subject of God's punitive justice, and knows nothing of
the doctrine, that evil is only punishable in the sight of the
just God on account of its hurtfulness to human welfare, not
on account of its absolute culpability. Seeing, then, that
the mere symbolic or didactic import of Christ's' suffering
and death is without basis, if Christ's person and work
are not, on the contrary, operative or procuring means,
the view must commend itself, in comparison with the
former one, according to which Christ is not a mere prophet,
teacher, or example, but has and exercises the power of com
municating energetic consciousness of God or sanctification
and conquest over sin, for therewith He is the security for our

122 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
perfection, which is acceptable to God, the security not merely
to us, but also objectively to God.
This is further supported by the following line of considera
tion. Christ maintained holiness and righteousness under the
severest assaults ; He permitted the power of sin to burst upon
Him, and forced it to disclose its inmost mind — hate and false
hood. As the righteous Son of man, He exhibited the unchange-
ableness of pure love with love-begetting energy, and His fruitful,
productive archetype lives on in the Church through the Holy
Spirit. Through the startling revelation of the inmost essence
of sin in Him, He has become the principle of repentance to
the world. And since the power dwells in Him of drawing
into the fellowship of His blessedness and holiness, God Him
self, is able to let Him stand as security for us. Nay, the
remark is obvious, that on account of Christ's connection with
us, God may even accept the beginning of the new life in us
for its consummation, in order for its sake to vouchsafe for
giveness and justification to the believer. Without doubt this
moral theory affirms much that is weighty and great ; but
what is true in it again becomes insecure when the procuring
of forgiveness and atonement by Christ are left out of sight,
independently of our personal holiness and faith in Christ.
If God's reconciliation with us and our forgiveness are only
procured by our faith as the principle of sanctification, only a
precarious position is left to Christ's atoning action. For true
faith is impossible without sincere repentance, and sincere
repentance without acknowledgment of guilt and actual penal
desert, and therefore of the reality and justice of the divine
displeasure, nay, impossible without the wish for a satisfaction
to the divine justice. But such repentance is impossible
without the preaching of the atonement accomplished by Christ.
Nothing but that atonement can evoke the act of trustful
faith in Christ, which then no doubt becomes the principle of
sanctification in us. The atonement — already accomplished,
procured antioipando by Christ's prevenient love, not first to
be procured by our initial sanctification — must be the object
on which faith is trustfully to lay hold, else our assurance of
salvation ever rests in the last resort on the weak foundation
of our faith, which procures forgiveness by initial sanctifica
tion. Accordingly there must be a pre-existence, so to speak,

DOGMATIC INVESTIGATION. 123
in God and Christ of our atonement, procured by Christ
before our faith, in order that faith on its part may be able to
enter into saving, sanctifying fellowship with Christ. Faith
must be able to base itself on Christ's anticipatory com
munion of love with us, and therefore on Christ extra nos,
who, however, is also for us ; and then faith itself is the
response to and affirmation of this communion provided by
Christ. But Christ could not take His stand as security for
humanity to God, unless as High Priest He entered into the
sense of guilt, which we ought to have, into the sense of
punishment involved in God's just displeasure. To think
away this crowning-point of Christ's suffering, this sharpest
sting, consisting in the painful consciousness or endurance
and affirmation of God's displeasure acknowledged as just,
would be to take away from Christ's suffering love that which
subdues the heart and answers to the need of the conscience ;
and therewith the purity and overwhelming force of the
principle of repentance and sanctification would suffer damage.
This leads to the last and highest point.
The validity of the aspects hitherto considered must depend
upon the right interweaving of the idea of justice into the
doctrine of atonement. Certainly, after what has been
advanced, the private-right theory is insufficient, which starts
from the analogy of the payment of a money debt or a satis
faction for the injury to God's personal honour. Just as
little satisfactory is the theory of retribution according to the
jus talionis, or, to speak generally, the quantitative equivalence
of Christ's physical sufferings to the penalties deserved by
humanity. His physical sufferings are rather to be viewed
in as close association as possible with His spiritual sufferings,
and could only have their most painful significance in their
connection with sin. Nor, again, must we stop at the view,
that from His birth Jesus submitted to participation in human
sorrow, in physical and social evils, therewith subjecting Him
self to God's penal decree upon humanity, which connects
suffering with sin, and therefore to the common punishment,
death included, to which all members of the race are subject ;
for this He was obliged to assume as the pre-condition of His
official action. Finally, His perfectly satisfying God's legislative
justice, which requires a pure and godly life, as the righteous

124 THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
personality who offered Himself to God a well-pleasing sacri
fice (oaurf ewaSta?),1 by presenting pure humanity before God,2
merely concerns Him personally. But this very righteousness
of His cannot do other than acknowledge the penal character
of sin and the rights of the divine justice, while His love with
its universal power, to which the race is receptive, must in
virtue of His office resolve to bring help to the race by
entering into its misery and bearing its burden in high-
priestly sympathy. Thus arises the official presentation and
realization of justice for the race, of course only on the basis of
His perfect ethical personality or righteousness ; and by this
means He not merely desires to satisfy, but does objectively
satisfy the divine justice, exhibiting in the world the same
zeal for justice that lives in God. Whilst His theanthropic
person enters into the painful sense of the divine opyij, in
order to deliver us from it, thereby glorifying the divine justice,
at the same time by His holy sacrifice of body and soul, which
He vicariously presents to God for us, the sacred rights of justice
find their realization upon earth. Christ's spontaneous act of
suffering obedience is absolutely well-pleasing to God as an act
of unconditional homage to the majesty and rights of divine
justice springing from His unselfish love, an act . of homage
by which spontaneous loving communion between God and
the world is again established free from all restraint. For
the result of God's good pleasure in this sacrifice is, that in
His heart God can and does forgive humanity, so far as
Christ represents it, no longer imputing former guilt, and
therefore deprives all suffering of the character of punishment,
nay, not content with our immunity from punishment, again
manifests His favour and grace to humanity. Justice and
love, the revelation of which in the world was sundered by
sin, are again brought by Christ into realization in the unity
and harmony belonging to them eternally within the divine
nature, and are revealed in that realization.
1 Eph. v. 2. » Heb. x. 5-10.

TRANSITION TO THIRD DIVISION. 125
TRANSITION TO THE THIRD DIVISION.
§ 123.
With Christ's death not merely is . His earthly work finished,
but also the inner, primarily spiritual consummation of
His person established. Hence, the lowest stage of His
outward Humiliation is in itself the beginning of His
Exaltation.1
Liteeatuee.— Cf. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, ii. § 567, p. 303 ff.
1. The New Testament speaks in several places of the
importance of Christ's sufferings and death for the consumma
tion of His person, and that not merely in the light of conse
quence and fruit or reward,2 but also in the sense that the
lifting up of Christ on the cross, outwardly the deepest
humiliation, is itself contemplated as personal exaltation,
glorification, or transfiguration,3 the ground of which cannot
lie in the fact that by His death He was withdrawn from all
attacks of human hostility and all affliction, but in this, that
even in suffering, a Redeemer's glory,4 the power of love,
and the dignity of a King who suffers for His people, are
revealed. 2. The possibility of Christ's manifesting His high-priestly
love by suffering and death, implied that the relations of the
different sides of His personality stood as yet relatively
isolated. Therefore the theanthropic Union was at first,
before His death, not yet completely realized, although its
consummation was divinely assured from the beginning
(§ 102. 3). It is true, He was King even before His state of
exaltation, and His humiblation formed a standing contrast
to the dignity and greatness existing in Him. But He was
not yet raised above the capacity of suffering and dying, not
even above assaults and temptations, and therefore His
blessedness was not yet perfect. Although, further, the Son
1 1 Pet. iii. 18, Smanatiis ft*' o-a.fxi, Z.uoitnmQi's Ss miip.a<rt. The latter cannot
refer simply to the Resurrection.
2 Heb. ii. 14, v. 2-7 ; Phil. ii. 9-11. 3 John viii. 28, xii. 32-34.
* Cf. Rothe, Nachgel. Predigten, 1869, II. xvi. p. 134 ff.

126 TRANSITION TO THIRD DIVISION.
of man knew it to be His destination to bring real judgment
to the world, which as yet He did not actually exercise,1 still
absolute divine majesty and might were as yet wanting to
Him.2 If in the work of atonement He were the Judge who
demands and receives the expiation, He could not at the same
time be the One who presents it, without converting the work
into something merely epideictic. Hence Luther's saying
cited above (p. 32) has its truth, the validity of what Christ
did on behalf of humanity depending on this fact. But in
the very sufferings by which He places Himself in relation
to God's justice in order in a-vfiiraOeta with us to feel His
displeasure, and therewith on His part with priestly heart
bear the burden of the general punishment lying on humanity,
the spiritual element lacking to His person is gained. By
the perfect interblending in the God-man of justice and love
as they are united in God, and that in carrying forward the
union of His divine nature with the human, the absolute
union with God's judicial power and justice is inwardly
brought about ; and thus His deepest humiliation became in
itself the commencement of His exaltation.3 The movement
proceeds from both sides, which seek and tend towards their
perfect union. The humanity of Jesus wills and affirms the
divine justice without condition or limit. Not merely does
that justice live in His consciousness of God's displeasure
with the world, but the Son of man, with absolute sense of
justice, enters by voluntary suffering into God's judicial will,
and in such self-sacrificing, righteous love embodies in human
life the absolute justice that exists in God, draws the divine
justice down, so to speak, upon himself, in sympathy becoming
responsible for our guilt and penal desert. Therewith a scene
is prepared in humanity for God as the Logos after a new
manner. For, conversely, the Godhead also, who chose Him
as His dwelling, wills to be revealed and gain realization in
the God-man as retributive justice. Christ's perfect love for
justice, which sacrifices itself in order to glorify the divine
justice, and which He attested by suffering and death, was
His consecration to the office of theanthropic Judge of the
world. Hence His lofty language at the very moment when
1 Cf. Matt. xxv. 31 ff., xxvi. 64, with John iii. 18, v. 22, viii. 15, xii. 47.
2 John xiv. 12. 8 John v. 19-22, 26.

TRANSITION TO THIED DIVISION. 127
He is being judged by the high priest.1 Now the majesty
and judicial authority of God are able and willing to make
their abode without reserve in Him who, by His entrance
through voluntary suffering into the judgment passed on the
world, first gave the divine justice the scene of its absolute
realization in humanity. His loving act in justly bearing our
burden, to which His earthly and physical life succumbed,2
became, on the other hand, the consummation of His person,
in the first instance of His spirit.
Observation. — Just as, according to § 105, 1, the commence-'
ment of the Incarnation was brought about through the
human soul or the spirit of Jesus, so the same relation must
again obtain at the end. Christ's corporeal consummation,
His resurrection and raising to the right hand of the Father,
can only be the result of the spiritual consummation accom
plished in the sacrifice of His death. This His spiritual
consummation comes to a close in the Descent into Hades so
called, and its effect is the Resurrection and Exaltation to
the right hand of God.

THIRD DIVISION.
THE EXALTATION OR POST-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST.
FIRST POINT: THE DESCENT INTO HADES (cf. § 99).
§124.
Christ's Descent into Hades so called neither belongs to the
state of Humiliation or suffering, nor has it a mere
epideictic meaning. It rather marks, in respect to
Christ's person, a higher state of life, pneumatic in
character, in which He is able to display His spirit-
power independently of space and time.
Literature. — J. L. Konig, Die Lehre von Christi Hollenfahrt,
1842. Giider, Die Lehre von der Erscheinitng Jesu Christi unter
den Todten, 1853. Ackermann, Die Glaubenssdtze von Christi
1 Matt. xxvi. 64. Thus, perhaps, the k' &(<n of the massage is to be under.
stood. 2 John xix. 34.

128 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
Hollenfahrt und v. d. Aufersthg. d. Fleisches vor d. Richter
unserer Thaten, 1855. Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, § 171.
Frank, Theol. d. F. C. iii. 397-454 (worthy of notice on account
of the discussions respecting Aepin) ; System der Chr. Wahrheit,
ii. 205 f. Von Zezschwitz, Petri Ap. de Christi ad inferos
Descensu Sententia ex loco nobilissimo 1 Petr. iii. 19 eruta exacta
ad epistolce argumentum, 1857. Cf. the commentaries of Calvin,
Bengel, Huther, v. Hofmann; Schmid, Bibl. Theol. N. T
Schweitzer, Hinabgefahren zur Holle als Mythus, 1868. G. H.
Waage, De cetate Articuli, qui in Symb. Apost. traditur J. Ch.
ad Inferos Descensus, Haun 1836.
1. It may be accepted as a result of modern exegetical
research,1 that, in harmony with the faith of the ancient
Church, Peter really contemplates Christ after His death,
probably before His resurrection, as active in the region of
the dead (in Hades, Old German hel), and therefore not in the
place of torment, but in the intermediate region.2 If hell is
the same as the region of the dead, the notion is precluded of
Christ going into Hades in order to endure the torments of
hell.3 The application, found among Reformed theologians,
of the Descent into Hades to the torments of hell, which had
to be endured, shows its intrinsic weakness in this, that these
inner sufferings were then usually connected with the cross.4
Since the text speaks of a preaching to the spirits reserved in
Hades, the interpretation here and there endorsed by Luther,
that Christ presented Himself as a victorious Lord to the
devil and the damned in hell, thus making a mere epideictic
triumphal progress there, is out of the question. Before
Christ there was no abode peopled by the damned ; the 0. T.
Sheol is something different. A preferable meaning would be,
that Christ vanquished the devil and hell. But since this
conquest takes place, not through physical power and force,
1 Weiss, Petrinischer Lehrbegriff, 1855. Glider, p. 88 ff. Frank, p. 205 ff.,
on 1 Pet. iii. 18, iv. 6 ; Acts ii. 24-27 (Eph. iv. 8-10 has no place here).
2 Only v. Hofmann, v. Zezschwitz, and Luthardt try to avoid this natural
interpretation, understanding by the preaching 1 Pet., iii. 19 a, preaching on
earth to the spiritually dead, and that in the days of Noah (as formerly Aepin).
3 Aepin supposed the descent into Hades to be a part of the redemptive
suffering for humanity, but without including the torments of the damned ; for
Hades is simply the intermediate region, not Gehenna.
4 The Form. Cone. 785 declares against identifying the descent into Hades
with the burial.

DESCENT INTO HADES. 129
but through His entire redeeming work, it could only be
ascribed to the descent into hell at the cost of the redemption
accomplished by Christ. It is hence to be regarded as the
application of the benefit of His atonement, as seems to be
intimated by the Krjpvrreiv among the departed. But this
relegates us to the prophetic office. The Descent into Hades
is therefore not to be regarded as primarily an act of the
high-priestly or kingly office. The preaching of the grace of
God in Christ, His presentation of Himself " as the efficient
cause of salvation, able to atone and actually atoning," per
tains primarily to the prophetic office ; but this, again, reveals
His person in a new form.1
2. The Descent into Hades cannot be derived simply from
Christ's essential equality with us, as if it were a personal
necessity for Him, because all men pass into Hades after the
separation of the soul from the body. Acts ii. 24 does not
affirm this, but rather that His person could not be held by
Hades. It can only be conceded that Christ was unable to
avoid Hades, if by Hades is understood the state of separation
between body and soul, instead of a place in which departed
spirits are gathered, because that state of separation was in
volved in Christ's death ; but the doctrine of Christ's Descent
into Hades would then be no new doctrinal point, but only
a proof that His death actually took place. On the other
hand, Christ's going to the spirits in prison is spoken of as
a spontaneous act — not an act of physical necessity. No
weakness in His person, no power of Hades over Him, led
Him into Hades. In death His person is inwardly consum
mated (§ 123). His life in Hades is not a shadowy life;
but, according to Peter, He intervenes mightily by His word,
and carries on His work, His very deliverance from the limits
1 Frank (Theol. d. Cone. For. p. 429) explains that the F. C. does not
definitely assign the Descent into Hades to the state of exaltation ; for while it
speaks of the vanquishing of hell and the devil, this could only be on the
supposition of the Descent into Hades involving suffering, as indeed was held by
M. Flacius and Joach. Westphalius, as well as by Aepin. Frank himself (Syst.
d. chr. Wahr. p. 205 ff.) rightly excludes all suffering in reference to Christ
after His death (in keeping with Luke xxiii. 43), but calls it "foolish," as
nevertheless the ancient Church held, to suppose that the preaching of Christ
(the xnpirrm) in the under-world included the intention of redeeming those
<nsu/iarx, and the eventual realization of that intention, p. 207.
Dorneb. — Christ. Doot. iv. I

130 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
of the mortal body being an indication of a higher stage of
existence.1 3. Dogmatic sobriety enjoins moderation on this point.
Christ's death was no illusive death. The separation of the
soul from the body, affirmed in this article, implies a confirma
tion of the reality, not only of His death, but of His human
soul, with which the Logos continued in union. We must
therefore think of His soul as bodiless for a time — at least
without the material earthly body. He was then Pneuma
only. And this is the dogmatic substratum for the posi
tion, that Christ could appear and work in the region of
those who, as departed spirits, lead a similar bodiless exist
ence. We have here, then, a challenge — unless Christ is to
be conceived in this bodiless state as in a condition of
spiritual slumber or inaction — to imagine Him at work during
this time in a way appropriate to this stadium. But no more
detailed construction of the nebessity and mode of this activity
on behalf of the departed is to be attempted; the New
Testament passages must be left in their simple form.
Nevertheless, the following elements contained in the Descent
into Hades are important. While the notions of the Hebrews
respecting Sheol contain truth, the world of the intermediate
state — not merely the notion of it — has a progressive history.
Even the pious in the Old Testament tremble at the kingdom
of the dead, just as in the Middle Ages, also, humanity fell back
into pre-Christian dread of death. For purgatory, again, is a
Hades which even Christians did not transcend, more terrible
than Sheol, its gloomy issues overspreading the whole life of
those days like a black cloud. Now, through Christ, the
intermediate state of the departed has experienced a move
ment, nay, a transformation, through the manifestation of His
person and work. The ceasing of this preaching, begun by
Christ with His preaching at that time, is neither recorded
nor reasonably to be supposed. The ancient Church supposed
the preaching on behalf of the departed to be cbntinued
through the apostles. The apostles knew that with the
completion of the atonement, deliverance is given from the
terrors of Hades and the fear of death;2 and the same
1 1 Pet. iii. 18, iavaruhis fHii sxfxl, X,uoToinh)s il «r»ti>/ca<i-j.
8 Heb. ii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 55 ; Rom. viii. 38, 39 ; Phil. i. 20-23.

DESCENT INTO HADES. 131
consciousness found expression again, in the strongest way, at
the Reformation. No power, not even death and Hades, can
separate us from fellowship with Christ. But this further
implies, that Christ's appearance among the dwellers in
the region of the dead was the work of His free spirit-
power — no passive subjection to a mere physical necessity.
And a further consequence is, that the Descent into Hades
expresses the universality of Christ's significance, even in
respect to former generations and the entire kingdom of the
dead. The distinction between earlier and later generations,
between the time of ignorance and the time when He is
known, is done away by Christ.1 No physical power is a
limit to Him. The future world, like the present, is the
scene of His activity. Combining these farthest extremes in
His person, He constitutes Himself the centre transcending
all physical limits, " in presence of which all distinctions of
time and space vanish, one distinction alone having signifi
cance — that between faith and unbelief." 2
Observation 1. — Christ's saying, "This day shalt thou be
with me in paradise " (Luke xxiii. 43), agrees with the De
scent into Hades, so far as by paradise the assured state of
blessedness is meant ; for even in His work in Hades, Christ
is in blessedness, and blessedness is in communion with
Him. Observation 2. — The period of Rationalism, however great
the interest it showed for the salvation of the heathen,
illogically took special offence at the present point of
doctrine. On the other hand, Strauss thinks (Dogm. i. 264,
271, ii. 148) that the fact of vast masses of men, before and
after Christ, dying without being brought into relation to
Christ, proves that the Christian revelation, because not
universal, is not necessary to salvation. Modern theology
1 Cf. Martensen, ut supra. But this is first accomplished by a historic influ
ence proceeding from Christ, which sets aside the common opinion that, e.g.,
the pious in the 0. T., before Christ, possessed essentially the same faith in all
respects, and the same blessing by retrospective action, as Christians. Such
retrospective force is rendered superfluous and more than doubtful by the
preaching of the gospel in Hades. According to the Shepherd of Hennas (iii.
9. 16), it was necessary even for the patriarchs, and, according to Clement v.
Alex. (Stromata, ii. 9. vi,), referred even to heathen philosophers. Cf. Glider,
p. 127 ff.
2 Cf. Martensen.

132 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
has eagerly welcomed this article, and that because it re
moves both the difficulties mentioned ; for it testifies, that
even those not laid hold of by Christ's historic manifestation
in their earthly life, still must and may be brought into
relation to Him, in order to be able to accept or reject
Him. And thus the universal reference of Christianity to
humanity, and the absoluteness of the Christian religion, are
ratified.

SECOND POINT : THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
§125.
The fact of the Resurrection of Christ, unanimously attested
by the New Testament as by the Church from the
beginning, has its necessity in this, that the inner,
spiritual perfecting (§ 123), which He attained in His
death, could no longer permit to death power of any
kind over His sacred person, but became of necessity
the death of death. For this very reason, His reunion
with the body could not be a rising again to a new
death, but only to a higher existence no longer subject
to death, which higher existence is a presage of the
Palingenesis of humanity, nay, of the world, and that
because it is also its beginning. This beginning is the
transition to the state of heavenly glory, which qualifies
Christ for the administration of His heavenly office.
But it also became the historic attestation of this
exaltation, as well as the proof of His living communion
with His people uninterrupted by His death and de
parture.
Literature.— Reich, Die Auferstehung Christi als Heilsthat-
sache, 1846. H. G. Hasse, Das Leben des verklwrten Erlosers im
Himmel nach den eigenen Ausspriichen des Herm, 1854. Baur,,
Neutestamentliche Theologie, pp. 95, 195 ff, 1864. Ibid., Kirehen-
geschichte. Beyschlag, iiber die Auferstehung. Neander, Leben
Jesu, ed. 4, p. 858 ff. Gebhardt, Die Auferstehung Christi, 1864.
Thomas, La Resurrection de J. Chr., 2 vols. 1870. Westcott,

CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 133
The Gospel of the Resurrection. Respecting the Resurrection
also, Giider, 1862; Kahnis, 1864; Rocholl, Die Realprdsenz,
1875. 1. Every one allows, that the faith of the disciples in
Christ's resurrection was of supreme importance for them and
for their believing trust in Him, but every one does not allow
its religious importance. Referring only to the physical side
of Christ's person, it is supposed to have no distinctive
spiritual import, nor was it requisite to the idea of Christ's
person or to faith in His redeeming spiritual power ; it has
therefore no dogmatic importance ; all that is to be accepted
is the faith of the disciples in it as a historic fact, without
which the founding of the Church would be inconceivable.
But any one who acknowledges no more than that faith in
Christ's resurrection was a means of strengthening confidence
and a mighty lever for the diffusion of Christianity, will
easily content himself with supposing a remarkable awakening
from an illusive death, or try to settle down to a denial of the
resurrection, in the latter case by assuming either subjective '
or objective 2 visions on the part of the women and disciples,
whilst Keim thinks a " telegram of the exalted Christ from
heaven " is to be discovered in it. The resurrection of Christ
may therefore be denied in a twofold way, either by denying
the reality of His death and assuming an awakening from an
illusive death to a new and again mortal life, or by assuming
the reality of His death, but with a merely illusive resurrec
tion. The two are agreed on this point, that sooner or later
Christ's body falls a prey to death and corruption.
Observation. — If, like Rothe, we suppose a God-resisting
principle in matter which can never be quite overcome,
then, so far as Christ's personality is thought to be consum
mated, this consummation cannot be effected " by a swallow
ing up of the mortal in life." Christ cannot have again
assumed and transformed His body in the resurrection, but
it must be held that He utterly laid aside and left in the
grave His material body in prospect of His heavenly life.
If, nevertheless, a corporeity adequate to the spirit be deemed
necessary to the completeness of the personality, this cor-
1 Like Strauss, Renan, Holsten, and others.
2 Like Ewald, Weisse, Hanne, and others. But on this view Christ's resur
rection comes into analogy with spiritual apparitions.

134 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
poreity must be thought to be generated by Christ's ethical
process during His earthly life, so that Christ's death, which
in any case was His spiritual consummation, was also withal
the consummation of the spiritual body by delivering it from
the material body. In this case, death and resurrection
coincide as to the chief matter. Only on this view death and
the principle of death are not really overcome, the material
body remaining their prey. Or, more precisely : The last
enemy of the spirit left — not overcome, but merely excluded
or put to flight — is not death indeed, but matter.
2. Historically considered, the resurrection of Christ is a
divine witness, "a divine verdict," in favour of Christ and
His cause, especially a witness to God's acceptance of His
sacrifice. It forms the necessary conclusion to the drama of
His bfe, the conclusion required by the justice of providential
history. Through being Christ's justification or a Christodicy,
it became a Theodicy.1 But according to the N. T. it is
not merely Christ's justification and His vindication against
others, but also an epoch of development in His person. As
His personal glorification or transfiguration it is compared to
a new birth,2 a mode of contemplation more familiar to the
ancient Church than to the present day.3. Through the
primarily spiritual consummation of His person in death, it
became possible for the raising up of His body to become also
His own act, a rising up and reunion with the body.4 Since
matter originates with God and is correlated with spirit by
creation, a more effectual penetration by soul or spirit through
union with spirit must be possible, instead of its present
imperfect penetration by spirit.5 In reference to Christ's
person and through it, the last foe — death and the form of
the material body subject to it — is overcome in the resurrec
tion, after the tcevrpov Oavdrov (i.e. dfiaprla) has been broken
by Him, and the very possibility of temptation abolished.6 The
1 1 Tim. iii. 16. This aspect of the matter is specially emphasized by Sieffert
and others.
2 Acts ii. 24 ; Heb. i. 5, 6 ; Rom. viii. 29, cf. i. 4 ; Col. i. 18, Vfutirmts.
3 Cf. my History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. The ancient Church
spoke of a threefold birth of Christ, the eternal birth of the Logos from God,
the birth from Mary, and His Palingenesis through the Resurrection, to which,
finally, mediaeval mysticism added the birth of Christ in us.
* John v. 26, x. 17 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21 ; Col. i. 18, cf. v. 15.
4 Cf. vol. ii. §§ 39. 40. 6 1 Cor, xv. 26, 55 ; Heb. vii. 28.

CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 135
mortal is not merely stripped off by Him, — that would not
be a complete triumph, — but it was transformed and swallowed
up' in life. Death is a hostile power in humanity, the con
sequence not of its idea, but of its sinfulness. Although
submitting to this death, Christ did not merely not remain
subject to it, but His power of life became the death of death.
It would be a contradiction to His divine-human nature, to
the indissoluble union of the divine and human in Him, if
death had been able permanently to rob Him of a portion of
Himself. On the contrary, He unites Himself now in a loftier
manner even with His body than before (when He was still
subject to temptation, and His body necessarily had a relative
independence in respect to His spirit *), and that because now
His spirit as the sole centre is the perfect power over His
physical side as its absolutely willing organ. And His spirit
proves this by vanquishing everything mortal, everything
purely passive in itself, and therefore death in principle, and
proves it positively by gradual, even outward glorification, to
which the forty days after the resurrection must perhaps be
regarded as a transition.2 Nor can it suffice to regard the
perfecting of Christ by the resurrection as actual indeed, but
in such a way that it remains invisible and concealed. As
certainly as His true witnesses beheld His humiliation, so
certainly also must its necessary, supplementary counterpart
be revealed to them. They were to testify not conjectures
respecting the consummation of Christ's person, but ascertained
facts, and to be put in a position to obtain by historic means
that image of Christ's dignity which was to live on in the
Church. This is also necessary to the perfection of His self-
revelation, in order that the full, complete view of the historic
Christ might be secured to the Church in assured knowledge
for all ages. His disciples were to learn as matter of fact
1 § 106. 2 ; § 107. 2.
2 The supposition of Hofmann (ii. 1. 518-525) and Kinkel (Stud. u. Krit.
1841, 3), that Christ after His death passed at once into the supernatural,
exalted state with the Father, and that His appearances were merely a rendering
Himself visible again, does not correspond with the representations of the New
Testament. Moreover, on this view the Ascension would become something
merely epideictic, and the distinction between the time of the forty days and the
later time, when He appeared to Paul, to which Paul's own disciple Luke calls
attention (Acts i. 2-4), would vanish.

136 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
that His living, complete person was not overpowered by
death. On the one hand, through the forty days after the
resurrection without losing Him they were weaned from His
constant outward fellowship, while trained to inner fellowship
and its permanence ; and on the other, they were assured
of the continuance of His entire personality, with its mastery
over death. It is of special importance that, by the con
stantly interrupted and as constantly renewed intercourse of
love even after His death, they should be made certain of the
continuance of His love and fellowship with His own, and
become accustomed to think of Him as the true exalted Head
of His people, who, although invisibly, abides with them to
the end of the days, and who can and will be in the midst of
them, when two or three are assembled in His name. Every
religion loses the centre of its strength, nay, of its permanence,
when no longer able to believe in its essential object as really
present in the fullest sense, but compelled to think of it as
absent or merely as a past or absent power (Grosse). The
disciples were now to learn (and this was taught them by the
appearances of the Risen One), that He is not like one who
has gone away, with whom intercourse on reciprocal terms.
is impossible, but that their faith may and ought to think of
Him as continually living and working in fellowship with
His Church. This certainty is the basis of the faith that He
discharges His heavenly office.1
3. Moreover, on the basis of the importance of the resurrec
tion for Christ's person in itself, arises its abiding importance
for His office. This holds good, apart from what has been
advanced, inasmuch as it is a transition to a higher free
existence endowed with complete power. In the power of
the indissoluble life, which is His, He can and will now
communicate Himself by His spirit to believing humanity,
and the highest blessings of Christianity are referred to the
" power of His resurrection." 2 In it the powers of the world
to come burst forth. Thus it is of prophetic significance, and
1 The necessity, in the interest of Christian piety, for holding fast not merely
the historic posthumous influence shared by Jesus with every great man, but
the living activity and constant presence of Christ, is excellently and most
convincingly shown by Rothe in the two sermons on Faith in the Living Christ,
vol. ii. 281-312.
2 Eph. i. 3, 19, 20, ii. 5, 6 ; Rom. iv. 25 ; Phil. iii. 10.

cheist's eesuerection. 137
is not without a beginning of fulfilment.1 Nay, in the
perfecting of Christ's person is given the efficient principle,
which in the process of the world's history will evoke also
the consummation of humanity. In so far as it is man's
nature and need, on decisively entering into a new spiritual
world, to have regard already to the end, so the end prefigured
in Christ's resurrection belongs already to the origin of faith.
We believe in Christ as the security not merely of our recon
ciliation, but also of the perfecting of our personality. As
the Risen One, He is worthy of absolute trust.2
Observation. — Westcott, ut supra, emphasizes the following
points. The resurrection of Christ, although not the solu
tion, is the illumination of the mystery of our life. By
this fact the apparent contradiction between the infinite
importance and the insignificance of the individual is
harmonized. The antitheses of the ancient world are seen
to be abolished in the new humanity inaugurated by His
resurrection. It forms at once a goal, to which pre-Christian
humanity supplies the converging lines, and a source from
which history after Christ takes its rise. In it man finds
the perfect consecration of His entire nature ; it is a promise
of our future, which so far as is possible banishes the feeling
of isolation connected with our finite nature, and unites our
nature again with* the absolute, eternal One. In brief, in
this fact we are able to view Christianity in its relation to
the history and the future of humanity. It is there made
known not as a vague idea or mere string of dogmas and a
mere system of doctrine. This fact is a witness to the actual
.effects which Christianity has produced and is still pro
ducing. Hence the hope and strength of Christianity lie in
its substantial reality.
1 Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 22 f.
2 1 Cor. xv. 22, 49. Martensen, Dogmatics, p. 318 : "There exists a profound
connection between the resurrection of the Lord and the perfecting of the
Church. The blessed future of the Church, the ideal victory, is already reached
in the risen Redeemer. The denial of the miracle of the resurrection is not
merely the denial of a particular historic fact, but a denial of that entire pro
phetic view of the world which Christianity presents, and which finds its vital
starting-point in the resurrection. The Church begins its existence from the
historic fact, in which it has the image of that blessed future which must float
before its eyes as the final goal from the beginning."

138 EXALTATION of cheist.

THIRD POINT : THE ASCENSION, THE SESSION AT THE RIGHT HAND
OF THE FATHER, AND THE SIGNIFICANCE THEREOF FOR HIS
OFFICE. §126.
In the ascension of Christ, or His absolute exaltation, His
resurrection finds its conclusion, inasmuch as the com
plete spiritualization and transfiguration of His earthly
into pneumatic personality1 is presented therein in
perfected form. The exalted God-man is raised above
the limits of time and space, the humanity of Jesus
having become the free, adequate organ of the Logos.
This state of consummation itself is figuratively expressed
as the Session at the right hand of the Father, and denotes,
on the one hand, divine repose and blessedness in the
certainty of His eternal glory and majesty (for He is
now personally Lord of glory and King of kings), and
on the other, has relation to His office.2
Literature. — Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, § 173 ff.
1. All temporal development implies limitation. Christ is
not yet adequate to His idea, so long as He is still personally
in course of development. His earthly humanity could not be
quite adequate to the divinity of the Logos. No doubt it holds
good even in that state : "What this man knows and wills, that
God also as the Logos or Son wills in Him," but the converse
does not hold good. The Son of man knows not everything
upon earth ; 3 even His will was only in constant process of
identification with the Father's will.4 But for this very
reason, the self-communication or revelation of the Logos was
not yet perfected in this personality. Now, the ascension
marks the stage of the absolute consummation of the
humanity, where, in eternal union with Him, it has be-
1 1 Cor. xv. ; 2 Cor. iii. 17 f., iv. 4-6.
2 Cf. Luke xxiv. 50-52 ; Acts i. 9 ff. ; John vi. 62 ; Eph. iv. 8-10, i. 20 ff. ;
Col. i. 18 f. ; Phil. ii. 9 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16.
3 Mark xiii. 32 ; Matt. xxiv. 36, xxii. 19.
» Matt. xxvi. 39, xix. 16, 17 ; Luke xxii. 28.

CHRIST'S ASCENSION. 139
come henceforth, in its glorified and pneumatic form, the
adequate organ of God as the Son. Jesus is now set free
from all earthly burden, all narrowing force of matter, from
every, even physical, imperfection. Every limitation of nature
is so overcome by the freedom of His spirit, that even the
nature which He has in Himself is penetrated by the life and
spirit of the Logos, and made its absolutely willing and
potent organ, so that in it He attains His realization in the
world, or such cosmical existence as corresponds with His
universality, so that, without limitation of space and time, He is
King of the Aeons and Controller of history.1 The converse of
this is, that now Christ's absolutely perfected humanity is quite
assumed into the Logos, and, in so far, into the life of the
Trinity. But Christ's ascension, like His resurrection, is also
a real symbol of our future exaltation.2 In Him humanity
begins to be consummated by the Head conforming its mem
bers to Himself, and becoming the First-born among many
brethren.3 The means by which this is effected is, that in
virtue of His personal consummation He now also consum
mates His office, raising it to eternal significance and strength.4
Observation. — Respecting the mode of the permanent pre
sence of Christ the Head with His people, there have been
many controversies, especially since the time of the Reforma
tion. The Lutheran divines argued for the religious need of
standing in immediate connection, not only with the deity of
Christ or the Holy Spirit, but with the entire and full
personality of Christ; whereas the Reformed were more
influenced by anxiety lest the true and actual humanity of
Christ should evaporate under the Lutheran conception into
something docetic. The Lutherans, on their part, did not
mean this (§ 94). But- even when, as was generally the case,
• they renounced the absolute presence of Christ's humanity
everywhere (ubiquity), they still endeavoured in different
ways to show the possibility of its presence with His people
in dependence on His will, by appealing now to the omni
potence of the Logos, which encompasses the universe, so to
speak, with its hand, and thus brings it near to the humanity
of Christ, now to the divine omniscience, to which the universe
is present, and in which the humanity of Christ participates.
1 Eph. i. 22 f., iv. 10 ; Rev. xvii. 14 ; Heb. i. 8, v. 6 ; Rev. xi. 15.
2 Eph. ii. 5, 6. 3 Rom. viii. 29 ; Phil. iii. 21 j 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff., 45-49.
4 Eph. ii. 6.

140 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
But this seems rather to be a making the world present by
the power of the Godhead, than a making Christ's humanity
present to the world. When others say : Christ is omnipresent
quoad unionem personalem, so far as the humanity is united
with the omnipresent Logos, this might be conceded even by
the Reformed. Among moderns, Sartorius supposes a radiant
body of Christ, by which He is able to reach, or at least
operate, everywhere. Rocholl (die Real-Prdsenz, 1875) rejects
the doctrine of ubiquity, or the supposition of an absolute
omnipresence of the God-man, independent of the will, and
therefore physically necessary. This, he thinks, would be
repletive presence, by which independent existence would
be denied to the universe. Christ would be made the real
substance of the world, material objects would become mere
accidents of this substance — a remnant of the Platonic world-
soul.1 On the other hand, Rocholl would not, with the
Reformed, accept an omnipresence merely in respect of the
divine side of Christ, nor conceive the divine omnipresence
as merely assisting or putting forth power from afar. Just
as little would he with Catholicism transfer Christ's humanity,
as a rule, to the other world, while thinking of it as ex
ceptionally present in the Eucharist by a perpetual miracle,
and that in many places at once (multilocatio). He would
rather see the Lutheran doctrine developed as follows : — In
the Holy Supper there is a presentation of Christ, who is
otherwise perpetually present in the Church. But He has a
presence of various kinds or with many branches. Christ has,
first, a fixed space, namely, in Himself, for His space is His
substance. But this substance is of such fineness and power
of comprehension, that He is able to have a real presence of
various kinds outside Himself, nevertheless in course of
development. He has, in the first place, in relation to the
world, a presence in Power, which stands externally over
against the finite Cosmos as the kingdom of nature, not
essentially, but virtually and operatively. This first stage
He calls His dwelling near, a mechanical presence, in which
Christ's humanity participates, in so far as a relation obtains
between it and the Cosmos, while the Cosmos culminates from
the beginning in man. Through Christ's humanity the Logos
works in the Cosmos as Power. But, in the second place,
Christ has a further presence, a real presence nevertheless in
course of development. By His continuous historical working
(whilst retaining His fixed space in Himself) He extends
Himself farther and farther. Thus, in the new humanity, as
1 Even Martensen calls attention to the Pantheistic danger of absolute
ubiquity, § 177.

CHRIST'S ASCENSION. 141
a " temple" He has dynamic indwelling, or dwelling with,
which is not merely operative assistance, but adessence, and
finally becomes inexistence. The third form is impletive
pervasion in the perfected Church, so that He in whom the
ideal world exists fills all in all, by diffusing His fulness in
the actual world, the Church being hence called His fulness
(Eph. i. 23). The God-man has His most special presence in
heavenly glory, i.e. in the sphere of consummated life, or in the
Holiest of All. But the filling of the world with Himself, or
with His power, which is in course of development and growth,
must be placed in subjection to His will and operation.
2. Certainly the notion of a presence of Christ, not every
where uniform, but various in form, has a future. By its means
the universal significance and living activity of Christ may
seek reconciliation with such a doctrine of Christ's personality
on the part of the Reformed as preserves its lineaments, and
does not evaporate into infinity. But, in order to affirm any
thing more precise and definite on this question, we should not
merely need to enter more deeply into metaphysical questipns
of space and time, but to know more respecting the sphere of
pneumatic corporeity than is the case. The Reformed teachers
held more firmly than the Lutheran to the reality of space ;
on the other hand, the reality of time vanished more com
pletely to them on the predestination-dogma than on the
Lutheran doctrine. But dogmatic sobriety here counsels us
to be modest, and, without laying down a priori theories of
space and time, to be content with what has a religious
interest. This does not require the omniprcesentia absolutd of
Christ's humanity as a physical necessity following from the
nature of the Unio. It is sufficient that His presence is
subject to His loving wilL The following propositions must
be characterized as important for the Christian consciousness : —
1. Even in the state of exaltation Christ remains man, the
Unio is absolutely indissoluble.
2. But His exaltation is also the consummation of the
Unio, so that the God-man now perfectly participates in the
divine majesty, and His freedom cannot be fettered by the
limits of space and time. His loving will can find no in
superable obstacle in anything physical.1
1 " Nevertheless, even in the exaltation it is true that the power of Christ is
not world-creating, but world-perfecting," Martensen.

142 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
3. He is able to be with His people always to the end
of the world in the undivided unity of His person, i.e. not
merely as Logos, but as God-man, for He is the vitally efficient
Head of His body.1 But His presence in the world is not
uniform and by physical necessity ; it is morally conditioned
by the world's receptiveness, reaching farther in proportion as
the Church — His body — has been appropriated by the world.

SECOND SUBDIVISION (cf. § 110, Arol. in).
THE TRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST'S EARTHLY INTO HIS HEAVENLY
OFFICE.
§ 127. — Christ's Office in Heaven.
The perfecting of Christ's person benefits His office also. His
repose, like the divine, is an activity sure of its triumph,
and sustained by supreme power; the glorification of
His person is also the glorification of His threefold office,
which is now raised to eternal significance, so as in the
process of history to triumph over the limits of space
and time. In this office, which He alone carries on and
retains as the living Head of God's kingdom,. is realized
in the course of history His constantly renewed, spiri
tual and invisible Second Advent, which, however, will
one day visibly burst forth upon us in order to the
judgment and the consummation of His kingdom
Observation. — The distinction made already between Christ's
posthumous and continuous working, here first finds its com
plete significance.2 All great men in the history of the world
have a posthumous influence through their works, apart from
their person. These works now exercise what influence they
may be equal to without the personal volition and know
ledge of the authors co-operating or coming into consideration
1 Matt, xviii. 20 ; Acts ix. 4 ; Col. i. 24 ; Matt. xxv. 40 ; 1 Cor. xi. 3 ; Eph.
i. 22, iv. 15 ; Col. i. 18, ii. 10, 19.
2 Liebner was the first definitely to call attention to the importance of this
distinction.

Christ's heavenly office. 143
at present. But to Christ a living, personal continuity of
influence must be ascribed. In virtue of the intimate re
lation between person and office in Him (§ 99), He is never
and nowhere separated from His work. The only ground on
which there can be any mention of His heavenly office is,
that His participation, consciousness, and effectuating will
accompany His ever-growing initiatory action. The opinion
widely obtains, that, according to Schleiermacher, Christ has
simply a posthumous influence, and therefore only exists for us
as one belonging to the past. But a series of passages in his
writings is inconsistent with this view, e.g. Chr. Gl. II. 146,
151, 160, 161, 185. He contemplates Christ in continuous,
sympathizing association with the struggles of the Church.
Indispensable as in his opinion is the word (e.g. of the Church),
in order to communion with Christ, so far as it (or preaching)
is a continuation of Christ's word, still, according to him,
Christ's energy is present therein in virtue of the divine
power inherent in His Word (p. 185), " whereby it is perfectly
consonant with truth when to the consciousness of man in the
process of conversion all mediate influence of man vanishes,
Christ being immediately present in His activity." P. 147 :
In virtue of the relation to us which is based on His peculiar
dignity, He remains the representative of the whole human
race. P. 149 ff. : From Him perpetually issues forth what is
necessary to the wellbeing of the Church. — Even now His
guiding influence is not simply mediate and derived, although
mediated by the written word.
1. Biblical and Ecclesiastical Doctrine. — So little is the
departure of Christ from the region of vision the end of His
work, that, on the contrary, it introduces the consummation or
glorification of His living official activity, because it is the
consummation of His person. Full salvation is first given in
the perfected Lord and His office. Before Pentecost, the Spirit
of regeneration was not yet present ; 1 " the power of His
resurrection" is the absolute efficiency, the ripening, so to
speak, of the office continued in His person, which office He
carries on till all foes shall be subdued.2 His continuous,
effectual participation in His work is variously expressed in
the New Testament. On His departure, He says that after
He has gone away He will pray the Father to send them the
Spirit,3 that He will render their prayer in His name effectual
1 John vii. 39. 2 Eph. i. 19 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 22-28.
3 John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7.

o

144 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
with the Father, nay, that He will do what they request in
His name ; 1 that with the Father and the Spirit He will
manifest Himself to those who keep His word and love
Him.2 Believers certainly enter by means of the Word and
Spirit into a living fellowship not merely with His Church,
but also with Him as the Head of His body, the spouse of
the Church, which He sanctifies through the Word and
baptism, which He nourishes, cares for, and fills with His
powers.3 His participation extends also to individuals, not
merely to the whole. He is their Intercessor, Paraclete.4 He
bestows on believers the forgiveness of sins.5 He feels Him
self persecuted in the persecution of His people ; manifestations
of Samaritan-like love He regards as love shown to Himself.6
The fellowship which He maintains with His people is living
and intimate, so that Paul can say: Now I live not, but
Christ lives in me. Nay, the entire state of a Christian is
described as a being and dwelling of Christ in believers.7
With this the ecclesiastical doctrine exactly agrees.8
2. Again, Christ's indivisible office in heaven in its per
fected form is exercised in various ways. First, in His Kingly
authority. Theology distinguishes the regnum potential, which
refers to the universe, to the non-Christian world, from the
regnum gratice et glorice. Lutheran theology lays more weight
on the regnum potentice than the Reformed, which prefers to
dwell on the regnum gratice, while viewing the regnum potentice
as the government of the Father in subservience to the regnum
gratice. The kingdom of grace embraces the earthly world-
period as the period of grace. Its objects are believers and the
portion of humanity called to faith. Finally, the regnum glorice
embraces saved believers in heaven, but is not perfected before
the resurrection and the judgment. We shall therefore not
treat of it until we reach Eschatology. Evangelical Christians
are agreed in holding, that to Christ — the exalted King —
the Church here and hereafter is one Church which He will
1 John xvi. 23 ; cf. xvi. 7, xiv. 13. 2 John xiv. 21, 23.
3 Eph. v. 23, 25 f., 29, i. 23.
* Rom. viii. 34 ; John xiv. 16 ; 1 John ii. 1 ; Heb. vii. 25, ix. 24.
5 Col. iii. 13. 6 Acts ix. 4 ; Matt. xxv. 35-45, xviii. 5,
7 Gal. ii. 20 ; John xvii. 21.
8 Conf. Aug. 17 ; Heidel. Cat. qu. 42-50 ; Art. Sm. 312 ; Apol. 74 ff., 90 ff. ;
Form. Cone. 782, 83.

CHRIST'S HEAVENLY OFFICE. 145
govern until at His second coming the kingdom of glory
appears. In the earthly world-period Christ's kingly power
is not fully revealed. It will break forth first at the end of
the world. But all are agreed that even at present all worldly
powers must be subservient to His work in virtue of the co
ordination of Providence and the gospel. By this means the
world is becoming the Church, which Christ governs as its
celestial Head, and conducts to its goal. But it is of import
ance not to abolish the distinction of the regnum gratice from
the regnum potentice. We live by faith, not by sight, in order
that full scope may be left for free moral decision. Hence it
depends on this distinction how far the spiritual ethical
character of Christ's kingdom is maintained or not, and what
means are regarded as admissible in order to the growth of
that kingdom. It is true, Christ's kingdom is not merely a
kingdom of doctrine or idea. Christ is not merely the truth,
but also the bfe, and His activity carries in its bosom the
Palingenesis of the world, even of nature; but this through
the medium of His spiritual working. Not by means of
force or physical authority, or the sensuous beholding of His
power, can the regeneration of the world be brought about.
Since in God the ethical is by its idea the power above
omnipotence, while in the God-man it is absolutely reahzed,
He participates, of course, in the divine omnipotence, and as
Head does this in a far different manner from believers.1 But
He uses His power for ethical ends ; in those ends His power
has the norm of its use. Thus, as King of kings He conducts
the world outside Christianity to redemption. As the decay of
the world before Christ was not merely a herald, but an effect
of the approaching incarnation of the Logos, so He is con
tinually judging the world in the course of history, but in
order to conduct all nations and men to His kingdom. As
concerns the Church distinctively, He guards and preserves it.
Having in the exercise of His plenary authority as King
instituted sacred ordinances for its good (§ 110), He pre
serves these ordinances, especially the Word and Sacrament, in
order that by their means His manifestation may be perpetu
ated for humanity, may remain constantly present, and thus
later generations may suffer no loss in comparison with con-
1 1 Cor. iii. 22 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; Rom. v. 17.
Dobnek. — Christ. Doer. iv. K

146 EXALTATION OF. CHRIST.
temporaries. But above all, as King He sends the Holy Spirit
into the heart.
3. In virtue of His kingship, Christ also eternally and
perfectly carries on the prophetic office. Through all the con
fusion of the ages, through all the forgetfulness and scepticism
of men, He preserves His image unchanged and true, thereby
preserving Himself in the memory of Christendom. The
heavenly form of His prophetic office, the aim of which is the
presentation of Himself to the spirit, is superior to its earthly
form, because it is no longer limited to Judaea, triumph
ing over space and time, over the distinctions of nations
and tongues. To this must be added an excellence relating
to the contents of the office. On earth His exaltation could
not be the purport of His preaching as a fact. And, finally,
after His exaltation, although now His word was committed
to the lips of the disciples, His presentation of Himself
receives its completion through the operation of the illumi
nating Spirit who glorifies Him. That Spirit, proceeding
from Him, accompanies the impressions of Him made by the
Word, and gathers them as into a focus, in order to cause
His image to rise before man's spiritual vision, and glorify
Christ in the heart. Again, since Christ continually uses
mankind, when they become believers, through the Holy Spirit
to bear witness of Him as the organ of His prophetic office,
not merely Palestine, but the whole globe to its most distant
races hears the gospel.1
4. Finally, by continuing His high-priestly office even in
heaven, He again, in virtue of His exaltation or majesty,
renders His earthly work efficacious, and especially His
sacrifice, introducing it into the souls of men. He is not
satisfied with having reconciled humanity, so that God for
His sake has forgiven it in His heart, remitted its guilt, and
restored the possibility of fellowship with Him. Following
His Church with loving sympathy, Christ would also have
salvation imparted and applied at the fit time to particular
concrete persons as they come into existence in the course
of generations. For this end He carries on His powerful
mediation with the Father for their sake, on which account
also His continuous intercession, nay, our justification is
1 Matt, xxviii. 18 f., xxiv. 14 ; Mark xvi. 15 ff.

CHRIST'S HEAVENLY OFFICE. 147
identified with His resurrection and exaltation, with His
session at the Father's right hand.1 Theology, therefore,
ascribes the Intercessio with the Father to Him,2 to which is
added the Benedictio sacerdotalis in the case of those in whom
His substitution proves efficacious. His high-priesthood in
heaven is the eternal, living presence of the same priestly
love, the temporal revelation of which was His earthly work.
This earthly work is perpetuated in His ever-living love, and
is endued with imperishable, power by His heavenly kingship.3
In the intercession of the exalted God-man, no uncertainty of
result is possible. Nor need it consist of words. Nor does it
imply that His divine-human will, in perfect unity with the
divine, is not partaker in the divine power. In that case
the perfecting of the kingly office by the continuance of the
priestly would be precluded, or, conversely, no place would be
left in the kingly office for priestly action. On the contrary,
His continuous intercession implies, that as God-man He
perpetually makes God's redeeming will His own, that His
sympathy accompanies the history of God's kingdom, and that
He regards what befalls His people as happening to Himself.4
Further, the connection of the priestly mind with His king
ship involves the eternal spirituality of His power, to which
all force is foreign, since, while it allures, draws, and follows,
it leaves unbelief possible. It involves, in a word, the uncon
querable vitality of His pure sympathy with us. The sacred
soul of all His action is the spirit of His life-begetting sub
stitution, wherewith He bears us on His heart. Therewith
is conjoined mercy and long-suffering for the still unbeliev
ing world, which hurries not to manifest outwardly His
glory and judicial power, but patiently woos souls, and
above all aims at an inner crisis, nay, at initiating a good
decision. But the great, independent significance of Christ's heavenly
high-priesthood, of His Intercession with the Father and
Benedictio, is rendered especially evident by the consideration
that the transference of the blessing or merit acquired by
Christ to the unredeemed world, and its right distribution or
1 Rom. iv.. 25, viii. 34. * Heb. viii. 1, 2 ; John xiv. 13-16.
3 Rom. viii. 34 ; 1 John ii. 1 ; Heb. vii. 25, ix. 14, 24 ; cf. Apol. 74. 90;
4 Acts ix. 4.

148 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
application to individuals,: only takes place through their
reception into His personal fellowship, which neither can nor
ought to take place through any other power than His own.
On this point great and pregnant errors are possible.
The Biblical and Evangelical conception keeps the mean
between two hurtful extremes, that of a false Objectivity and
that of a just as one-sided Subjectivism. Both overlook
Christ's heavenly high-priesthood and its necessity. But in
stopping at best at the earthly priesthood merely, they take
it in a false mechanical or lifeless way, and then seek an
arbitrary substitute for that which nothing but the heavenly
high-priesthood supplies. False Objectivism may assume a
double form. Christ's work of atonement may be viewed in
a purely external way, as the payment of a money-debt for
mankind; and then by consequence, in order to the actual
possession of the grace, the inference may be deemed satis
factory, that what has been paid for the whole race must
benefit every member of the same as matter of course and by
way of right, — a view which implies a lowering of the ethical
character of the saving process, and an overlooking of grace,
as if a purely intellectual appropriation would suffice in place
of a personally religious one. This error is excluded for us
by the fact that we were forced to base Christ's work upon
a sympathy (o-v/mdOeta), which lovingly kept in view the
drawing of man into a living process that seeks the fellow
ship of the Redeemer, and therefore kept in view the awaken
ing of a feeling of unworthiness in us. It seeks to kindle
this feeling, and give reabty and force to it, the necessary
consequence/ of which is the springing up of love in grateful
return for the good Christ has done. The Catholic Church, on
the other hand, holds that, after Christ has acquired the
treasure of His merit, the Church instituted by Him has
full authority to distribute this merit to individuals, which is
principally done through the Mass as a constantly repeated
sacrifice. Here the need of a perpetual high-priesthood is
acknowledged, but that need is attempted to be satisfied by
repetition of Christ's sacrifice, which is the work of the
priest, — a theory which denies inner, eternal, all-sufficient
significance to Christ's historic sacrifice, and regards Christ's
presence as passive in comparison with the priest. To this

Christ's heavenly office. 149
must be added, that to no man is power given to impart, but
merely to offer, reconciliation to any one.
But a merely subjective exercise of human faith, a subjective
realization of Christ's presence and of His past suffering, is
just as little satisfactory. On the contrary, if our conception
of the matter is to be vital and true, Christ's invincible
love — the source of His continuous action — must be added
thereto. 5. Both theories — the falsely objective and subjective —
sever Christ's earthly action and passion from His still
living high-priestly love. They suppose that love to have
only acted in the past, and in the same way assume a
merely posthumous influence of Christ, mediated either by
the Church or by subjective realization ; whereas an act, a
loving look, a continued working of the bving heavenly
Redeemer, and therefore His real effective presence, must be
appropriated by every new member in the o-eo/ia Xpiarov.
To every one who would be personally assured of His recon
ciliation, and who would partake of the divine peace, it is
necessary to know that the thoughts of substitutionary love
and Christ's effectual intercession refer to him not merely in
abstracto, so far as they are directed to humanity as a unity,
but also in his concrete present ; • for, despite the universalism
of the Christian salvation, a place is still left to election, to
distinctions of earlier and later in that effectual calling,
through which actual participation in the blessing of grace is
first brought about. But effectual calling takes place on the
ground of Christ's intercession, which avails for the individual.
The universality of grace is the real possibility of our con
sciousness of reconciliation, but does not as yet include
Christ's present loving communion with the individual person.
Now, after grace has come nigh in the Word, Christ's heavenly
priesthood calls upon us to bebeve that the living Head is
anxious that individuals should become His members, and
inspires the heart athirst for reconcibation with the certainty
that Christ's intercession with the Father avails also for it,
that Christ's will is that His substitution apply also to
it, and that the look of His love rests also upon it.
No act on our part merely becomes the firm objective
basis of our assurance of salvation, even though this act be

150 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
faith,1 but the purpose of reconciliation referring to these indi
viduals. Christ therefore Himself applies the fruit of His work
to successive races of men and the individuals composing them.
He is not shut off from this world of ours, remaining at a
distance, but continues without intermission in an active
relation to His Church during its temporal bfe, intervening
in every moment of time. His love and His action renew
their youth in time for every individual, for we who need
reconcibation have our bfe in time. As the Good Shepherd,
He calls every one of His sheep by name.2 The same heart
beats for us in heaven as on the cross. His earthly sacrifice
took place indeed but once, but once for all; for, issuing
from His eternal Spirit,3 it is the revelation of an undying
love, which proves its vitality by perpetually applying its
earthly work. Thus He works out of His eternity, while
Uving historically with His Church upon earth.4 The
sensuous misinterpretation makes out of this doctrine a daily
unbloody repetition of His high-priestly sacrifice through the
priest, and therewith falls back into the o-Toi^eia too /coa-fiov,
into a religion with human mediators. The Evangelical
Church, on the other hand, has even here upon Biblical
ground far greater wealth, namely, the priesthood of Christ
Himself eternally new and eternally renewing its youth. Its
doctrine affords satisfaction to the' need which the sinner feels
of knowing himself encompassed by Christ's present love itself,
and enclosed in His heart.
6. Seeing that Christ's heavenly office possesses perfect and
effectual continuance, Christ is the sole Mediator to His
Church, neither sharing His dignity with others, nor admitting
a substitution supplementary to His, as if He were reduced
in idle repose to a mere potentiabty. On the contrary, all
activity in His Church must take place in His name, i.e. not
merely by His authority, but in constant living reference to
Him and to His continued working, in order that His Church
may be simply His organ, by means of which He carries on
1 In agreement with Holy Scripture, Schleiermacher says (Chr. Gl. ii. 146) :
"Christ intercedes for us with the Fatner in order to establish our fellowship
with Him, and to support our prayer." See above, p. 143.
2 John x. 3. s Heb. ix. 14.
* Acts ix. 4. Even here, therefore, transcendence and immanence are united.

151
His vocation as Redeemer. For this reason, the true doctrine
of Christ's continuous threefold office contains, in the first
place, the guiding principle for the three root-functions of the
Church — the ordinance of teaching, of worship, and of pobty
and administration. These three must be based upon His
heavenly office.1 Again, this fact contains a corrective for a
series of errors which may again and again disturb the Church.
First, as to the high-priestly office, as often shown, Christ
brooks no mediatorial priesthood in the Church, neither along
side nor instead of His own. He must not be put in the
background either by the empirical or ideal Church of the
saints, or by a sacred order, which thrusts itself between the
Church and Him. Such substitution would preclude the
immediate access to Him, which He would have kept open,
and is hostile to freedom ; whereas Christ's high-priestly sub
stitution is productive in developing our own free personality,
and creates transcripts of His own mind, even of His priestly
mind. For the entire life of the Christian is to be a worship
ping, priestly bfe in the name of Jesus, on the ground of His
sacrificial work and priesthood,2 a life spent in intercession
and works of love, filled with the substitutionary spirit kindled
by Christ's substitution.
As to the kingly office, this doctrine forbids the notion that
Christ has a substitute upon earth, whether an individual or a
hierarchy. No less is an ecclesiastical Ochlocracy excluded
hereby, which would vote and decide upon Christian truths
by majorities. All this is a denial of the absolute sovereignty
of Christ the King.3 This sole kingship of Christ is, first of
all, the true foundation of the unity of the Church, for that
unity sufficiently exists where and so far as all submit them
selves to His leading, His will, as expressed in Word and
Sacrament. No less is it the true foundation of the freedom
of the Church, e.g. in relation to the State, which has no
authority over its principle. It is also the foundation of the
freedom of individuals in relation to the community, and
further of ministers of the Church in relation to the Church,
and conversely.
1 See §§ 136. 142. 146. 147. * Rom. xii. 1.
3 The idea of the sole sovereignty of Christ has been specially developed by
the Scottish Church.

152 EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
In the same way, Christ brooks no mediatorial prophethood
in the Church alongside or instead of His own. This would
be pseudo-prophecy, whether it appears in the form of the
infallibility of a person or an order, in the form of a tradition
independent of Christ's law, or in the form of a public opinion,
whose highest authority is universal human reason. The
Subjectivism of Rationalism and false Ecclesiasticism are
essentially one in this, that they clothe products of mere
human reason with divine authority, and thus put what is
human in place, of the divine.1 All this is human arrogation
of an authority equal to God's, and yet severed from Christ.
Superstition and unbelief are one in desiring to centre in the
mere creature, instead of in God and Christ. On the other
hand, in the continuous exercise of Christ's prophetic office,
the perfect principle of wisdom is so given that it is neither
capable nor in need of completion.2 The principle, locked up
in Christ, unfolds itself by virtue of its infinite fruitfulness in
His living members ; and whoever abides near the utterances
of His wisdom possesses the inexhaustible fountain, which
waters all spheres of life with the wisdom from above.8 In
Him science has first found its absolutely worthy object of
knowledge — God in His perfect personal revelation, which, as
the Sun of the Universe, has the strength as well as the task
to illuminate all spheres.
7. The exposition now given makes clear the importance
of holding fast both the continued working of the exalted
Redeemer, and the immediacy of a living mutual relation
between Christ and believers. This also implies a direct
rebgious relation to Him as the characteristic of Christian
piety, or the worship of Christ, which has the example of the
primitive Church in its favour.4 The Christian worship -of
God includes also as its object God's absolute revelation and
presence in the personal God-man, so that God is to be
worshipped also in Christ as the sacred personal abode of His
perfect presence.6 To such a degree is His perfected humanity
1 Papismus merus Enthusiasmus, Art. Sm. p. 332.
2 § HI. 3 John viii. 32.
* Acts ii. 21, vii. 59, ix. 14 ; Rom. x. 13 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 j Phil. ii. 10 ff. ; John
v. 23 ff.
5 See § 103. 5.

CHRIST'S HEAVENLY OFFICE. 153
the adequate organ of the Deity present in it, and to such a
degree is God perfectly revealed only in it, that the worship
of the Deity, as it has been first revealed through and in
humanity, cannot be thought in separation from the humanity
of Christ, with which God is indissolubly united in unique
fashion.1 Observation. — Since Christ's exaltation, His heavenly
historic manifestation has, of course, vanished for us. In
this way a collision is threatened with the established
ineffaceable need of the Christian soul to stand in real
personally mediated communion of love with Christ. If there
were no longer for us any secure, historic connection with
Him having its place in the sensuous world, if therefore
Christ worked through His Spirit in a purely internal manner,
and our intercourse with Him did not take place through
historical and sensuous means, then piety must necessarily
assume a visionary ecstatic character, then to it Christ would
be arbitrarily replaced by the mere spirit of Christ, which
would be subbmated into the general divine essence, while
Christ's earthly office would grow dim to tbe consciousness.
Hence it is important to recognise that Christ's heavenly
office, instead of nullifying His earthly office, rather ensures
that it is brought to eternal reabty and abiding remembrance,
that its eternal import is preserved and rendered fruitful.
On this account Christ left behind permanent institutions,
which bring us into historic contact with Him, even by
sensuous media. His Word, Holy Baptism, and the Holy
Supper, proclaim to us this historic connection of the Church
of all ages with Him, for they are the same that He gave.
For this reason the letters of Ignatius say : The Gospels are
the eap% XpieroZ. In these media, since He became invisible,
He has an equivalent for what is essential in the historic
manifestation, or world-realization of His person or office.
These three in their impersonal form and manifestation are
the means, estabbshed and preserved by Him, for bringing us
1 Cf. Rothe, Pred. ii. 167 : "God has shown Himself to us unveiled first in
Christ, and only in Christ. In Him He has become man. In Christ we
directly behold God to be real (John xiv. 9). Not merely during His earthly
walk, now also His image shines on us with the expression of unmistakeable
truth." "All active energy and presence of spirit, even of the divine, can only
be known (and therefore also spiritually apprehended) in the matter, which it
makes the mirror of itself." Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 5, 6. For this very reason Rothe
also in the above-named sermons adheres to the worship and invocation of
Christ.

154 TRANSITION TO DOCTRINE OF CHURCH.
into fellowship with the personal, historic, now exalted Lord,
and for keeping us therein until He comes again. Rightly
used, they do not separate from Him as false substitutes,
such as human persons must be, but draw to His person while
He works through them. Their mediatory working is therefore
no contradiction to the immediacy of the relation between
Him and us. They rather mediate the immediacy not merely
of Christ's relation to us, but also of ours to Him. He
• desires to be apprehended by faith as the personal core
present in those impersonal media, as the personal import in
them, ever and anon historically drawing near, and offering
Himself through them as once through His bodily mani
festation.

TRANSITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.
§128.
What is given objectively in Christ is to be appropriated by
humanity. But humanity is designed, by such appro
priation, to become the Church or Community of faith.
As the centre of the kingdom of God, the Church is the
final aim, which Christ proposes to His activity. The
doctrine of the Church falls into three divisions : —
First. — The Origin of the Church through the appro
priation of salvation, or through Regeneration by
the Spirit, whom Christ sends.
Second. — Its Existence and Growth through the
continued office of Christ, who uses the means of
grace as the specific medium of His grace.
Third. — The Consummation of the Church.
1. It is in harmony with the type of Evangelical doctrine
to attach to the doctrine of Christ's Person, not in the first
instance the doctrine of the Church, but that of faith, and there
fore the doctrine of the subjective appropriation of salvation,
through which' the Church comes into existence. On the
other hand, stress may plausibly be laid on the axiom, that
the whole is before the part, and next on the fact that faith
does not arise without Word and Sacrament, which exist not

TRANSITION. 155
without the Church. These objections require careful exami
nation, especially in our days. For, on one side, we hear
complaints about personal bebef and certitude of faith being
put in the background, and the Church being put first ; on
the other, about subjectivity thrusting itself forward before
the Church. If Christ meant the Church to be merely an
organized government, to which the persons (at least their
moral and rebgious character) are indifferent, and not an
organism composed of living persons, nothing would be more
natural than to suppose the Church founded by means of such
an impersonal organized government, which Christ established
in virtue of His kingly authority even before Pentecost, and
therefore at the time when, according to John, the Holy
Spirit and faith born of the Spirit as yet were not.1 But if
the community, which Christ founded, lacked the holy faith-
creating Spirit, then what He founded would at least not be
the Church, which has no existence apart from bebeving men,
however many sacred things or institutions might exist. The
Aristoteban dictum quoted above is borrowed from the sphere
of nature and its organisms, and has there its proper sphere
of application. On the other hand, in history its application
is but limited. Further, correct as it is within the existing
Church to say that the Church precedes the rise of faith, our
business must, first of all, be to ascertain scientifically the
origin of the Church. And as concerns this point, since
neither the 0. T. Church nor Christ alone was the Church,
and since Christ first founded the Church by gathering
together bebevers, nothing remains but to suppose the Church
founded by means of true faith, i.e. faith participant of salva
tion. But it might be said : Inasmuch as Christ is the Head
of the Church, and pertains to it as its universal principle',
the Church already existed potentially in Him. But the
Church, considered either as a community of human beings
or as an institution for their government, was not constituted
by Christ's person as such. Nor, finally, is it at all admissible,
even leaving out of sight the origin of the Church, and
regarding only its existence, to derive faith from the Church
as its sufficient cause on the ground that it carries in itself
Word and Sacrament, which work in conjunction with the
1 John vii. 39.

156 TRANSITION TO DOCTRINE OF CHURCH.
Holy Spirit. For while the Church perpetuates these institu
tions, it only does this so long as faith is not extinct in it.
Faith may therefore lay claim to being the abiding postulate
even of the existing Church. To this must be added, that
while the faith of bebevers is improved by Word and Sacra
ment, these two are not the Church, but, as shown above
(§12 7), the continuation of Christ's office.
It is also of high importance to hold fast the Evangelical
type in this place, because only by attaching the doctrine of
faith directly to the Person of Christ (or, what is essentially
the same, to the institutions which are continuations of His
office), can the immediacy of our relation to God and Christ
be secured ; whereas, where instead of this the Church is put
before faith, the necessary consequence is always a false
dependence of the subject upon it, along with a false
independence of the Church in relation to Christ. The
Christian life is. not transmitted, bke a fluid or a material
inheritance, by a law of nature. Christiani non nascuntur sed
fiunt renascendo. Christianity begins in believers at present,
just as originally in the apostles, through the continued acti
vity of Christ, who sends the Holy Spirit that He may work
through the institutions of Christ, through Word and Sacra
ment. The Church never has faith - creating, regenerating
power. Never and nowhere does the Holy Spirit withdraw into
passivity behind the acting, working Church. Never and no
where do Word and Sacrament become His substitutes (§ 135).
2. But, of course, the notion is to be rejected, that the
Church owes its origin merely to the subjective will of
believing men. In that case Christ would only indirectly be
the founder of the Church, nay, it would then be natural to
derive its origin from the unfettered discretion of the subjects,
from an agreement among them. It must be laid down as
certain, that the aim of the world, which God has kept in
view, and the realization of which is Christ's work, does not
conclude with the origination of believing monads, be their
number ever so great, everything further being left to the
freedom of the subjects or to chance. Then the dispersion of
humanity would not be reduced to unity by Christianity. On
the contrary, such freedom, unchecked by the spirit of com
munion, would legitimate its permanent dispersion — a result

TRANSITION. 157
certainly incompatible with the ethical spirit of Christianity.
For love is not the sport of chance, but, by inner necessity,
formative of communion.
3. Thus the correct conclusion, in which the rights of
believing personabties and of the community or Church find
their acknowledgment, is this : Believers and the community
stand in unconditional dependence on Christ. The Church,
it is true, does not empirically precede faith ; rather, bebevers
are the constituent factors of the empirical Church, which
would have no existence anywhere without bebevers. But,
on the other hand, before the Church exists in empirical
reality, it has a pre-existence in the divine counsel. This
counsel again becomes the real historic potentiabty of the
Church in the consciousness and will of Christ, who sends
the Holy Spirit. That potentiabty, indeed, first passes into
realization when believers exist as the material or the living
stones, not without their mediation. But just as the Church
was kept in view in Christ's will from the beginning, so the
faith created by Christ's person and work is only thorough
Christian faith through the fact of its reflecting Christ's will
as a bving mirror, and of a relation to community being
inborn in it. Thus, in saying that faith and the Church
are mutually related as the two inseparably united ends of
Christ's work, and that neither can faith be called Christian
without the spirit of Church-communion, nor the Church
without bebevers, we also assert that faith and the Church
are ends essentially excellent and, in so far, coequal in dignity.
But for this very reason faith must make itself a means for
the sake of the community, and the community make itself a
means for the sake of faith ; and both are rightly thought, not in
their mutual separation, but only in their mutual connection.
But as concerns the historic carrying out of this mutual inner
relation of the two, it must be laid down that the founding of
true faith in decisive creative fashion is not due to the
empirical Church, but to Christ, who continues His work by
the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament, and that
everywhere and always faith must first Be present if the
Church is to arise or exist ; and, on the other hand, that in
faith as Christian, the spirit of communion, the aim of which
is the Church, must be innate ; and certainly this spirit cannot

158 TRANSITION TO DOCTRINE OF CHURCH.
manifest itself as the spirit of active love before the new
personality is created by the consciousness of communion
with God and Christ. The new self-consciousness is, with the
new God-consciousness, the presupposition of love, while love
— that truth of the generic consciousness — is the manifesta
tion of the existing faith of the personality.
4. The conclusion from all this is, that, in seeking in the-
first instance scientific knowledge of the origin of the Church,
we must start from faith, and so treat faith as at the same
time to find in it the genesis of the Church. In doing so, it
is always of importance to keep in mind the independence as
well as mutual connection of the two poles, — the factor of the
community and of faith, — since the two may be severed from
each other in theory as well as in practice ; and when one is
sickly, help must come from the heabng counteraction of the
other still relatively sound factor. It is a further conclusion
from what has been said, that the Church and not merely
faith is no doubt a dogmatic (not merely ethical) idea,1 for it
is an eternal divine thought, it is essentially innate in Christ's
work as well as in faith, and its realization is an act of the
Triune God. But inasmuch as the Church is the embodi
ment of the concrete loving communion of believers, the idea
of the Christian Church acquires of course an ethical aspect,
alongside the dogmatic, which becomes the subject of Chris
tian ethics. Finally, inasmuch as the ethical aspect requires
fixed ordinances adapted to the age in order to the organiza
tion of the community of love, and especially in order that
the community may be a psedagogic instrument of salvation
and be guarded against external disturbances, it leads to the
legal element of the idea of the Church, to the Church under
a legal aspect. Upon the spiritual fermenting of humanity,
the centre and organ of which is the Church, follows the
moral transformation and reconstruction of the world in all
spheres, by which humanity becomes the kingdom of God, as
it is the function of Christian ethics to describe. In relation
to the entire aim of Christ and the divine goal of the world
" kingdom of God"," as it is a more primitive and scriptural,
so it is a more adequate designation than " the Church," but
the latter is certainly the centre of the kingdom, of God.
1 Cf. the distinction between ethical and dogmatic propositions, i, § 1. 4, p. 28.

SECOND MAIN DIVISION.
THE CHURCH, OR THE KINGDOM OP THE
HOLY SPIRIT.
§ 129. — The Work of the Holy Spirit in general.
Christ carries on the work of redemption to completion
through the Holy Spirit, whom He sends. The reveal
ing purpose of the Father and the atoning purpose of
the Son only attain their goal, when the Holy Spirit
also reveals Himself in the world, and communicates
Himself to it in conformity with His distinctive nature.
In doing this, the Spirit, on the one hand, presupposes
Christ's historic work ; on the other, He prepares by His
working for Christ's Second Advent (§ 127).
1. In Christ eternal redemption is found and all salvation
provided;1 but because in His person humanity is united with
divinity, humanity in us also may and ought to be united
with God.2 Although in Christ the objective revelation of
God as the eternal Logos is completed, that of the Holy Spirit
is not therewith completed Only when the latter ensues
does the immanent Trinity attain its complete reflection in
the world of revelation True, the Holy Spirit must be
thought as active even before Christ, wherever a relative
union of the antithesis of God and the world is found.3 By
such relative unions the way is prepared for the perfect
objective revelation — the revelation of God as the Son, and
humanity is made inwardly receptive thereto. But considered
in Himself, the Holy Spirit has before Christ merely the
initial revelation of Himself; for the perfect revelation
1 Heb. ix. 12. 2 2 Cor. v. 19 ff.
3 Gen. i. 2 ; Ps. li. 11 ; Isa. lxiii. 10. Cf. vol. i. § 28, p. 346.
159

160 THE CHURCH, OR THE KINGDOM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
requires that He prove Himself historically — which is only
possible on the basis of atonement — the absolute principle of
union in the heart of humanity, as in God's essence He
effects the union of opposites,1 whereas in the Son God is
contrasted with sinful man merely in objective revelation.
The Holy Spirit gains this His own perfect revelation first
through the completion of the revelation of the Son.2
Although in the Son of man the Logos only is incarnate, not
God as the Holy Spirit, still the Holy Spirit co-operates in
the incarnation of the Logos, and in Christ the Father also
and the Holy Spirit dwell, even as the Triune God would
make His abode in us. In the Son of man the Holy Spirit
obtains the primitive scene of His perfect reabzation in the
world. The Son of man is the point in which humanity
has returned into God, the First-born of true humanity united
with God.3 At first He is still alone.4 But since He has
the Spirit without measure, and is the Fons Spiritus Sancti,
He is able to baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit,5 and a
race of many brethren may be born to Him, but of course
only after He has gone through His baptism of suffering.
Hence, in the completion of His revelation, the Spirit of God
is the 7rvev/ia Xpiarov,6 as He is also said to be sent by
Christ. As the Spirit of Christ, He refers back to Christ and
carries in Himself the power to diffuse the divine-human bfe,
in order to carry on the union of the human with the divine
by growing assimilation of the former to the latter. Such
power of union is the principle of the Pahhgenesis of the
human spirit and of nature, in virtue of the absolute union of
the two accomplished in Christ. The Holy Spirit does not
after Christ begin to unite the divine and human again de
novo; but in fixed historical continuity, the divine-human
personal unity, which in Christ is incorporated with humanity,
is employed for the purpose of propagating the life of the
God-man.7 Through Him sons of God are begotten, a race
whose progenitor is Christ.8 Thus, according to Holy Writ,
1 Vol. i. § 31a, pp. 421, 425, 436 f. 2 John vii. 39, xvi. 7.
a Col. i. 15 ; Rom. viii. 29-; Heb. i. 6. * John xii. 24.
5 Acts i. 5, 8 ; Mark i. 8 ; Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke xii. 49 ; John xv. 26, xvi. 7-15.
6 Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6. » 2 Pet. i. 4 ; John xii. 24.
8 Rom. viii. 14, v. 15 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; John i. 12.

THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN GENERAL. 161
the Holy Spirit in His perfect revelation, which has become
possible after Christ, exercises His characteristic nature in
the world also, namely, the reduction of distinctions to
unity. The world or humanity standing in contrast with
Christ, as the objective revelation, becomes through the Holy
Spirit, as the Spirit of Christ, humanity led back to God,
appropriated by Christ's theanthropic bfe; and this is the
Church. 2. The Dissimilarity of the Revelation of God in
Christ and in the Holy Spirit. — This point has been already
treated in the Christology with respect to the fact, that the
supposition of a bke being of God in Christ and in believers
is unsatisfactory to the Christian consciousness. Rather we
had to assume a unique mode of God's being in Christ, which
leads us back to intra-divine, eternal, trinitarian distinctions.
The other side of the matter must now be considered, namely,
that even the pecubar mode of God's being in Christ cannot
be a substitute for God's mode of being and revelation as the
Holy Spirit in the Church assimilated by Christ. This
Mlows most simply from the character (discussed above) of
Christ's substitution, which is not negative, not repressive of
personality, but productive. He is not content with the
existence in Himself of the fulness of spiritual life, into
which His people are absorbed by faith. Believers are
themselves to bve and love as free personabties ; they are to
be ends to His love for their own sakes ; and therefore Christ's
redeeming purpose is directed to the creation by the Holy
Spirit, whom He sends, of new personabties, in whom Christ
gains a settled, estabbshed being. But by this very means
God exists in them after a new manner, new not merely
because the power of redemption and consummation inheres
only in God's being in Christ, but how also because, although
Christ remains the Principle of the bfe, this bfe shapes itself
in freedom and distinctness from Christ. Only by means of
such freedom can the bond between Christ and man, instead
of remaining a one-sided one, become two-sided, and therefore
all the firmer — the reciprocal relation of love. But at the
same time, the fulness of the Spirit, of bght and bfe, grace
and truth, which dwells objectively in Christ, no longer
remains merely objective to the world, but lives and unfolds
Doknek. — Christ. Doct. iv. L

162 THE CHURCH, OR THE KINGDOM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
itself in the world as a living treasure of salvation. Through
the Holy Spirit it comes to pass, that Christ's impulse is not
simply continued and extended to men, but becomes an
indigenous impulse in them, a new focus being independently
formed for naturalized divine powers. As a new divine
Principle, the Holy Spirit creates, although not substantially
new faculties, a new volition, knowledge, feeling, a new self-
consciousness. In brief, He produces a new person, dissolv
ing the old union-point of the faculties, and creating a new
pure union of the same. The new personality is formed in
inner resemblance to the second Adam, on the same family
type, so to speak. Everything, by which the new personality
in' its independence makes itself known, is ascribed by Holy
Scripture to this third divine Principle. Through the Holy
Spirit the bebever has the consciousness of himself as a new
man,1 and the power and bving impulse of a new, holy life
that is free in God.2 He is the spirit of joy and freedom in
opposition to the ypdjifta ;3 subjection to divine impulse is
now in the blending of necessity and freedom withal spon
taneous impulse ; mere passivity and receptiveness are trans
formed into spontaneity, nay, productiveness and independence.
Through Him we are not merely apprehended of Christ, but
also apprehend Him ; not merely known and loved of God,
but are also conscious of being so, nay, know and love God.
Through the Holy Spirit all natural powers implanted in
creation are consecrated, inspired, and developed, the indi
vidual personabty being thus raised to complete charismatic
individuality. By all these means the Holy Spirit plants
and cherishes the one relatively independent factor — the
presupposition of the origin of the Church (§ 128), namely,
the new, bebeving personabty.
3. The second aspect is : The Holy Spirit is the spirit of
communion. This may seem to be incompatible with the
personal independence which He creates by bringing man's
nature into harmony, his faculties into unison, whereby the
creative thought is reabzed, which kept in view individuals
1 Eph. i. 13, iv. 30 ; Rom. viii. 15, 23 ; 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5 ; Gal. iv. 6. {npfuyis,
uppxfiwv). 2 Rom. viii. 14 ; Gal. v. 17, 18, 22.
8 Rom. viii. 2, 10, 14, 15 ; Gal. iv. 6 ; Eph. iii. 16 ff. ; 1 Cor. xii. 9, 10, 28.

THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN GENERAL. 163
by name. But the individual believer, free in God, even when
his generic consciousness is perfected, is again only perfected
by love. The reabty of personality is just this, that the true
essence of humanity is reabzed in it, in an individual form
indeed, but in the spirit of the universal. And this common
spirit, in virtue of which all are conscious of being a unity
and of carrying on one work, in reference to which they are
mutually helpful or supplementary, forms the crown of the
work of Christ. As at a lower stage a plurabty of powers
was gathered in the first Adam into a harmonious unity, so
now also the individual persons are again unities, out of
which a higher whole is harmoniously built up. Moved by
the Holy Spirit, as its divine life-breath, redeemed humanity
or the Church stands in contrast with the darkness and sin of
the world, as the world of clear, blessed self-consciousness, of
peace and love, as the flower of humanity, the place conse
crated to be the tabernacle or temple of God upon earth.1
4. But although God thus estabbshes through the Holy
Spirit a new world of bght, of divine peace and divinely
ordered bfe in place of the old chaotic world,2 it is still
certain that the Holy Spirit takes of that which is Christ's,3
His office being to introduce into the heart the revelation
objectively perfected in Christ. This revelation, to which He
leads men, is the blessing which He seeks, to. make a subjec
tive possession; He seeks to glorify Christ by disclosing His
mind, imprinting His image on the heart, and thus uniting
with Him. He makes the all-sufficient fulness that is in
Christ the possession of the human personabty. Hence the
Holy Spirit does not seek to give a new, perfecting revelation
as to contents ;4 but, completing the cycle, He recurs to the
revelation objectively perfected in the Son and to. the Father,
in order to bring the world into intimate communion with
the Father and the Son. Notwithstanding, there is a new
creative act of God in the work of the Holy Spirit.. For in
and with that reference back to Christ, He creates new
persons, and ratifies and seals the revelation of the Father in
the Son ; objectively, by disclosing the wisdom and power of
1 1 Cor. iii. 17, vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 21 ; Rev. iii. 12, xi. 19.
2 Col. i. 12, 13 ; 2 Cor. iv. 6. Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 10. 3 John xvi. 15..
4 John xvi. 13, 14, xiv. 26, xv. 26.

164 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
God that is in Christ ; subjectively, by building up believers
into the body of Christ, inspiring them, and being the moving,
debvering power in them, so that they become His free
organs, the scene of His revelation of Himself in the world.
Thus the revelation or dominion of the Holy Spirit and the
glorifying of Christ in the world, are inseparably one. But,
again, the glorifying of the world itself is inseparably con
nected with both. This is first of all a spiritual glorifying,
but one that cannot be accompbshed without a conflict with
the world itself. Hence the Holy Spirit has in the first
place to exercise a corrective office on the world.1 This excites
opposition and hate in the world, and sets it in commotion.
But the more humanity is fermented in this conflict by the
Spirit of Christ, the more the Church, reflecting the history of
the exalted Lord Himself, presses towards manifestation and
mastery over nature. The exciting of opposition and the
fermenting of the world agree in this, that everything must
be brought to decision by the power of Christianity, that the
absolutely heterogeneous and incompatible is separated, and
the homogeneous gathered together. But thus the work of
the Holy Spirit prepares the way both negatively and posi
tively for the final Judgment, from which time everything will
be subject to Christ, either to His retributive power and
justice, or to the omnipotence of His love, which creates the
new heaven and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness,
and where the revelation of the glory of Christ will be blended
with the glory of His people.

FIRST DIVISION.
THE ORIGIN OP THE CHURCH THROUGH FAITH AND
REGENERATION.
§ 130. — Relation of the Holy Spirit to Human Activity
in the Work of Grace.
Divine and human activity are united in producing the work of
grace, but in such a way that the stimulus proceeds from
1 John xvi. 8.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 165
the former both in the preparation and appropriation of
salvation. Each embraces the whole work of salvation,
but each in its own mode. In order to define this mode
aright, it is important to conceive the relation of Nature
and Grace, neither as one of false identity or mere
quantitative distinctiveness, nor of false contrariety, i.e.
to define it neither in a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian, nor
in a Manichaean way. On the contrary, along with the
specific novelty and supernaturalness of Christian grace,
its inner homogeneity with Nature must be understood.
This homogeneity is secured both by the wisdom of
divine love, which will not interrupt the work begun in
creation, but conduct it to completion, and by the need
and receptivity of human nature for Christian grace.
The specific character and novelty of grace are rendered
decisively secure by the fact, that the prevenient grace of
justification is known as its first fundamental gift ; and
justification cannot be an effect of man's action in whole
or in part, although it only becomes a conscious posses
sion through faith. But through its actual reception and
possession mere receptivity passes into spontaneity and
the productive power of freedom, in which divine and
human bfe find a union that images the life of Christ.
Literature. — Landerer, das Verhaltniss von Gnade und
Freiheit in der Aneignung des Heiles, eine dogmengesch. u. dogm.
Abh. (alas ! not completed), Jdhrb. f. deutsche Theol. ii. 500-
603. Luthardt, v. freien Widen, 1863 (cf. ante, §§ 74. 79).
Schweizer, Gesch. d. Central-Dogm. h\, especially p. 564 ff.
Jul. Muller, Dogm. Abhh. 1870, p. 186 ff. ; respecting Luther's
attitude towards the doctrine of Predestination, cf. also his
Diss. Lutheri de Prcedest. et lib. arb. Doctrina, 1832. Muller also
refers to the opinions of J. Kostbn, Harnack, Frank, Philippi,
and Pbtt, respecting Luther's predestination-doctrine.
A. — Biblical Doctrine.
On one side (and these passages are the most numerous,
especially in the New Testament) salvation is expressly

166 ORIGIN of church.
referred to God, who creates both the willing and performing,1
as in the Old Testament a new heart is viewed or promised
as God's gift.2 Even a penitent heart is described as a gift
of God. The same is true of faith.3 But on the other side,
repentance and faith are required as a moral and rebgious act
of man. So in the preaching of the Baptist which Christ
takes up.4 The Sermon on the Mount requires a seeking
after the kingdom of heaven, and commends a striving, a
doing violence to it.6 Both views are combined when faith as
a divine work is absolutely required of man,6 or when it is
viewed as an impulse of will, but towards Christ, who would
be superfluous if the impulse were able of itself to attain its
goal or bring heabng and redemption. How, then, are the
two, which seem so opposite in meaning, to be reconciled ?
In this way, that according to the N, T. the gospel is neither
a mere legal requirement nor a mere exertion of the power of
God and Christ upon man, whether he is wilbng or not, but
that like the gift, which it is, it addresses itself in the first
place as an offer to the will and its free decision. It is in the
first place an invitation, a call to salvation.7 To offer is not
to command or compel, and yet obedience to the invitation is
a duty and obbgation. Since salvation is first of all forgive
ness, pardon, which, in order to be consciously received as
such, presupposes the acknowledgment of guilt and God's just
displeasure, while guilt is acknowledged only by the penitent,
Christ says: "I am come to call sinners to repentance."8
The Beatitudes describe the righteousness of the kingdom of
heaven as the divine gift, which, however, must be the object
of earnest effort.9 Where hunger and thirst after righteous
ness, i.e. vital receptivity for it, exists, the seeking becomes
an asking for the gift present in Christ.10 The divine and
the corresponding human act are connected by Paul when he
says : " I follow after, that I may apprehend that for which I
1 Phil. ii. 13, i. 6 ; Eph. ii. 5 ; Col. ii. 13.
s Ps. li. 10 ; Jer. xxiv. 7, xxxi. 18, 33, 34 ; Ezek. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26, 27.
3 Jer. xxiv. 7 ; Acts v. 31, xi. 18 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25 ; Heb. vi. 6. Faith : Phil.
ii. 13 ; Eph. i. 19, ii. 10.. Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 6-12 ; John xv. 1 ff. ; 2 Cor. iii. 5.
4 Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17 : UiratotTtt. » Cf. Matt. vi. 33, xi. 12.
« John vi. 29. » Matt. xi. 27, 28, xxii. 2 f. ; Luke xiv. 16 f.
8 Matt. ix. 13 ; Mark ii. 17 ; Luke v. 32. » Matt. vi. 33, v. 3, 6.
10 Matt. xi. 27 f.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 167
am apprehended of Christ Jesus."1 The prevenient act of
Christ 2 is meant to evoke the act of apprehending in us, our
being loved of God to evoke the desire to be loved in the
beloved One, i.e. the desire to be included in the love with
which the Father loves the Son.
This will-arousing summons to the divine gift, which is
often represented as a feast, appbes to all. The purpose of
grace is universal.8 Hence the gospel, repentance and for
giveness of sins, are to be preached to all nations.4 This
cannot refer merely to nations as unities, but must refer also
to every individual; for otherwise the universabty of the
gracious purpose would not be earnestly meant ; and if God
refused what is indispensable to salvation to the individual,
condemnation would be impossible. But, on the contrary, no
one will be damned merely on account of the common sin
and guilt.5 But every one is definitely brought to personal
decision only through the gospel. A predestination of one
class to damnation, or even a mere passing by of one class
altogether in respect of grace, and not simply for a time, is
not taught in the New Testament. Rom. ix.-xi. treats only
of an earlier and later calling 6 of individuals, and especially
of nations, not of an eternal predestination of one class to
damnation. Even divine hardening is only meant in such a
sense that self-hardening also is included, and condemnation
in such a sense that culpabibty and self-condemnation also
are included.7 Want of will is described as the cause of
exclusion from salvation.8 The call coming to all does not
come apart from the objective means of grace.9 But election
also does not take effect apart from the faith, which follows
the summons.10 Hence, while all indeed are called, all called
are not elected11
1 Phil. iii. 12. Cf. Jer. xxxi. 18 : Turn Thou me, that I may be turned.
2 1 John iv. 10.
3 John iii. 16 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6. Cf. John i. 29, vi. 51 ; 1 John i. 7 ; Rom. iii.
22, x. 4, xi. 32 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9 ; Matt. xi. 28.
4 Matt. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi. 15 ; Luke xxiv. 47.
5 Gal. vi. 4, 5 : Every one shall bear his own burden.
0 Rom. ix. xi., xi. 25. 7 Rom. ix. 32, x. 16.
" Matt, xxiii. 37. 9 Rom. x. 14.
10 Rom. x. 9, 16 ; Mark xvi. 16. n Matt. sx. 16, xxii. 14.

168 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.

B. — Ecclesiastical Development of the Doctrine of the Relation of
Divine and Human Activity in the Work of Redemption.
Literature. — Cf. § 74.
1. The Greek Church had not in general a profound appre
hension of the difference between the pre-Christian age and
Christianity. Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and others
rather see in the latter only true, wise teaching, in which
distinguished heathen also participated through the Logos.
Nay, in Justin's eyes righteous heathen were Christians. Not
merely the Antiochians, such as Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore
of Mopsuestia, and Chrysostom, but also Athanasius, Eusebius,
Cyril of Jerusalem, leave too large a place to man's natural
capacity for goodness,1 — a, proceeding in keeping with the fact
that the Oriental Church had to contend with Fatabsm and
Manichseism, which threatened the ethical character of Chris
tianity by their denial of moral freedom. Advancing beyond
this specially Antiochian doctrine, Pelagius desired to derive
all good from the free will of man. Inner operations of grace,
determining the will, seem to him irreconcilable with moral
freedom ; he concedes only outward adjutoria of teaching and
example. For this very reason, according to him, a natural
corruption, originating with the first progenitor, is out of the
question. Mortality is to him, as to Theodore, a physical
necessity, having nothing to do with sin.2 Evil example,
indeed, has an influence, but without abobshing freedom. If,
then, freedom remained intact, personal guilt would necessarily
be all the greater, and the need of divine redemption be aggra
vated. But this consequence is not dwelt on, because, on -the
other hand, the effect of sin is not considered so far-reaching
as not to leave the possibility of such a use of freedom as
procures reconciliation and salvation. — Augustine, on the con
trary, while ascribing freedom of choice to Adam before the
Fall, makes him lose it entirely through tbe Fab ; and since
1 Cf. Forster, Chrysostomus ; WSrter, p. 40; Landerer's treatise, Jahrb. fur
deutsche Theol., see above.
2 The latter, certainly, according to Theodore of Mopsuestia, is otherwise ; see
vol. ii. p. 336 f.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 169
the race fell in him, we are by nature altogether without
freedom. Only they are saved who are overpowered by the
omnipotence of grace and inspired with good vobtion. Ex
perience shows that this does not take place in all, but only
in a part. These are the elect ; whereas the others, although
no more belonging to the massa perditionis than the electi, are
left as they are and perish, not on account of their conduct,
but because grace is particular, not universal. Even to the
elect, according to Augustine, freedom of choice is not restored ;
they are and remain determined by the divine will ; conse
quently the human will, so far as it is good, is merely a form
of the divine will1 Strict predestinationism fears some dero
gation of the divine majesty if a place is left for human
freedom ; whereas, if there is no freedom, God's kingdom
would be poorer by an entire class of beings, ethical causabty
in man would be mere semblance, and no place would be left
either for guilt or moral commendation. Augustine (like
Pelagius) did not elaborate the doctrine of atonement and put
it in the centre. Hence, what is specifically new in Chris
tianity is not settled by him. The distinction between pre-
Christian and Christian is explained away by both in opposite
ways, — in Pelagius the distinction between heathenism and
Christianity, because to him the decisive feature is simply the
use of liberum arbitrium; in Augustine, to whom the heathen
world is a mere mass of corruption, the distinction between
the good of the Old and New Testament fades away, because
according to him everything depends absolutely on God's free
grace. Hence even in the 0. T. there are elect and regenerate.
2. Semi-Pelagianism and Synergism are one in the desire
to leave to human and divine activity their rights. Augus
tine's doctrine triumphed only in appearance, in reality Semi-
Pelagianism was predominant. The latter rejects absolute
predestination pretty much as the teaching of the Greek
Fathers does, concedes a weakening through original sin, and
accepts the universabty of the purpose of grace, even admit
ting internal operations of grace. But according to Semi-
Pelagianism, the beginning of the good work must be made by
man through the disposing of himself for grace, a view which
the theology of the Middle Ages developed into the actus
1 Cf. Luthardt, die Freiheit, etc., p. 38.

170 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
eliciti fidei, amoris, spei so called, through which man renders
himself worthy of receiving the grace of forgiveness and sanc
tification in respect of sins after baptism. On the other hand,
God must complete the work of salvation. Despite the more
Augustinian Council of Orange (529 A.D.), this became,
especiaby through the influence of Gregory the Great, in the
main the rubng doctrine. It is also in essentials the doctrine of
the Tridentine Council, Sess. vi.1 In this case we should have
an alternating between divine and human activity, but no union.
3. The Evangelical Doctrine. — To Semi-Pelagianism
the Apology opposes the axiom : " The beginning is half of
the whole." The Reformation as a rule recurred to Augus
tine's doctrine. Some of the Calvinistic theologians went so
far beyond Augustine as even to deny the freedom of Adam
(Supralapsarianism), even as Luther in his treatise, De servo
Arbitrio, felt himself compelled, not merely on account of
original sin, but also of the divine omnipotence, to deny libe-
rum arbitrium for the purpose of humbbng man's pride and
self-righteousness. But on this point the German Evangebcal
Church has not followed Luther. Even the German Reformed
Confessions from the time of the Heidelberg Catechism,
John a Lasco, and the Brandenburg Confessions, soften the
Calvinistic doctrine. The Angbcan Church still more de
finitely lets the Decretum absol. Electionis et Reprobationis
drop, and even the teaching of the Synod of Dort is Infra-
lapsarian. Melanchthon had at first, with Luther, entirely
denied liberum arbitrium, cabing it a Commentum philo-
sophicum ; but, when farther advanced in an independent
and distinctive course, he maintained with growing earnest
ness the ethical aspect of Christianity in relation to the law
and the guilt of man. Although in 1530 he had not yet
rejected the doctrine of absolute predestination,2 he already
put it in the background.8 But when, especially after 1532,
he pondered the passages of Scripture respecting the universal
purpose of grace, and reflected that the denial of freedom
1 Cf. Luthardt, ut supra, pp. 42-53.
2 Traces of the doctrine are found in Conf. Aug. Art. v. : Ubi et quando, etc.,
and xix. : non adjuvante Deo.
3 And that intentionally, according to a letter to J. Brentz, Corp. Ref. ii.
547. The subject, however, was a statement of the common faith of the German
Evangelicals.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 171
must necessarily transfer the guilt of perdition back from the
individual to a particularism in God's gracious purpose,
— when, therefore, he perceived that, if no place remains in
spiritualibus for liberum arbitrium to co-operate for salvation
or destruction by receiving or rejecting grace, the cause of the
perdition of the one class could only have its ground in the
refusal of divine help and debverance, — he advanced with
increasing definiteness to the rejection of the absolute predes
tination which the " Gnesio-Lutherans " so called, — Flacius,
Wigand, Amsdorf, — with the Reformed theologians, still con
tinued to maintain, and taught that man has even now so
much of liberum arbitrium that he is able either to close (sese
applicare) with the grace, which must be offered preveniently
to him, or to reject it.1 Three factors must co-operate in the
work of salvation — the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, and
liberum arbitrium, which latter must not maintain a merely
passive attitude, but can and ought to close with grace. This
his opponents called Synergism, because he left to man a
remnant of liberum arbitrium in spiritualibus even in reference
to the beginning.2
The Formula of Concord, in opposition to Augustine, con
cedes a co-operation in one who is converted, a restoration of
freedom by the grace of Christianity. But with Conf. Aug.
xviu. it maintains, that by nature we have absolutely no
freedom in spiritualibus, but only in civilibus. Even Luther's
treatise, De Servo Arbitrio, is unreservedly approved ; 3 man is
by nature lapis et truncus. But, on the other hand, it knows
no Decretum particulare to damnation, or indeed to evil ; 4 it
holds firmly by the universabty of the divine purpose of
grace.5 Whoever is lost, is lost only through his own un-
bebef.6 Grace, that is, is not irresistible, it does not compel.7
1 Cf. Herrlinger, die Theologie Melanchthons, p. 67-107, whose discussions
respecting the different stages in the development of Melanchthon are a model
of thoroughness, clearness, and conscientiously considered judgment. Cf. my
History of Protestant Theology, vol. i. 218 f.
2 Later, at least, Melanchthon declared for the view that the adjutorium of
the Holy Spirit is required even in order to the will to accept the gospel. Cf.
Herrlinger, ut supra.
3 668, 44. 4 819. • 619 ; 802, ]5 ; 813 ; 844.
6 819, 79. The unbeliever se ipsum vas contumelwe fecit, 809, 41.
' 818, 78. Ipsi sum perditionis causa sunt et culpam sustinent.

172 origin of church.
But, on the other side, the natural state of all men is described
as if resistance were not merely possible, but necessary. How,
then, is the Form. Cone, able to establish a diversity in the
fate of individuals, and a difference of conduct on their part ?
As concerns those who are saved, their severance from the
massa perditionis is based on Election, which as eternal took
place before the foundation of the world, and is viewed as the
causa salutis nostrce} There is a decree of election, which is
a comfort and the strongest of all securities.2 So bttle is the
divine foreknowledge of faith put in the place of absolute
predestination, and faith viewed as the cause of election, that,
on the contrary, it is emphatically denied that anything in us
is the cause of election.3 On this view, the difference between
the saved and condemned seems still in the last resort to be
altogether traced back in the Augustinian spirit to God's
absolute election of the one class, the obverse of which is the
passing by or overlooking of the rest. But therewith we
again arrive at a particularism in grace and a twofold decretum,
in opposition to the firmly held faith in universal grace, the
preaching of which could not then be God's earnest purpose,
and in opposition also to the doctrine that unbebevers are
lost through their own unbebef,4 which yet cannot be meant
as a mere illusive causality. On the other hand, an electio
absoluta (i.e. the doctrine that in the elect there is no ground
for their election, and therefore the ground of that election is
not the acceptance or non-rejection of grace) certainly agrees
well with the doctrine, that by nature all men are altogether
without capacity in spiritual things. Only it is hard to see
how the possibility of resisting grace can be universaUy
maintained alongside such electio absoluta. If this possibility
is not bmited to those who are lost, the difference of those
who are saved from them seems traceable to something in
them, namely, to abstinence from possible resistance. In
order to bridge over statements so opposite in appearance,
the Form. Cone, attempts the following device : In virtue of
» 799, 5. 8.
2 810, 45-47. The decretum electionis is solatium et arx munitissima. It is v
included in the divine decree, that the justified are also kept and glorified,
802, 20.
3 809, 43 ; 821, 88. * 818, 78.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 173
liberum arbitrium in civilibus, man retains the capacity to
bve virtuously, to maintain therefore good morals and
conduct, and to hear God's Word.1 If he hears it, its
influence upon him is so powerful, that he is either led
thereby to faith and salvation, or, if he believes not, his
unbebef is his own fault. But this is not maintained by the
later theology, probably in order not to attribute spiritual
influence to liberum arbitrium in civilibus, and that at the
decisive point. The teaching of the later theology rather is,
that in those who receive baptism or hear God's Word,
freedom of choice even in spiritualibus is restored by the
power of grace through the means of grace. This free
dom of choice (liberum arbitrium liberatum), restored modo
mere passivo, has then to decide for or against Christi
anity, so that the responsibility for condemnation rests
entirely on man.2 The acknowledgment, that the capacity
of free decision respecting his destiny is bestowed on man,
also impbes the giving up of the position, that in the elect
there is no ground of their election. On the contrary, Prce-
destinatio is exchanged more and more definitely for mere
divine foreknowledge, J. Gerhard and Quenstedt e.g. teaching :
Intuitus fidei, or prcevisa fides ingreditur decretum electionis.
The 18th century then passed over to Synergism, Semi-
Pelagianism, nay, Pelagianism, more and more depreciating
the rebgious side in comparison with the moral. After this
tendency had culminated in the theologians of the Kantian
school, Schleiermacher again emphasized the efficiency of grace,
and that in the form of the decretum dbsolutum, accepting,
however, the universabty of grace from the Lutheran doctrine,
and asserting the universality of the Apokatastasis. But he
does not show, how the moral ideas of guilt and punishment
consist with such aU-embracing determination by the divine
power, and the rebgious consciousness is shocked if God is
made even the negative cause of evil. The dogmatists after
Schleiermacher, even on the Reformed side, have therefore
pretty generally again subscribed to the freedom of the will
But even supposing that the Rationabsm which denies
1 808, 40 ; 818, 78. Moreover, the baptized have lib. arb. liberatum, 675, 67.
2 So, for example, the influential Kbnig, § 447, which is overlooked by R.
Schmidt, Stud. u. Krit. 1880, p. 207.

174 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
internal operations of grace is left out of sight, different
tendencies are always possible and perceptible in Evangebcal
theology. Those of one school approximate to Melanchthon's
Synergism in so far as they suppose a remnant of liberum
arbitrium, which is competent at once to accept grace or to
reject it, and therefore has spiritual significance. Of this
natural capacity of choice they assert that the decision
respecting a final destiny of happiness or misery depends
upon it, even apart from previous culture by Christian grace.1
They remind us that higher and nobler strivings are found
even among the heathen, and that the distinction between a
reprobate life and that of a Socrates, Plato, and Scipio ought
not to be held trivial. Grace, it is said, must find a point of
connection, and that in freedom ; else no living appropriation
of salvation is possible, but everything would depend on the
power of external influences, either divine or finite, operating
after the manner of physical necessity instead of leaving a
place for responsibibty. We are therefore forced back upon
absolute predestination, unless a remnant of free capacity in
spiritual things is assumed in man. On the other hand,
1 It is usual in certain circles to reckon Jul. Muller among the adherents
of Synergism. He expresses himself on this subject in his excellent treatise
respecting the relation between the working of the Holy Spirit and God's Word
as a means of grace (p. 253), to the effect that he by no means affects the
orthodoxy of the Formula of Concord, but still doubts whether Synergism
would endorse his view, since he takes offence at the very word rnif yi!t (of the
human will in conversion), and does not hold those tres causas, which
Synergism combines in a co-ordinate relation (pp. 252 f., 267, 268). His view
is as follows (p. 245 f.) : In man's natural state his heart is closed against God
and His influence. But in the depths of the heart a reaction exists against this
closed condition — the impulse of conscience and the presentiment of a living,
holy, creative, God. It lies, then, in the power of the natural man, whether he
will suppress the reaction of conscience within himself, or respect it. The
natural state may pass into hardness by an evil decision, which scorns that
divine offer and stimulus, which addresses itself (not merely in the form of the
offer of salvation in the gospel) to the secret reaction of conscience. If, instead
of rejecting the good divine stimulus or offer, he holds it fast, he has the
possibility of salvation. J. Miiller not merely repudiates the notion of capacity
in man to make a beginning of goodness (p. 252) ; he everywhere supposes
divine activity to intervene — that of Providence or the operation of Christian
grace— even in the preparation for conversion. But his view is not worked out
with complete clearness and harmony. It is not made clear whether Christian
grace is a necessary part of the preparation, and further, that Christianity can
exercise a power over man before his freedom of choice comes into exercise, that
it is a match for every form of pre-Christiap sin, and that we cannot therefore

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 175
Frank and Sartorius1 deny all spiritual capacity in the
natural man, endeavouring to justify expressions of the
Form. Cone, bke lapis et truncus, and the reported saying of
Augustine, that the virtues of the heathen are but splendid
sins. Frank's first postulate is an exclusive working of
divine grace, especially through the means of grace, and on
man's side only absolute passivity in presence of inevitable,
necessary operations of grace. To the sphere of such purely
divine operations belongs everything which forms part of
calling. But he reckons even regeneration and conversion
as to their divine side as a part of caUing, and does not
therefore shrink from speaking of man being regenerated and
converted apart from his knowledge and vobtion, although of
course conscious vobtion must fobow. He therefore main
tains essentially the view expounded by Kliefoth (Acht Bucher
von der Kirche, 1854). As this theory was subjected long
ago to a destructive criticism in J. Midler's often-mentioned
treatise (p. 247 ff), one naturally wonders that Frank
ventures to advance without fear on such unsubstantial
paths.2 Since, on the other hand, those acts of caUing grace,
in which man's attitude is in the first instance passive, ac
cording to him have for their aim, and must be regarded as
having for their aim, to supply to those who are called the
attribute the significance of a crisis certainly leading to salvation or ruin even
to the sinner's reverence for or abuse of conscience before Christianity has made
its nearness felt by him, because Christianity reserves to itself the prerogative
of introducing the crisis. It sounds indeed very plausible, when Muller says,
that whoever denies the factor of a natural free will in spiritualibus falls a prey
to predestinationism (pp. 250, 253), or, that to deny the fact of all divine
working being conditioned by the disposition of man in any point, and to put
an irresistible exercise of divine power in place of the human factor, leads to
magical theories. But that none of these consequences need follow from a
prevenient working of grace before the good employment of freedom, is shown
in the note, p. 267, where he acknowledges that there is truth in the doctrine of
Lutheran theologians of motus inevitabiles or necessarii as follows : " When the
core of the gospel is brought home to the heart through knowledge, there is
certainly an inner stirring of heart inseparably connected therewith ; and aj3
this glance into the significance of the gospel and the inner emotion of heart
connected therewith alone renders possible a first decision for or against Christ,
so only he to whom the gospel is inwardly brought homo is to be regarded as
actually called," pp. 267, 268, note.
1 Frank, die Tlieologie der Concordienformel, i. 138 f. Sartorius in his
Beitragen z. Apologie d. Augsb. Conf. 1853. Die heilige Liebe, i. 165 ff.
2 Frank, Syst. d. christi. Wahrlieit, ii. 300-316, §§ 40, 41.

176 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
possibility of deciding by spontaneous vobtion in favour of
the salvation offered, it is thereby affirmed withal that this
prevenient, aUeged, real, and universal " regeneration and
conversion," which is said to form the contents of effectual
calling (p. 314), is really nothing but a restoring of freedom
of choice, but cannot in the least be regarded as implying
good personal character in man. Hence it can be no loss to
let this attempt at a new terminology drop. Nor can it add
to the clearness of the matter to present regeneration and
conversion (under the name of " caUing ") complete as a
purely divine work, to which is next added the spontaneous
side of regeneration and conversion as a whole just as com
plete. For in this case the very thing which is the chief
concern remains in obscurity — the living interblending and
development of the divine and human sides, since each seeks
the other and is inclined to the other, and by this means
evokes a fruitful moral and rebgious process.
Finaby, Thomasius, Hofmann, and Luthardt1 attempt a
middle course, by assuming an operation of grace outside the
religion of the Old and New Testament, which, however,
does not forestaU Christianity. Although by this means a
higher longing, an ideal striving may be produced, this
longing does not understand itself, and self- righteousness (i.e.
defect in humility) remains connected with the striving after
righteousness. Only to Christianity is it given to enlighten
the natural man by its influence, and to set before his eyes
what he needs and unconsciously seeks. These workings of
Christianity, with the emotions belonging thereto, are inevitable
(inevitabiles); but since free personal decision is reserved, they
cannot be called irresistibiles. Harless agrees with Luthardt
in thinking that the Church doctrine, that man's attitude in
the work of grace is purely passive, ignores Christian ethics,
which requires in order to conversion a freely conscious,
personal movement on man's part. But Luthardt rightly
adds, that such a division of the work of salvation, in which
the divine action is intentionaUy set forth without regard to
the human movement, cannot be sufficient. The ethical
cannot be separated from the religious. Nor does Luthardt
approve the makeshift, that God exclusively works what is
1 Thomasius, ut supra, i. 369 ; Luthardt, 366 ff., 429-465.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 177
good in us, without the human wbl participating therein, or
the participation of the human wib need be nothing more
than negative abstinence from that resistance to grace which
the wib might put forth. For even this implies good volition,
which, however, exists not by nature, although certainly it is
not sufficient to assign to justitia civilis merely the sphere of
external conduct and propriety. Only the operations which
issue from Christian grace, after preparatory workings of
universal grace, restore liberum arbitrium to the power to
accept or reject Christian grace, which is offensive in some
respects to the natural man.1

C. — Dogmatic Investigation.
1. That the divine and human sides must combine in a vital
manner in the work of salvation, is implied generally by the
ethical character of Christianity, specificaby by the Christian
doctrine of God and by Ponerology. Supposing the universal
and absolute need of redemption on man's part to be estab
lished, the intervention of divine agency must be acknowledged
to be necessary in opposition to Pelagianism and Semi-
Pelagianism. Supposing, on the other hand, the universal
capacity of redemption to be established, a remnant of good
must be discerned even in the natural man, which must be
set in motion by the work of salvation, in order that redemp
tion may really become man's possession in the most proper
sense. Man must thus be in some way an active, not
simply a passive, participant in the process. But, further,
for these very reasons a deep distinction must be maintained
on the one side, and a continuity on the other, between the
natural man and what he becomes through the efficacy of
Christian grace, and the homogeneity of the first and the
1 Whereas Thomasius and Luthardt concede spiritual emotions even in the
natural man, of course as operations not of the natural capacity but of God (of
universal grace), only such, however, as have yet no specifically Christian
character, Philippi thinks the liberum arbitrium in civilibus to suffice also for
the preparation of faith, because in opposition to the Symbols he attributes to
it a more extended meaning, one not referring merely to secular things, — a
view which, if clearly thought out, would lead to the standpoint to which the
exposition of J. Muller inclines.
Dornee.— Christ. Doct. iv. M

178 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
second creations must be recognized also here. Were we to
make the distinction one merely of quantity or degree, the
absolute need of redemption would no longer be maintained,
.nor would there be any reason why liberum arbitrium should
not, as natural capacity for pure goodness, by effort and
practice reach higher and higher stages through its own
strength, especially if the good stimulus of teaching and
example were not wanting. In this way the power of self-
redemption might be asserted at least of the community or
the human race (objective Pelagianism). In order to com
prehend the depth of the distinction, we must not stop at
the world of external works, nor even at the relation of man
to man; for here of course a progress in culture, nay, in
such good regulation of life as corresponds to the idea of
morality, is possible even to natural humanity. We must in
any case go back to purity of inner moral disposition, which
in the last resort can only have its strength and security
in unity with God as the Primal Good. But even after we
have gone back to inner disposition, the sharp distinction
between the natural and the regenerate man seems again in
danger, from the fact that the regenerate also sin, their
sanctification being not yet complete. Thus it is evident
that the depth of that distinction cannot be demonstrated, if
regard is had exclusively to the moral sphere. The quab-
tative character of the distinction threatens again and again
to evaporate in the merely, gradual and to become fluent,
unless there is something which is found as a fixed cha
racteristic in the Christian as such, and is entire and
complete in him alone. But in Christianity one work is
already completed, and one only. That is, in an objective
aspect, atonement through Christ, which in reference to man
becomes justification. So that the adequate description of the
specific distinction between the natural man and the Christian
is, that the Christian is partaker of full and complete justi
fication, the former not. Thereby the Pelagian and Semi-
Pelagian modes of thought are definitively excluded, for both
attain in the best case an approximation to atonement, not
its entirety and completion. But then, as the specific distinc
tion of Christianity from everything extra-Christian ought
not to be obliterated, so also, in opposition to Manichasism, it

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 179
is essential not to sever the natural man and the believer
from each other, as if there were no kind of continuity
between the two. On the contrary, an identity of the new
with the old man must be maintained. In a material aspect
there is the same Ego in both ; the old man is not annihilated
and a new one put in his place.
But the question now is : How the two — the specific
distinction and the continuity — are to be combined. Wherein
especially does the universal capacity of redemption consist,
which must be an efficient factor in the attaining of salva
tion, without however being itself redemptive ? What is it
in the natural man which forms the universal point of con
nection for grace ? Grace itself would necessarily bear an
abrupt and magical character, if it came upon man with
overwhelming suddenness. Hence theology from the earliest
days has made prebminary stages precede the possession of
saving grace proper, two of which must be speciaUy empha
sized, — first, preparatory grace ; secondly, precursory or pre
venient grace (gratia prceparans and prceveniens). The
former denotes the universal, conserving divine activity, at
work in the heathen world even apart from the gospel, and
inducing receptiveness for higher things; the other is the
grace issuing forth from Christianity and its means of grace
upon man before be believes. Now the Formula of Concord,
Semi-Pelagianism, and Synergism find the point of connection
in a remnant of liberum arbitrium, — the former in a liberum
arbitrium in civilibus, not in spiritualibus ; the other two, on
the contrary, in a remnant of liberum arbitrium in spiritualibus.
We cannot agree with the Formula of Concord. Since it
makes the stress of the good or evil decision fall upon justitia
civilis, it ascribes the highest spiritual efficiency to a power
not spiritual in nature, although through the medium of the
means of grace. But he who has no spiritual knowledge
does not even know what Christianity is. Whether he
chooses or rejects it, whether he hears God's Word or not,
he knows not what he is doing. Consequently his destiny,
or the judgment upon him, cannot be made to depend on such
a use of freedom. Semi-Pelagianism essentially weakens the
need of redemption, because man's freedom is supposed to
be the author from its own resources of acts, by which he

180 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
renders himself worthy of grace, and therefore the author of
spiritual acts of high moral and religious worth. Synergism
is an improvement on this, because it limits the power of
natural lib. arb. to the act of closing with grace, to abibty
to accept it or not, which implies the confession, that good
volition of spiritual significance is necessary even to absti
nence from resisting the temptation to reject grace. But to
the supposition, that the natural man possesses capacity of
decision for or against Christianity (which without doubt has
spiritual significance), is opposed, first, the consideration that,
without a higher ideal longing (which, like everything good,
impbes divine working), the natural man cannot have the
preparation to receive Christian grace, a gratia prceparans
being therefore requisite. And even were Synergism to con
cede this, as it is well able to do and often does, because it
has no bking for Deistic views, nor does it in the interest
of freedom usuaby demand a purely immanent development,
still, in the second place, the supernatural working of Christian
grace must be postulated ; for of himself, and apart from aU
culture by Christian grace, the natural man cannot know what
Christianity is, and therefore is without the qualification for
a decision valid in God's sight.1 Only that decision can be
vabd, in making which man not merely knows of God as
Almighty, Holy, and Just, but knows also of His revelation
of love as realized and proclaimed in the gospel. In any
case, therefore, a culture by Christian grace must precede the
decision for or against Christ. There needs, as relates to the
divine activity, a gratia prceparans et prceveniens in order to-
give the means necessary to man for the decision. The
former presupposes a remnant of good natural disposition,
which constitutes his capacity of redemption, and which is
developed and fostered by God's conserving and governing
activity — a remnant of the highest significance even in
reference to the fruit of Christian salvation, the new creature.
For the work of Christian grace must have a point of connec
tion in the natural man, in his rational, religious, and moral
constitution, with which Christianity — that perfect revelation
of the Logos — is in harmony, and without which there could
never be any certainty of the truth of Christianity, and
1 1 Cor. ii. 14.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 181
of its harmony with the highest needs of our nature. This
natural endowment, which is capable of development by all
that which may be summed up as gratia prceparans, includes
in itself a liberum arbitrium able to produce & justitia civilis.
And the latter has not merely civic and secular value, but
something of moral significance, for the good fruits of this
justitia civilis have already an objective worth, especially in
reference to the community. But therewith the relation to
God is not as yet brought into normal order, because recon
ciliation with God is wanting, and for this very reason the
power of a new, divine life, and that goodness of disposition
which alone gives to the motives of good works their purity
and sincerity. Hence there is still needed the operation of
Christian grace, and indeed not merely of the grace of re
generation, but above all, and in the first place, of the grace
which renders possible and brings about the transition to that,
i.e. of gratia prceveniens, of the Christian grace of atonement
which cans and offers itself. Christ is not merely the Truth
and the Life, but also " the Way " to the salvation enclosed
in Him, because through the preaching of the gospel He
draws near to the soul, inspiring it with a tendency towards
that which it needs. With aU that which gratia prceparans
accompbshes, i.e. with all the stimulus or development of his
powers, the natural man would not as yet be ripe for decision
for or against Christianity. Even an affirmative choice would
not be spiritualis, so long as it lacked the consciousness of
what Christianity is, which must and is meant to be first
given by redeeming grace, i.e. by atonement.
2. But it is indispensable that there be an actual crisis, a
free, conscious decision for or against Christianity, for without
this no definitive settlement of the worth and destiny of the
individual were possible. If, then, as has been shown in
opposition to Synergism, the natural man has not this
capacity of free appropriation (applicatio) or decision, the first
aim of grace must be, basing itself on the still existing
capacity of redemption, to restore freedom to the power of
making such a decision. This is effected by preparatory and
precursory grace setting up in man's heart such a counterpoise
to the temptations of sin, of unbelief, presumption, and pride
as counteracts them, so that the man is given back to him-

182 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
self, to his freedom (or freedom to him). Now the first
step to this is to awaken conscience by the action of universal
preparatory grace, to awaken a delight in goodness, while at
the same time, since man is shown his sin, displeasure with
himself is evoked. But the . knowledge of the law, of sin
and guilt alone, whether excited by outward deabngs and
events, or by inward workings of God's Spirit, would in the
best case induce knowledge of moral bondage, not of freedom ;
and even the longing and effort after purity could not suffice,
but unless something further is gained, could only lead to
despair of a higher value in life, or result in thoughts of
self-righteousness. In order, then, to give the right direction
to self-knowledge and the higher longing, the prevenient
manifestation of Christian grace (gratia prceveniens) is also
requisite. This grace on the one hand vivifies the knowledge
of sin and guilt, and therefore of helplessness, and on the other
the longing after moral worth and a salvation coming from
above. It does both in a decisive manner by holding up
the image of Christ, which shows the glory and attainableness
of the goal in a way at once attractive and confounding,
elevating and humbling. Further, since the image of the
Mediator, who atoned for the sin of the world, proclaims
God's love revealed in Him, and offers divine favour even to
the guilt-laden sinner, it makes it possible for that sinner
to confess sin and guilt with sincere heart, and banishes fear
of God. The natural longing of the soul to find rest in
God can now assume a more definite form. The glad tidings
of the gospel plant the first germs of joyous hope in the
heart ; and in the awakened, earnest longing after peace of
conscience and reconcibation with God, the message of free
forgiveness for Christ's sake, the message of the justification
of the sinner by grace, finds a good soil and intelligent ac
ceptance. Thus the effect of the Spirit's working is, that an
inner counterpoise to the temptations of sin is> set up, and
man is restored to his freedom. This freedom is now able
to make the decisive resolve of life, and in filial surrender
to perform the act of faith which affirms the design of pre
venient grace presenting itself, first of all, in the form of
forgiveness. Thus is it possible without violence or magical
working to restore freedom in the natural man, who lacked

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 183
it in spiritualibus, of course by divine action, and therefore
in a supernatural way; and thereby Manichasism and
absolute Predestinationism, whether in a particular or uni
versal form, as well as Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and
Synergism, are excluded.
Accordingly, the relation between divine and human activity
in the work of salvation is in general terms as fobows : —
The beginning starts from the divine, but in such a way
that human activity is set in action by God, partly stimulated,
partly evoked anew. The divine activity is also continuous,
not effective in the beginning merely. In the sphere of gratia
prceparans God brings about the awakening of better move
ments in man himself in feebng, knowledge, and volition. In
doing this all divine action is originative of action. StiU more
is this true in the sphere of precursory grace, where the soul
is brought into relation to Christ. There grace, or Christ, is
able more and more by the Holy Spirit to reveal itself, and
draw near step by step to man, always in such a way that the
talent already given to man has to operate in order to restore
susceptibibty for higher gifts.1 Every new step is taken with
a good conscience; every rejection of the new enlightening,
awakening, and stimulating influence takes place against con
science. But finally, grace wib and must lead to a decisive
turning-point. If grace has wrought hitherto through single
rays, these must at last converge to a living focus in the will.
The soul must become a mirror, in which the complete image
of Christ as the Mediator is received. There Christ acquires
a higher significance than that of a Teacher and Pattern,
namely a rebgious significance demanding the full surrender
of the soul. He must then either become more to man than
He was before, or less, because that which He claims is not
conceded to Him. This turning-point is called into existence
by the setting forth of Christ as the Atoner, or by the preaching
of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake. This is the
culminating-point of Christ's prevenient, intervenient action
upon man prior to the faith, that God's favour and forgiveness
are offered to him for Christ's sake.
3. Calling and Election. — Calling (vocatio) is universal,
for the divine purpose of redemption is just as universal as the
1 Matt. xiii. 12.

184 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
need and capacity of redemption, so that the notion of a divine
decree to pass by a portion of mankind, and to restore freedom
of decision only to the rest, is out of the question. Christianity
can only put everything in the way of decision, and introduce the
Judgment on condition that sooner or later this goal at least is
certainly and inevitably reached in the case of all, that they know
what they are doing in rejecting Christianity, and that the wrong
decision is not forced upon them by outward influences or by the
power of inherited evil The restoration of the possibility of a
free decision for Christianity is required by the ethical character
of the process introduced by Christianity, and by the personal
responsibibty, without which least of all could the ultimate
worth of any one be determined. But if in this way freedom of
decision is again established by Christianity and incorporated
with the saving process itself, the question arises, whether this
gain is not bought too dearly, whether with the admission of
freedom a permanent insecurity as to salvation is not estab
lished. Such insecurity would leave no place for an abiding
state of grace, and a settled assurance of salvation. Both
would be constantly 'threatened by the vacillations of human
freedom. Such a doctrine of permanent insecurity as to
salvation would be in contradiction to the N. T. as well as to
the Christian's need. According to John, they who fall away
did not really belong to Christ and His people.1 Paul knows
that the crown of righteousness is reserved for him.2 The
Apocalypse speaks of a Book of Life, in which bebevers are
entered, and of their new name.8 Christians are said to be
sealed to the day of redemption, i.e. of Christ's second coming.4
None can pluck the sheep from the Good Shepherd's hand.5
A Paul, a John, the Reformers, knew from experience what
strength, what source of confidence lay in knowing themselves
eternally saved, what a motive to gratitude and guarding of
self. Hence they were unwilling to give up the certainty
of election. But how does this agree with the restoration of
freedom by Christianity? Does not this freedom form an
express contradiction to the idea of election altogether, so that
the idea must be dropped and merely a divine foreknowledge
1 1 John ii. 19. » 2 Tim. iv. 8.
3 Rev. ii. 17, iii. 8, xvii. 8, xxi. 27. • Eph. iv. 30, i. 13 ; 2 Cor. i. 22.
6 John x. 28. Similarly Rom. viii. 29-39.

DIVINE GRACE AND HUMAN ACTIVITY. 185
of the final fidelity of the one class be put in its place ?
Frequently, as in later days in the Lutheran Church, the
divine foreknowledge, in opposition to the Form. Cone, has
been put in the place of election, and the assurance of sal
vation limited more and more simply to a certainty of the
present state of grace; still it is inadmissible according to Scrip
ture, as web as according to the assertion of the Christian
consciousness, to deny the idea of election altogether, or to
suppose the insecurity of the state of grace perpetuated by
freedom. Election in the broader sense is already involved in calling
generaby. For although the call to salvation, and the power to
decide in its favour, must come to all in due course, still all are
not called at the same time. Rather the order of succession is
determined by a divine election, which extends to nations and
individuals. And the caUed are all cabed to salvation ; not
merely the beginning, but also the completion of salvation is
designed for all by divine faithfulness. As called, they are
set apart or elected to believe and be saved But of course
this election does not secure to man an actual share in the
salvation offered to him in caUing. There is no election ex
cluding freedom of acceptance or rejection, and replacing it by
an almighty volition. But it does not fobow from this, that
assurance of salvation must be imperilled by freedom, or still
less that uncertainty as to the state of grace must be perpetu
ated. Rather, according to Scripture, there is an election in the
stricter sense.1 Holy Scripture teaches the eternal election of
believers before the foundation of the world.2 The restoration
of freedom by no means implies that the trust of the Christian
is placed in this freedom. The Christian puts his trust not
in the strength and stability of his personal faith of itself, but
in God's unchangeable fidebty, which will not leave unfinished
the good work begun, but will guard and conduct it right
through the human weakness, of whose continued influence
His foreknowledge took account even in the act of forgiving.
But in the next place, it is a false conception of the nature of
the freedom restored, to suppose that it can always just as
1 John xiii. 18 ; Matt. xxii. 14, xxiv. 22, 24 ; 1 John v. 4 ; 2 Pet. i. 10 ;
Rom. xi. 28.
J Eph. i. 4-11.

186 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
easily fab away from Christ as remain in fellowship with Him.
The regenerate man cannot abuse his freedom eternaby.
There is no such thing indeed even for him as a fatalistic
necessity, a compulsion to goodness ; sin is still possible to
him. But regeneration produces a real change in his heart
and its inclinations. It does not leave his freedom as a
vacillating power of choice, equaUy open to opposite possi
bilities always and for ever (liberum arbitrium indifferentice).
Such formal freedom is perhaps a point of transition, but not
the goal. The result of the moral process is real freedom.
Such freedom is coeval as to principle with regeneration,
which implants a divine 0-irkpy.a ; and so far as it exists, such
freedom works for good. Even where a momentary subjection
to the remains of sin is found, there is connected therewith an
inner resistance to sin, so that sin in the regenerate man
remains distinct in nature from sin in the unregenerate, even
if this fact should be hidden from consciousness. This resist
ance makes itself felt again in regret and penitent self-renewal.
That the saved in the next world can no longer fall from
grace, is universally believed ; and yet no one wiU say on this
account that they have lost then- freedom. But Paul and
John know and extol £w^ almvioi in this world also, although
in weakness. But he who fabs entirely was never truly
regenerate. The new creature is a being immortal in nature.
It is true, indeed, that the believer is conscious in the first
instance of his present state of grace. But his future does
not for this reason be in an uncertain, anxious obscurity. A
mere hope of future blessedness, unaccompanied by any con
fident certainty as to the future state of salvation, would not
be Christian hope at ab. The assurance is immanent in the
consciousness of reconcbiation, that according to God's gracious
purpose the reconciliation and justification of man are final,
that nothing, " neither things present nor things to come, can
separate us from the love of God in Christ." Among these
"things to come" must be the frailty, which continues to
operate in the believer against his will. It belongs to the
very nature of faith to commit itself with courage and full
confidence to God's power and love. On the other hand, the
torment of uncertainty would be perpetuated and be a hin
drance to spiritual growth, if we were forced to rely only upon

REPENTANCE. 187
our own freedom and its faithfid use for the assurance of our
salvation in the future. Man's chief concern no doubt should
be, by fidelity and resistance to unbelief to remain perpetually
in the present state of grace. Bebef in a fate-bke decretum
electionis might easby betray him into indolence, presumption,
self-exaltation. The divine election rather impbes, that the
state of grace, like everything living, is preserved by means
of an active secondary causality — by means of perpetual self-
renewal. But the divine purpose of grace need not for this
reason be vacillating, nor the divine election uncertain. On
all these grounds a union of the apparently clashing interests
— of human freedom and stability of divine grace and gracious
election — is possible. We are able to leave the necessary
place to freedom, and yet speak of a certainty as to the state
of grace by God's help, of an election of believers. The
regenerate are the elect also in the stricter sense, although
not without the medium of their free decision. The election
of bebevers to eternal life does not resolve itself into a mere
foreknowledge of the stabbity of their faith, and of their per
sonal fidelity ; but as they have really performed the decisive
act of faith, so is it always in the last resort the grace laid
hold of by them, its strength and fidebty, by which they are
guarded and preserved from an entire apostasy from grace.
Observation. — The doctrine of the appropriation of salvation
divides into the three points : Repentance or Change of Mind,
Regeneration through the faith that appropriates Justification,
and Sanctification.

FIRST POINT : REPENTANCE OR CHANGE OF MIND.
§ 131.
The Christian method of salvation requires a state of prepara
tion, for regeneration (§ 130). That preparation consists
on the divine side in the Calling (vocatio externa et
interna) or Invitation to salvation, which refers indeed
to all spiritual blessings, but has for its primary contents
the justification of the sinner before God by grace.
The effect of this calling on man's side is Illumination

188 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
respecting law and sin (i.e. the need of justification), as
web as respecting the righteousness offered in Christ;
the Feeling of personal guilt and penal desert ; and the
Awakening of the will to seek righteousness before God.
These elements constitute together the nature of the
penitent mind, which however in its maturity is simply
receptiveness for salvation in the form of longing after a
divinely-given righteousness.
Observation. — In this threefold v Illumination, Sense of
Gubt, Awakening," is produced subjective receptiveness for
Christ in that threefold office of His, which averts the three
fold evil, from which redemption is necessary, — error, guilt,
sin.1 1. The New Testament in unison with the Old Testament
requires first of all fierdvota, reconsideration, inner turning of
the disposition from the abnormal direction to the normal
commencing- or starting-point. Hence with this conversion is
connected the becoming a chbd again.2 Right self-knowledge,
united with sincerity, produces 3 acknowledgment of gubt and
penal desert, sorrow and mourning, and this is associated with
confession of sin.4
2. The terminology in use before the Reformation under
stood by pcenitentia both the sacrament of penance, and, in
harmony with this, the whole of conversion, penitence, con
fession, and satisfaction by works, including justification
While the Reformation repudiated the necessity of confession
to the priest and satisfaction by works, it left for a time the
name of pcenitentia to the entire work of conversion, including
repentance and faith.6 The modern terminology fobowed
by us distinguishes repentance and faith as two elements,
understanding by repentance regret or change of mind. Now
1 § 61, vol. ii. p. 202.
2 Matt, xviii. 3 ; Acts iii. 19, 26, xx. 21, xxvi. 18. Wifrfifi,,, trTpip<rSx,.
* Ps. xxxii. ; 1 John i. 8, 9.
* 2 Cor. vii. 10 : h xxra dot xirn fKrimat tU ffartifUt i/ctrXfiii.>iTi,t
•iarefyiZfrxi. Cf. Vol. i. § 11.
6 Penance as a making satisfaction pushed faith into the background, reducing
it to mere notitia, perhaps along with assensus.
6 Cf. Conf. Aug. xii., Apol vi. de Pcenitentia.

REPENTANCE. 189
this is brought about on the objective side by ab that which
is included in calling.1 But calling is the arrangement by
which the gospel approaches man from without through the
means of grace, and also brings influence to bear on him
inwardly that he may believe (vocatio externa et interna).
Faith comes by preaching.2 A false universalism speaks of
reconciliation and regeneration, of a share in that which forms
the contents of Christianity, even outside Christendom apart
from connection with the word of Christ. But as there can
be no knowledge of the historic by purely inward, but only
by historical means, this would be to depreciate the historic
manifestation of Christ. Hence the Reformation rejects
Enthusiasm or Fanaticism so called, which seeks salvation
extra verbum by a sort of inner magic, and denies the necessity
of the external mediation of Christian grace (vocatio externa)?
But no less does the Evangelical Church reject also the notion
of an outer magic, e.g. of magical force, of means of grace
administered by the priesthood, which are supposed to act ex
opere operato. The power of spiritual efficiency does not
belong dnectly to the outward and sensuous.4 Faith does not
come by preaching directly through the power and influence
of the outward sound. The heart of man must first be set to
work and excited to activity. The Word has its effect on
feebng and will only when it is received into the perceptive
spirit, and the understanding is opened by the Holy Spirit.
We avoid the errors both of outward and inward magic by
acknowledging the necessity just as much of inward as of
outward calling.
3. But as to contents, the gospel must first work as the
objective preaching of repentance, and this involves the ac
knowledgment of the law and its rights on the part of the
gospel. But, at the same time, the preaching of repentance
must not lead away from Christ by legality and a severity
that induces despair, or by a superficiality which cares only
for immunity from punishment, and not for the removal of
gubt and the claims of justice on the guilty. Even the
1 Rom. viii. 30, xkws. 2 Rom. x. 14-17.
3 Cf. Conf. Aug. v., Art. Sm. 331, Apol. 153. 268 ; Form. Cone. 672.
4 Even Word and Sacrament do not act blindly as of themselves, but ubi et
quando visum est Deo, Conf. Aug. v., and therefore by an act of divine volition.

190 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
preaching of repentance must wear a Christian character, of
which prophecy in the 0. T. was already a beginning. To
preach repentance is to take the right path, because Christ is
a preacher of repentance. This is possible, for Christianity, as
the absolute religion, includes also the law in its contents,
and is able out of these contents to evolve the law. But
such preaching becomes vocatio (invitation), from the fact that
Christ — the personal law, the personal holiness and love — on
the one hand intensifies the consciousness of sin by His typical
perfection, and by ab that He suffered through sin, and on
the other hand causes Himself to be announced as the
Saviour, who answers for sin, and through His atoning action
and suffering has become the security for the Father's forgiving
love. The perfect union of justice and love . given in Christ'
leads in the true path of repentance, that through reconciba
tion and sanctification man may become a transcript of His
justice and love. The crowning-point of the preaching of
evangelical repentance and its overwhelming power lie in
the proclamation of God's prevenient, humbling grace for
Christ's sake, i.e. in this, that it is also the preaching of the
reconciliation of the unbebeving world effected by Christ,
that the world may believe.
4. This proclamation of the gospel as a salutary preaching
of repentance, whbst guarding against Pelagian and Manichsean
aberrations of pride, or presumption and despair, works through
the Holy Spirit a change in the mind of man.
First, illumination respecting sin, gubt, God's hobness and
justice — briefly, respecting the need of redemption, especially
in the mirror of Christ's image.
Secondly, the feeling of unhappiness on account of separa
tion from God by guilt and penal desert, "and also the feebng
of abhorrence for sin, and of longing to be set free from guilt
and sin, i.e. the feeling of penitence. The purer this penitent
feeling is, — the more, therefore, that it is not mere sorrow for
the consequences of sin — evb, but for sin itself and its guilt
in the sight of a just and holy God, the more,
In the third place, is the will excited against evb, and the
awakening brought about, in which the desire to cast off evil
and the resolve to live a better life are formed. The purer
the enlightenment and penitence, the less does the awakening

REPENTANCE. 191
take the direction of attempts at self-redemption or self-
reconciliation. On the contrary, the evangelical preaching of
repentance shows, on the one hand, the depth and inveteracy of
sin, and therefore the impotence of such attempts, and on the
other tells of Christ, the divinely-given means of propitiation
— of a forgiveness which is not deserved or inherited by us,
but must become our possession by free grace, and which at
the same time appears as a law of faith, and demands that
we desire the divine help, and submit to be led by the divine
grace with the whole strength of our wib. When, then, as
the result of this preaching, man fervently desires to make
experience of what the gospel makes known, the inwardly-
working cab draws to Christ, and the restored freedom has
a counterpoise to doubt and unbelief in the inner need on the
one hand, and the promises of the evangebcal proclamation on
the other. In this way, willingness may pass into the obedi
ence of faith, or issue in desire after propitiation and redemption
from sin becoming an actual turning to the Redeemer.
Observation. — Methodism would bring the occurrence of
the elements described, and their order of succession, under
a definite rule and uniform method. It seeks to do this
by making the sensible experience of sin and grace the
centre of the saving process, and using definite methods for
evoking that experience. But no such technical method can
be prescribed either to the terrores conscientice or to the
consolationes evangelii. The one divine grace, sufficient for
the totality of the spirit, — understanding, feeling, and will, —
lays hold in its working of those sides of the soul which are
most open to it, save that of course the same unity must
lead in some way to a co-operation of the three sides. It is
wrong to require a definite amount of penitent sorrow — a
real penitent struggle in every case, although no one can
lack it without heavy loss. The amount of sorrow depends
on the vitality of the emotional bfe, which differs with the
individual, as well as on the degree in which sin has previ
ously been manifested in particular acts, which is essentially
conditioned by outward circumstances. Deadness of feeling
is certainly one form, and a dangerous form, of sinful ab
normity, which has to be resisted ; but one person may
have come earber into more vital communion with Christ,
especially in a Church practising infant baptism, before sin
had developed itself in him in a worse form, and therefore

192 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
before it had come to consciousness. For Christ has not a
relation to sin merely ; He calls forth a delight, a devoted
affection, not merely because He takes away our gubt from
us, but also through what He is in Himself, or through the
image of His person. Hence a certain faith, a certain love
to Christ, is possible even in a child from which real repent
ance first springs. Where, then, the image of Christ in His
benignity and love has been early imprinted on the heart,
or where the rays of His grace so shine upon life's early-
dawn that only mitigated forms of sin spring up, there it
may happen that the vital communion with Him is never
quite broken off; and this will not allow terror at God's
justice and holiness to arise, without also His love manifested
in Christ in some way reveabng itself to the soul. But
certainly, whatever a fortunate youth and education may do,
it remains true that birth and regeneration never combine
into one element. None is exempted from regeneration;
and although there is no necessity for every one to pass first
through a period under the exclusive dominion of sin or
alienation from God, which would then be precisely marked
off from the time when grace attains the dominion, stib no
one can be exempted from sorrowfuby gazing down more
and more into the might and the ramifications of his own
sin, in order that he may consciously and of set purpose die
to it. No conscious estabbshed personabty, however, exists,
unless it has laid hold of the Atoner in Christ, and obtained,
therefore, justification before God through grace, for Christ's
sake, as the real basis of its state of grace. The bebef that
there is a faith from which true repentance first springs,
which the Lutheran Church owes to infant baptism, Calvin,
who in general makes pcenitentia, follow fides, owes to the
fact that, in the interest of the prevenient character of grace,
and in harmony with the doctrine of Predestination, he
seeks to derive faith, not from repentance, but simply from
the power of God.

SECOND POINT : REGENERATION, OR THE FAITH THAT APPROPRIATES
JUSTIFICATION. § 132a.
When prepared, living receptiveness in man for salvation
takes the form of trustful surrender to Christ, or becomes
the faith of acceptance (Spyavov X^tttikov^, which is

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 193
willing to be determined by Christ's righteousness as
the vicarious Mediator, the result is not merely a
gracious relation of the reconciled Father to us, or the
mere substitution of Christ for us, but a twofold bond
between the believer on the one hand, and God the Father
and Christ on the other. On the part of man, there is
appropriation of Christ and His righteousness, primarily
of propitiating grace or justification, in virtue of which
our sin is not reckoned to us by God, but forgiven, and
the righteousness of Christ is imputed ; and on the part
of Christ, real appropriation of man, union of the divine
bfe with the human by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Since Christ's substitution is productive in nature (§§120,
127), the result of this union through the Holy Spirit
is a new, living phenomenon, namely a personabty after
the image of God, which is a reflection of the union of
the divine and human in Christ. The child of man
has thus become the chbd of God. He now has the
satisfaction of Christ (§§ 120—122) as his own, and is
consequently in real possession of the justification, which
before was merely a declaratory offer. The fact of being
justified by faith is fobowed, in due course, normaby by
the knowledge of justification, or the assurance of salvation.
But the communion instituted by faith between Christ
and the soul, does not end in participation in reconcilia
tion ; but, on the permanent basis of justification in
virtue of the same communion, the sanctification, which
is the end and fruit of reconcbiation, is developed
through the Holy Spirit.
Literature (Exegetical).— Wieseler, Comm. z. Galaterbrief,
on ii. 16 ff. Meyer, Comm. z. Galaterbrief, 6th ed., by Sieffert.
Lipsius, die paulin. Rechffertigungslehre, 1853 (retracted later).
Weiss, die bibl. Theol, ed. 3. (Hist, of Dogma) — Literature
respecting Andr. Osiander ; Baur, Ritschl, Preger. Schnecken
burger, Symbolik der reform. Kirche. (Dogmatic) — MelanctL
Loci Th. Corp. Ref. xxi. M. Chemnitius, Loci Th. De Justifica-
tione. J. Gerhard, Loci Th. vii. H. Hopfner, De Justificatione
Doenek.— Christ. Doot. iv. N

194 origin of church.
hominis peccatoris coram Deo, Diss. xii. 1653. Jo. Musaei, Tract.
theol. de Conversione hominis peccatoris ad Deum, 1661. A.
Calov, Systema, To. x. David Hollaz, Evang. Gnadenordnung
in vier Gesprachen, newly edited, Basel 1866. Fresenius, Abh.
iiber die Rechtfertigung eines armen Silnders vor Gott, V74!7,
1766, newly edited by A. F. C. Vilmar, 1857. Ph. Dav. Burk,
Rechtfertigung und Versicherung, newly edited in an orderly
abridgment by E. Kern, 1854. My Address on Justification in
Kiel, 1868. V. Zezschwitz, die Rechtfertigung des Silnders vor
Gott in ihrem Verhdltniss zur Gnadenwirkung und zur ewigen
Erwdhlung (Address at the Luth. Conference in Hanover, 1868,
cf. Ritschl, iii. 102). Preuss, die Rechtfertigung des Silnders
vor Gott, 1868. The Way of Life made Plain, John Kirk, 16th
thousand, 1849, Lect. 3-7, 11. Gloag, A Treatise on Justifica
tion by Faith, 1856 (see older English literature, especially by
Owen and Davenant, Barlow and Rennet, in Gloag, p. vi.).
Gloag, Assurance of Salvation. (Buchanan, The Doctrine of
Justification, 1867. O'Brien, The Nature and Effects of Faith.)
The Groundwork of a System of Evang. Luth. Theology, by S.
Sprechen, Prof, in Wittenberg College, Ohio, 1879, T. i. c. 7,
T. ii. c. 10. A. — Biblical Doctrine.
The N. T. doctrine is, that we do not obtain forgiveness
of sins for the sake of our amendment or sanctification, but
conversely, that love grows out of the prevenient, pardoning
love of God to the unworthy.1 Even the lost son receives
forgiveness before he is approved. The same thought lies in
a narrative, which is often regarded as proving the contrary,2
for the parable of the free remission of debt would have no
sense, no applicabdity to the case of the sinfid woman, if
the meaning were, that her sins were forgiven because of her
manifestation of love. Rather, her anointing of the Lord is
her thanks for forgiveness received.3 Further, entrance into
Christianity takes place not through sanctification, but through
baptism for the forgiveness of sins, which is treated in the
N. T. as the certain and first fruit of Christian baptism. If
1 1 John iv. 10 ; Rom. v. 8. s Luke vii. 37-50.
3 Ver. 47 must be understood thus : He that loves little shows by this that he
has not yet had his sins forgiven, as, conversely, the greatness of a man's love
evinces that his many sins are forgiven him. The woman must therefore
have received forgiveness from Christ before the meal, for which now she
returns thanks as well as she is able.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 195
James derived justification from good works J performed by
man before faith in forgiveness, and therefore before baptism,
the whole N. T. economy would be abolished and useless.
Such an epistle would therefore be without canonicity. But,
on the contrary, the epistle assumes that the readers are
already Christians,2 — have, therefore, been baptized and re
ceived forgiveness, and have opened their hearts to the gospel8
Certainly, according to it, a faith that remains without fruits
is merely a pretence.4 But it is Paul who distinguishes
justification and sanctification most clearly. He makes holi
ness first spring from the peace of reconciliation.8 Unprejudiced
exposition now universally acknowledges the Reformation
understanding of Pauline doctrine to be correct, whether
agreeing with it or not. This very admission implies that
the teaching of the Romish and Greek Churches, to the effect
that Paul derives forgiveness from faith and works, is a
misinterpretation of Pauline doctrine. But what, then, does
Holy Scripture understand by the faith on which, as with
one voice, it lays the chief stress in reference to the appropria
tion of forgiveness ? In the Biblical sense, it is no mere
knowledge, stib less a mere opinion in which doubt may
exist.6 Further, it has for its object no mere historic fact as
such, but God and divine things, to which, although invisible,
faith ascends above everything visible.7 More definitely, the
object or content of Christian faith is Christ, the Crucified
and Risen One.8 Regarded psychologically or formally, faith
is related in a positive aspect to man as a unity; it is a
matter of the heart.9 On the side of intebigence, it is the
positive antithesis to doubt, a receiving and recognizing of
1 Jas. ii. 14-26. 2 Jas. i. 18. a Jas. i. 21.
* Jas. ii. 14. But since the epistle has to do with Christians who have
been made partakers of forgiveness through faith, it rightly requires that this
faith continue operative in the soul, and prove itself permanent, which can only
be shown in fruits, in which persevering faith attains to completeness (ver. 22)..
At the same time, this fruitfulness of faith has a value in God's eyes, who calls
it good and approves it, which is more than mere pardon. Even to James, the
gospel, received in faith, remains God's power for good works (i. 18, 21) ; but
there is a difference in diligence and sincerity of holiness among believer's, and
in correspondence with this the positive divine complacency in man has its
stages. 5 Rom. v. 1-11, cf. with vi. HI.
6 Jas. ii. 19, i. 3 ft ' Heb. xi. 1 ; Rom. iv. 17-21.
8 Rom. iv. 25. * Rom. x. 10. • .

196 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
truth as such j1 on the side of will, it is obedience,2 trust*
associated with confident security and certainty. The way,
then, in which forgiveness is imparted to man, is this :
negatively, God does not impute sin to man, so that he
no longer stands under condemnation;4 positively, faith is
reckoned as righteousness, or righteousness comes by the
medium of faith or from it.5 But the meaning is not, that,
considered as a subjective virtue, faith is regarded as some
thing meritorious because of its excellence, but it has this
importance because of its contents — Christ. We are righteous
in Christ, as united with Him, which is the same as saying
that Christ's righteousness, His substitution, is imputed to
us.6 Because, then, the whole Christian salvation is enclosed
in Christ's person, faith also has a comprehensive significance,
extending to the renewal of the whole man, although the part
of this salvation which, in the first instance, blesses man and
gives him contentment is Christ's atonement, which has our
justification for its effect. But the dominating importance
of atonement and justification in Paul might seem to be
threatened, if not excluded, by all the passages of the N. T,
which place faith in most intimate connection rather with
regeneration and adoption, not merely with atonement and
justification. For example, according to John, every one who
believes is born of God, begotten of divine seed ;7 and Peter
and James teach the like.8 But this forms no contradiction,
for regeneration is related to the consciousness also. The
consciousness in possession of reconciliation and peace is
precisely regeneration on the side of consciousness. Paul
also places regeneration in the closest connection with faith.9
But his more dialectical manner makes the particular ele
ments stand forth more distinctly, and in their inner relations.
The Pauline vloOeola has, indeed, been referred to a mere
legal relation, adoption into the place of a child, without a
second birth taking place in man himself. But although
1 Rom. iv. 20 ff. ; John viii. 32. * Rom. i. 5.
3 Tixoifatris, T>.npo<pcp!x. Eph. iii. 12 ; Rom. iv. 20 ff. ; 1 Thess. i. 5.
4 2 Cor. v. 19 ; Rom. iv. 8, viii. 1, v. 19.
s Rom. iv. 3-6, 9, 22, v. 1, ix. 30, x. 6 ; Gal. v. 5, ii. 16, iii. 8 (U) ; Rom.
iii. 22 (Jii ErtVrias) ; PhiL iii. 9, iiri rfi rimi.
6 2 Cor. v. 19-21. ' 1 John v. 1, iii. 9 ; John i. 13.
8 1 Pet. i. 23 ; Jas. i. 18. » Col. iii. 10 ; Eph. iv. 24 ; Tit. iii. 5f.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 197
vtodea-'ia is carried out by means of imputation, Paul himself
knows of a more than merely imputed adoption.1 To the
apostle, faith includes on the one hand a dying of the old man,
but just as much a rising again of the new man with Christ ;
and viodeaia also to him implies participation in the Spirit of
Christ, by which we become new creatures.2 Nevertheless,
it remains certain that this transformation is only effected
through faith in Christ's atoning mediation, not through
faith in God in general, or in the impersonal merit of Christ,
but through faith in the person and substitution of Christ,
who died for our sins and rose again for our justification.
This is of special importance to Paul, that he may find a
transition from justification to the new life. In leading to
communion with Christ, to incorporation into Him, faith
appropriates to itself Him who, as dying and rising again,
includes in Himself the power of reconcibation as well as of
the new life, imparting both to us in virtue of the love
which is our Advocate with the Father. To Paul, faith is
living communion with Christ, a dying and being buried with
Him, so that now the old Ego, the unreconciled man (i.e. the
false unity of his powers), is dissolved and broken through
the dying with Christ. Thus the power of His resurrection
is the power in the man.3 To the apostle, faith is the inner
movement of the entire soul to Christ. Surrendered to Him,
we become conscious of the love of God to us; it is shed
abroad in our hearts, that we may know it in its prevenient,
spontaneous nature,4 and this is our peace.6 Other scriptural
writers express the matter thus : the accusing heart is now
stilled, conscience is cleansed and disburdened of guilt.6 In
this communion with Christ, we also receive the certainty of
forgiveness and of our adoption;7 the Holy Spirit implants
in our consciousness the witness of our adoption, making our
heart joint-witness with Himself to the blessing.8 But just
as in this way we receive Christ's righteousness, as availing
for us in God's sight and imputed to us for the sake of
1 Rom. viii. 15-17; Eph. i. 5 ; Gal. iv. 5. 2 2 Cor. v. 17; Col. iii. 10.
3 Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; CoL ii. 12 ; Gal. ii 20.
* Rom. v. 5 ; cf. 1 John iv. 9, 10. 5 Rom. v. 1 ; Eph. ii. 14.
6 1 John iii. 19 f. ; Heb. x. 22 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21.
7 Eph. i. 13, iv. 30 ; 2 Cor. i. 22, the etpfxyii.
¦« Rom. viii 16 ; 1 John v. 10 ff.

198 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
Christ and of His substitution, so through faith the righteous
ness of life belonging to the Second Adam also becomes ours.1

B. — The Ecclesiastical Doctrine.
Literature. — Cf. my Hist, of Prot. Theology, ii. 157-164.
1. Despite the Pauline teaching, the type of doctrine which
gained the upper hand among the Orientals and in the Romish
Church was that which co-ordinates faith and works, deriving
justification or forgiveness from the two together. To say
nothing of the consequences of the Judaism which would
convert even the gospel into a nova lex, the assumption so
congenial to the natural man, there comes within view, that
he owes goodness and moral worth to himself, and that even
the removal of guilt must partially at least be his own work
or merit. But upon such a co-ordination of faith and works
faith must needs lose its fundamental import in reference to
salvation, or be rendered superficial and limited to the know
ledge of Christian truth in general (notitia), and assent to it
(assensus). For as faith in the N. T. sense, i.e. as trust in
Christ's mediation, it would as matter of course be the decisive
factor in reference to justification, and would preclude works
having an equal share with it in the work of reconciliation.
To require works in order to forgiveness must necessarily
bring about a new legality, perpetual uncertainty respecting
a state of grace and trouble of conscience, which would lead
to a doctrine of sin-removing penances and purgatory, as a
supplement to the purity and practical righteousness which
are ever imperfect on earth, but which must be perfect if
justification is to be complete. Even Augustine, who left
greater scope to grace, did not definitely distinguish justifica
tion and sanctification, making the new bfe of faith, which
certainly was to be initiated by God, a ground of justification,
a course in which he was fobowed by the mysticism of the
Middle Ages generally. According to him, Fides is justifying
as a virtue, as the new life in germ. The Reformation first
1 Rom. v. 15-21, vi. 5-14, viii. 3, 4 ; 2 Cor. v. 17 ; Tit. iii. 5 f. ; John i. 13,
xvi. 21 f.; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 22 f. ; 2 Pet. i. 5 f.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 199
took up again the Pauline teaching, in which we found the
culmination of the N. T. lines of doctrine, and the clearest
expression of Christian doctrinal tbought.
The Symbols, especially the Schmalkaldian Articles, describe
their doctrine of justification and faith as the articulus stantis
et cadentis ecclesice.1 Let this be held in purity, and all
doctrine remains pure, the Church is master of all foes and
heresies ; let it be obscured and adulterated, and all is lost.
Luther especially vanquished all doctrinal errors of the Romish
Church, by making the whole doctrine of the Church depend
on the Fides which appropriates justification and is at one
with Scripture. He used justification — the material principle
so called — as the critical principle for the entire system of
Cathobcism, rejecting nothing untb he saw its incompatibility
with this principle. Faith in the Protestant sense, then, is
not mere notitia, fides historica with assensus? but is a personal
relation of trust to the objective historic Christ (Christus extra
nos), who on His part has revealed His loving relation to us
by His promise (promissio) and advocacy with the Father.
Faith is a willing and accepting of the promise, and indeed
not merely of the indefinite promise referring equally to all,
which would be identical with the plan of salvation, but of
the promise of the personal God referring to our person.
Faith is the accepting organ (opyavov Xtjtttikov) s in reference
to this promise. Evangelical teachers hold not merely Fides
in genere, but one by which credit quisque sibi remitti peccata,
or Fides specialis — a personal act also in the reflexive sense,
according to which the person confidently applies to himself
the gratia universalis. This is Fiducia* If we analyze this
fiducia more closely, it is in a formal respect a trustful
acceptance, not yet assurance of salvation. Only the con
tents received by faith have the power to give certainty of
their truth and at the same time certitudo salutis by the
testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti? But this acceptance
presupposes contents or an object, which exists for conscious-
1 Art. Sm. 305. 318 ; Conf. Aug. iv. ; Apol. ii ; Cat. maj. 454 ; Form.
Cone. 612. 616. 622 ; Heidelb. Cat. qu. 21. 53. 64.
' C. A. xx. ; Apol. 68. 3 Apol. 75. 172. 175 ; F. C. 584. 684.
* Apol. 78. 172 ; F. C. 684.
6 Apol. 178 ff.; F. C. 806, 31. 817, 43. 822, 90.

'200 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
ness. These contents are not eternal, divine things in general ;
but the contents of faith include what is received in historic
faith, nevertheless only in so far as it refers to salvation and
has its centre therein, so that the Evangelical stage of fides
preserves the contents of former stages as permanent, but as
something objective, having eternal importance and intended
to become subjective, in order when inwardly received to
exert practical influence. Thus the proper object, which faith
apprehends, is Christ as our Mediator, who accomplished the
reconcibation of the world once for all Apprehending then
this Christ with confidence, faith receives forgiveness for the
past, peace with God for the present, comforting assurance of
eternal blessedness for the future, because we are empowered
to regard ourselves as righteous and well-pleasing to God for
Christ's sake, since God looks upon us in communion with
Christ. Therewith the heart is cheered and filled with new
bfe; a new consciousness begins, that of adoption; new
spiritual affections (motus) begin, so that, renewed and regene
rated, we take delight in God and His will. But ab this is
not effected by faith of itself, although -it is a noble virtue,
nay, the prime virtue by which a right attitude to God
becomes our condition ; but it is effected by the objectum fidei,
implanted through faith.1 Accordingly, since everything
depends on the restoration of that rapport of the soul with
Christ by which what Christ has and is becomes ours, even
weak faith brings us the grace of justification.2 Our righteous
ness in God's sight, therefore, is not our own excellence, nor
our loving union with Christ, or the germ of sanctification
through Christ in nobis; but the first, the fundamental thing
is the justitia Christi extra nos, which faith apprehends and
which certainly is designed for us, and would fain belong to
us ; or, it is the union of Christ with us, which comes to us
for the sake of His advocacy, and becomes the imputatio of
His justitia, so that before the divine tribunal His justitia is
regarded as our justitia on the ground of Christ's merit and
redeeming wib, and for this very reason our guilt and sin are
not imputed to us.* That positive and this negative blessino-
1Apol. 68. 70, 103. 131. * CF. e.g. Cat. maj. 546, 561, § 62.
3 But imputata justitia is not putativa, because it rests upon Christ's real
substitution, which renders God propitious to us (Deum placatum prcebet).

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 2Q1
are combined in the divine sentence (justificatio forensis),1
which pronounces our acquittal, nay more, receives us into
the divine family.
The Church dogma of " the righteousness of Christ outside
us " is certainly capable of misinterpretation. The imputa
tion of righteousness may be construed in an externally
juristic sense, or in such a way that it becomes, not the
living principle of a healthy moral revolution, but the pillow
of moral and religious indolence. But the meaning is not,
that the substitutionary righteousness of Christ and the,
knowledge thereof are to remain outside us and not to
penetrate within us, but only that our salvation is not con
tained in any excellence of ours, but solely in that sufficient
power of the substitutionary Christ, which is also the fruitful
principle of a new life. Nor is there any dispute in the
Evangebcal Church on this point, that the righteousness of
Christ cannot come into our possession and knowledge without
repentance and faith, and that it is divine action or working
by which the certainty of this possession is imparted to man,
just as there was a divine act even in the offer of divine for
giveness.2 Therefore, in laying down the postulate : We must
not confide in any excebence in us, nor in the superiority of
our faith, nor in the intimacy and strength of our connection
with Christ, but absolutely in the reabty and strength of the
union of Christ with us, in the justitia Christi extra nos, which
however in virtue of its substitutionary character is intended
for us, — all that is meant is to assert the preveniency of
grace, its objective sufficiency and certainty. This inde
pendence of our excellences in justification involves also its
independence of the degree of our sanctification, and further
precludes the idea that justification, so far as it is forgive
ness, has degrees, and that therefore only some sins are at first
forgiven until faith or sanctification exists in complete and
perfect form.3 Since the sin unforgiven would remit us again
1 Apol. 109, § 131 (usu forensi significat justum pronunciari, non effici) ;
F. C. 685.
' * What at first was merely an act in the divine mind — justificatio forensis —
is made known to the believer in due time by the Holy Spirit, Apol. 82 ;
F. C. 684 f. The theology of the 17th century expresses this by intimatio,
insinuatio sententice justificantis, see below.
3 F. C. 689, 30-32. 694, 49.

202 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
to penal desert, and the consciousness of guilt would continue,
the Evangelical principle in opposition to the Tridentine is :
" Justification has no degrees, it either exists or not ; degrees
belong only to the appropriation of its possession ; in itself as
to its contents it is ever an undivided whole, and is present
altogether or not at all, whereas the certainty of this whole is
subject to growth." In the same way the common Evangelical
doctrine is, that for believers the state of penalty is abolished,
and does not still continue in so far as sin still exists in man.
The latter would mean, since there is no penalty without
guilt, that forgiveness is not the removal of guilt, and hence
that guilt is at best partially cancebed for the believer,
so far as there is stub sin in him; and thus forgiveness
would not be of one piece. Only on condition of man
falling away from faith would he fall again into a penal
condition, because falling out of the state of grace.1 Finaby,
since justification is appropriated or made a possession
through faith, according to the Symbols it includes the
experience of divine love, which kindles love and is of bfe-
giving power.2
But the language of the Lutheran Confessions is not
altogether uniform and definite as to the relation of Justificatio
to Regeneratio, Vivificatio, Renovatio. For, whereas the
Apology views regeneratio, etc. as directly connected with the
justificatio, which is apprehended by faith, e.g. even saying :
Justificatio is regeneratio (which, however, undoubtedly does
not mean that justificatio is reached through regeneratio,
etc., but the reverse), the Form. Cone, warns against weaving
justificatio into the process of conversio (plainly in order to
secure it in its objective independence as a judicial sentence
before the divine tribunal), gives renovatio essentially the
signification of sanctificatio, and makes it follow upon
1 This weighty Evangelical principle is contested by Hengstenberg, Ev. Kirch.
Zeitung, 1864, p. 1065 ff., in the essay : " All suffering is punishment," which
formed the transition to his essentially Tridentine doctrine of Justification.
Kreibig, ut supra, p. 368 ff., is in essential agreement with Hengstenberg :
"Temporal sufferings are always to the redeemed two things— punishment and
signs of anger, and also manifestations of divine love," p. 376. See more on
this point under C.
* Apol. 71, 62. Fides parit novam vitam in cordibus, novos motus.
F. C. 675.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 203
justificatio ; and all that is conceded is, that justificatio is
a vivificatio and regeneratio in a certain sense.1 , According
to the Apology, the faith, which is made partaker of justifi
catio, receives also the Holy Spirit, so that the justified are
also the regenerated (Ap. 82, 4. 82, 117. 71, 62. 74, 78).
On the other hand, the old church theologians give
regeneratio no assured position in relation to justificatio,
and therefore to faith, some treating of faith first of
all before regeneration (so Hafenreffer and Baier), others
(chiefly on account of infant baptism) placing regeneration
before faith and justification, instead of making the former
dependent on the latter (see above, p. 173), nay, even
treating of faith and justification per fidem only under
conversion. The oldest Evangelical Theology of Melanchthon, Chemnitz,
Hiitter, and J. Gerhard discusses the fundamental Reforma
tion ideas with great care, but still simply, and in such a
way as to show their aim throughout to be to represent
justification when rightly defined as the crucial point, cer
tainly also without more precisely analyzing the particular
elements or stages of the saving process, which are necessary
to the appropriation of grace to and by the subject (of gratia
Spiritus Sancti applicatrix). The latter is done by the later
theology of the 17th and 18th centuries. The usual order
is : Vocatio (which e.g. takes place through baptism, even as
infant baptism), Hluminatio, Regeneratio, Conversio, then only
Justificatio. (To Conversio belongs Pcenitentia with Contritio
and Fides, the effect of which is Justificatio as actus Dei forensis
[Konig], whereas Calov only joins Fides Justificans, and in the
case of the fallen Pcenitentia, to the divine act of Justificatio.)
Upon Justificatio follows, in Konig, Calov, Quenstedt, Hollaz,
the Unio mystica, then Renovatio or Sanctificatio and Glorifi-
catio. The most characteristic and also curious feature is,
that the theologians after J. Gerhard usually prefix to
Justificatio not merely Vocatio with Hluminatio, but also
Regeneratio and Conversio? Justificatio is pushed stib farther
1 Cf. the passages Apol. 82, 117. 83. 4. 71, 62. 74, 78. Form. Cone. 686, 20.
687, 24. 585, 5. 6. 685 ff. Cf. Schneckenburger, pp. 2, 101 ff.
, ' Besides Konig, Calov, Quenstedt, Hollaz, so also Calixtus and Baier; see my
Hist, of Prot. Theol.

204 ORIGIN OF CHORCH.
back, when the doctrine of the Means of Grace, nay, even of
the Church, is prefixed to it, as is done by Calov.1 But by
such a course justification loses its dominant, central signifi
cance. It can no longer figure as the turning-point from death
to bfe, when regeneration has preceded it. If we inquire
after the motive which led to the prefixing of regeneration
becoming the ruling doctrine, two reasons may be named as
causing the depreciation of faith and justification and the
prefixing of regeneration, which is conceived as the effect of
the means of grace. First, the opposition to mystic or
spiritualistic tendencies, which were guarded against by pre
fixing the means of grace, or even their vehicle — the Church
— to faith. Thus Calov treats of the Church directly after
Christology (To. viii. ix.), and therefore has a Church before
he has bebevers ; only in To. x. is Fides justificans discussed,
but in such a form that he begins with regeneratio.
Secondly, the influence is here felt of the doctrine of infant
baptism, whose regenerating power from fear of Anabaptism
was not made dependent oh conversio, i.e. on repentance,
sorrow, and faith.2 Hence in the 1 7th century the statement
of doctrine adopted was : The grace of regeneration may be
imparted either to children or adults, provided only it
encounter no malicious resistance (obex) ; nay, the grace of
regeneration must generally be given first, inasmuch as only
by it is conversion (Contritio et Fides) possible, whose effect
then is justification. But this view assumed that there may
be a regeneratio before faith, and justificatio was no longer
conceived as the principle of regeneration. Attempts were
certainly made to mitigate or conceal the monstrousness of
these thoughts. Regeneratio was interpreted of the mere
restoration of the capacity for faith, and liberum arbitrium
1 Hollaz makes the doctrine of the Means of Grace follow first upon Justifi
catio and the elements of the subjective process under the title of media salutis
causalia, tp which also Contritio, Fides, bona Opera, etc. are assigned. Baler's
Compendium, 1693, 1750, discusses indeed Fides directly after Christology, but
not in order to derive anything further (like Justificatio, for example) from it ;
but after establishing the specified idea of faith, he essays to show its origin,
whereupon Regeneratio again takes the first place, Justificatio then following
upon Conversio.
1 Quenstedt and others say expressly (iii. 478) that in the case of children
¦only regeneratio, not conversion, must be affirmed; justificatio is commonly
Used of adultis.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 205
liberatum was regarded as its effect.1 But such a dilution of
the idea of regeneration is unscriptural, and calculated to
efface the distinction between nature and grace, because there
would then be regenerate persons who have neither faith nor
justification2 Hence Pietism was right in maintaining the
stricter idea of regeneration. Quenstedt further seeks to
remove the appearance of teaching that regeneration precedes
justification and faith, and of putting justification after
regeneration and conversion, by the doctrine : " Regeneratio,
Justificatio, Unio mystica et Renovatio tempore simul sunt
et quovis puncto mathematico arctiores, adeo ut divelli et
sequestrari nequeant, cohserent."* But since he does not
affirm this from the point of view of the divine purpose of
gTace, which of course embraces ab those elements at once
(whereas they are really separate in time, because man's free
will takes part in the saving process), but proceeds: " Secundum
nostrum tamen concipiendi modum ordine prior est regene
ratio et justificatio unione iba mystica," that order of succes
sion in the elements is treated as a mere subjective
Tepresentation or semblance, and the entire outline of the
plan of salvation is again rendered doubtful or withdrawn.
Even if we could acquiesce in that statement in so far as it
gives up the false position of justificatio, stib it is inad
missible to resolve the progressive, temporal character of the
saving process into mere semblance, and therefore to treat the
progress docetically ; and it is important to give prominence
to the Evangelical truth, that it is not the transformation of
the sinner (Regeneratio, Conversio) which determines God to
1 The Form. Cone. 675 had described lib. arbitrium liberatum as the effect of
baptism. The theologians up to Hollaz usually describe first the various more
comprehensive meanings of Regeneratio, and then as the strictest (magis
propria, quae hujus loci est) the collatio virium credendi supernaturalis, the
one partialis vita spiritualis largitio (Konig, § 447, whom Quenstedt, iii. 478,
almost literally follows). The same vievr is implied when' Calov calls Regene
ratio a new birth from the Spirit, ut credant. Still more noteworthy is it that
Calov assigns Regeneratio to calling, which of itself is simply the rendering
faith possible. The position of Baier is similar, when he is studied attentively
(P. iii. c. 4, § 2, p. 488 f.), and after Baier of Hopfner. No doubt the theo
logians again usually waver, in order to attribute more to Regeneratio and
baptism, namely the donatio fidei itself ; but still the vires credendi are already
a pars vital spiritualis.
2 But this contradicts even the Evangelical doctrine of infant baptism.
8 III. 621.

206 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
forgive, and is therefore the causa impulsoria justification'^,
as Musseus supposed, or the condition of the divine forgive
ness, as even John -Gerhard taught (without distinguishing
with sufficient precision the forgiveness itself from its posses
sion), but conversely, that it is the gift of forgiveness which
effects a moral transformation in man.1
A further evil consequence was that, according to the pre
vailing schema, regeneration, repentance, and faith, along with
cabing and ibumination, were supposed to precede not merely
the consciousness of divine forgiveness, but also the act.
Forgiveness is therefore only supposed to enter after a series
of elements involving subjective changes have transpired. It
is true, indeed, that in His act of forgiving sin God is said
utterly to disregard these good changes, although they ab
possess moral worth ; free, prevenient grace is said to retain
its rights, and not to be motived by human, even divinely-
wrought, virtue, e.g. of penitence and faith ; but on the other
hand, God is not supposed to disregard these changes, since
He makes the carrying out of the act of forgiveness in general
depend on whether these changes exist. As this gives the
impression of abstract, hair-splitting distinction, it is only
natural that the following age went farther, and found the
efficient cause of forgiveness in conversion, especially in faith
as the good moral groundwork, nay, even pronounced it frigid
or external (as Andrew Osiander did earlier) not to regard
fides justificans as at least initial sanctification, and possessing
worth for that reason. No less natural was it further to
demand more and more from faith, that it might be equal to
such a task, and be the cause of justification. Genuine,
although not strong, faith was demanded, true knowledge of
the law and sin, true sorrow and penitence (contritio, not merely
attritia), in short, a state of true penitence, that God might be
determined to His act of justification This is seen among
the Arminians,' but especially in Methodism.2 But such a
course again leads us by a back-door to the Catholic method
of salvation, perpetuating uncertainty as to salvation, and
detracting more and more from the consolation of free grace.
1 Cf. Apol. 71, etc. See above, pp. 200, 201.
sCf. Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism in opposition to Calvinism, and
Jacoby, Gesch. d. Meth. 1870. See more under C.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 207
The article of justification, then, by logical sequence, instead
of forming the basis and decisive turning-point, necessarily
retired farther and farther back, because repentance and faith
are never perfect in this life, while justification in general was
made dependent thereon. But such conditioning of the
divine act of forgiveness in general by penitent faith especi
ally obscured of necessity the Reformation principle of the
preveniency of Christian grace, which gave place to the
doctrine, that the gospel is nothing but the promise that God
will show grace to those who amend and are converted,— --a
doctrine at home even in the philosophical schools, e.g. of
Kant. Forgiving grace was therewith robbed of its privilege
of being the principle of sanctification, and its connection
with Christ's atoning work could only be very loose. Christ
would then at most have made it possible for God to forgive
the sins of those who have fulfibed the condition of true
repentance and amendment. The result, therefore, was a
development of doctrine which may be congenial to superficial
thinking, and which rightly aimed at developing the process
of salvation on the subjective side ; but the bond of connection
with Christ's objective work of atonement fell out of sight
altogether, and only a precarious place was left to the saving
good procured by Christ, instead of its being made fruitful
On the other side, no doubt, it seems Antinomian, and
calculated to favour moral indifference, to assign to the atone
ment any practical import and vabdity whatever, apart from the
condition of previous amendment, nay in its bare objectivity, and
therefore before faith. Thus the problem arises of solving the
apparent contradiction here presented. Bringing together the
chief points instanced, we may describe the difficulty, the solution
of which must be discussed in the further development of the
dogma, thus : On the one hand the justification of the individual
must, as a divine act, preserve its independence of any and every
existing moral excebence in man, that it may be a prevenient,
spontaneous display of love for Christ's sake ; whereas, on the
other hand, justification, like the consciousness of the same, is
said to be imparted to man only through faith, which in any case
again is an act of eminent moral import. How this apparent
anomaly is solved we shall see later on. But we glance first
at other related difficulties, which theology has not yet removed.

208 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
In thesi it is always maintained, that "justifying faith " is
reckoned as righteousness not for its own sake, but for Christ's,
and has power to estabbsh a new life of love, or that justifica
tion is the root of sanctification, not through itself, but
through its contents. But in order to carry this position out,
it was necessary to adopt either the view of the Apology and
J. Gerhard, which made the soul to be encouraged, and new,
holy affections to be called forth in it, by the preaching of forgive
ness accomplished, and by the consciousness of the same,1 or
the view of those who deduce the new life of holiness psycho
logically from gratitude, which again implies a consciousness
of benefit received.2 On the other hand, it was asserted that
any one may be regenerated and justified before God, and
therefore be in a state of reconcibation with God, without
knowing it. The contradiction impbed in this is not com
pletely solved by distinguishing a universal reconcibation or
justificatio from the specific justification of the individual
person by a temporal act of God, and by conceding of the former,
that it may exist without the consciousness of it, whereas the
latter is associated with personal knowledge of justification,
as also with personal faith, and is therefore adapted to establish
a new life. As the universal reconcbiation applies to every
one, another solution is necessary. Further, the fact that
justification in itself was conceived as a mere actus fm'ensis
in God, without any change in man or his consciousness, in
volved a contradiction to the position, that justification was
to operate psychologically in every bebever as the principle of
the new life. Finally, there was a troublesome inconsistency
in a mere divine act of justificatio forensis being placed in the
midst of a series of elements of the saving process, in which a
union of the divine and human is realized. Whereas all other
divine acts — Vocatio, Hluminatio, Regeneratio, Conversio —
affirm also a change in man, this was not supposed to be the
case with justificatio as forensis, which yet emerges in the
midst of the series. And yet it is said to be a divine act,
which only comes to pass after man believes, through the
divine forgiveness not previously existing, although without
the man at once knowing it. But this is not merely incon-
1 Apol. 71, 62. 74, 79. 81, pp. 82, 83.
,* Ct the division of the Heidelberg Catechism.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 209
sistent with the baptismal covenant, to which God remains
true, but such a conception of justificatio forensis threatens to
push even Christ's atoning work into the background.
§ 1326. — Continuation.
C. — Dogmatic Doctrine of Faith and Justification.
1. There can be no question that the doctrine of Justifica
tion joins on in the closest way to the doctrine of Atonement1
through Christ, and has, so to speak, to resume it. The
doctrine of Atonement affirms that God is reconcbed to the
sinful world through Christ, but by no means that the enmity
of the world to God is abolished (Rom. v. 10) ; for the latter
relates to the moral transforming of the world, and therefore
to sanctification. The reconciliation of God to the world im-
pbes that sin is not forgiven as matter of course, and doe3 not
remain unpunished, but that the peace of God with the world
is restored, and His displeasure with sinners abolished through
Christ, and that for Christ's sake God has really and in earnest
forgiven the world's sin and guilt in His heart, so that its
guilt is no longer imputed, but for the sake of the mediation
of Christ, the heavenly High Priest, the divine goodwib is
again turned towards man, and the proclamation may now be
made to the world, that " the wrath of God is appeased, God's
punitive justice satisfied, sin atoned for and its debt paid, the
gubt of sin abobshed, the accusation and condemnation of the
law annulled and appeased." 2 Now the justification of the
sinner bkewise impbes nothing else than that God has forgiven
sin and guilt, and that in His heart.3 _ The result of Christ's
work is, that independently of the faith of the world and before
it, God has forgiven it, and on His part is reconcbed" with it,
upon which fact the inviting message is based : " Be ye re
concbed to God." The meaning of the Evangebcal doctrine
of justification in defining justification to be an actus Dei
forensis is, that it is not faith which makes God reconcbed.
Both ideas, accordingly, have contents so similar, that they
1 See note, p. 1.
8 Cf. Burk, Rechtfertigung und VersShmmg, pp. 5, 25, 42.
3 Or, in Burk's language : in the heavenly temple.
Doknek. — Christ. Doct. iv. O

210 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
might pass as synonyms, and it may not be inadmissible in
some circumstances to use them as such. Hence Melanchthon's
Loci, in their different revisions, frequently treat justification or
forgiveness and atonement (reconciliatio) promiscue as identical
ideas.1 This employment of the two terms is recommended
by the twofold reason of equal weight, that in this way the
truth finds most definite expression, that the grace of God is
bestowed on the sinner independently of all human acts or
quabties, and that the gift of justification has for its contents
precisely the blessing of divine forgiveness and pardoning love
procured by Christ's merit. The independence of divine grace in
respect of human quabties or actions is of such decisive import
ance for this reason, that the overwhelming force of divine love,
its at once humbling and elevating or encouraging power, rests
precisely on the fact, that it was shown preveniently to the
unworthy apart from all human merit, thus revealing its
divine greatness and purity. But this prevenient character of
divine grace' is most clearly apparent when, with respect to
the justification of the sinner, we are conscious that it has the
same contents as the atonement, which existed before faith or
the Church, and was procured with such complete objectiveness
that it neither needs nor admits of supplement. If, therefore,
with a view to establish a distinction between the two ideas,
we were to say : " Actual forgiveness of sins only comes about
on God's side through the act of justification, but the atone
ment through Christ has simply the force of rendering it possible
for God to forgive, whereas the reabty of forgiveness is a
consequence of penitent faith," it cannot indeed be denied, that
many church-teachers express themselves as if God were not
reaby reconcbed with the world through Christ's atonement,
and His disposition to the world were not for Christ's sake one
of pardoning love, but as if penitent faith were to God the
efficient impulse to forgiveness. But this were to depreciate
Christ's merit and work, which only remained concealed
because the thought of what was already aecompbshed through
1 This course was taken in my Kiel Lecture on Justification, which was
delivered with the apologetic purpose of defending and explaining the much-
contested idea of justification, especially as justificatio forensis, by the easy plan
of recurring to the undoubted fact, that God is in Himself reconciled with the
world, and therefore to the doctrine of objective justification.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 211
Christ's atonement withdrew for a moment into the background
for the purpose of establishing justification also as a necessary
divine act. All the less can we be satisfied in Christ's work
merely with rendering forgiveness possible, while actual for
giveness is reserved for justification after faith, as Christ's
righteousness to be imputed to us, and His connection with
us, are no mere possibibty, but a thoroughly sufficient reabty.
Rather might the distinction be sought in this, that the
atonement relates to the world generally (as is again and
again emphasized by Lutherans in opposition to particularism
in the work of redemption), whereas justification concerns
only the individuals who bebeve. But this too is insufficient.
For not merely do church - teachers bke Melanchthon call
justification, because containing forgiveness, reconciliatio (see
above), but conversely Holy Scripture in many places speaks
of justification as a universal benefit of divine grace, as when
Paul says : " Through the righteousness of one man has justi
fication of bfe come upon all men," or, " God reconcbed the
world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."1
Church-teachers also, bke J. Gerhard or Quenstedt, expressly
insist, that the reconcbiation of the world through Christ ," does
not mean that forgiveness of sins and cancebing of gubt are
not thereby procured for individuals, while something further
must be added in order that God may forgive.2 On the
contrary, Christ, on His part, has brought to ab the gift of
satisfaction, propitiation, and eternal bfe."
2. But still a distinction between atonement and justifica
tion must of course be maintained. A peculiar independent
meaning must be assigned to each of the two ideas ; and only
after recognizing this, can we affirm anything clearly and
1 Rom. v. 18 ; 2 Cor. v. 19, passages which plainly have the same meaning as
1 John ii. 1, iv. 9, 10 ; CoL i. 20,. where an 'i^turpis of the world is spoken of.
Cf. thereon Burk,. p. 41.
2 J. Gerhard, Loci Th. vii. 178 f. § 144 f. Bellarmin had said, "The gospel
mentions no one by name ; when, therefore, the Evangelicals say, Every one
may and ought to believe sibi remissa essepeccata, they take it from themselves,
not from God's Word." To this Gerhard replies :. That the gospel promise of
salvation is universal,, is undeniable,, but Generalis Evangelii promissio includit
specialia. Similarly Quenstedt, p. iii. cap. iii. de Christo Redempt. Membr. 2.
Qusest. vi-viii. Quenstedt goes so far (Qusest. viii.) as to represent it as.
making satisfaction ioifinali impmnitentia as well as for all sins, which certainly
would be a self-contradiction. (See above, p. 27.)

212 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
certainly as to the interconnection, by which they form a
continuity.: Their distinction is intimated already in the
circumstance, that Holy Scripture usually understands justifi
cation, in the passive sense, of the possession of the blessmg of
forgiveness or of participation in the grace of God, of being
put into a state of grace, but in the active sense, of that act
of God by which He makes the individual actually partaker
in the blessing already procured for him by Christ. As relates
first to atonement, everything depends on its independent
significance and vabdity. For, were the nature of justification
such, that faith in God's fatherly love, which is announced
and guaranteed but not procured by Christ, effects justification,
or such that God forgives in virtue of His fatherly love and
not for Christ's sake, then would the high-priestly merit of
Christ be ignored and set aside in the doctrine of the appro
priation of salvation. But thereby penitent faith also would
be corrupted and disabled, because it would close its eyes to
gubt and the need of propitiation. Hence it would be impure
and yet incbned to ascribe to itself the merit of the atonement,
even if God's displeasure at sinners and His punitive justice
were not altogether denied. The doctrine, therefore, of justifi
cation by faith ought not, as is often done to-day, to be so
pressed and accentuated that the objective reconciliation of the
world by Christ is thereby absorbed, or in Reformation phrase
ology, Christ again buried. This independence, nay fundamental
import, of the atonement in contrast with faith, impbes (and
this forms its kernel) that ¦Christ procured the actual recon-
cbiation of God with the world, and did not merely make it
possible to God. Otherwise the consequence would be, that
faith is a jointly atoning causality, the cause of the realization
of an atonement at ab. Thus faith would be raised to the
rank of a potency supplementary to the principle of atonement ;
it would be made jointly procuring and atoning, as if the atone
ment through Christ did not carry in itself the potency of justi
fication, or as if penitent faith considered as transforming man
had not the efficient principle of the origin of the transformation
in the very fact, that God for Christ's sake in the preveniency
of His love has freely and fuby forgiven man.1 This becomes
1 Methodism most definitely derives the actuality of forgiveness from penitence
and faith as a subjective act. It was led thereto by Antinomian phenomena

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 213
all the more suspicious when the further question is asked:
What must be the character of the faith which accompbshes
such great things ? Teachers, who had once entered on this
path, required genuine penitence, not merely sorrow for the
consequences of sin or dread of divine penalties (attritio), but
sorrow for sin and its demerit itself, in conjunction with true
knowledge of the same and of moral impotence to help our
selves, the earnestness of resolve upon a better bfe, and a
sincere faith full of trust and free from all doubt,: — in a word,
true conversion.1 But if conversion must be already present
in order for justification or forgiveness to be imparted to man,
where is the power of justifying grace, which is yet glorified
as itself converting man and making him a new man ? For
giveness of sins, if now of real use to man, would find the best
work already done without it and before it. When, then, the
exhortation was added to test the genuineness of repentance
and faith, and only to regard such genuineness, if found, as
tbe sign of the atonement avabing foar man, the consequence
was, since all the requirements named are of a moral nature,
and are never found perfectly in man, that uncertainty respect
ing forgiveness and salvation is perpetuated, nay, man is
driven irresistibly to endeavour by performing those require
ments to render himself worthy of forgiveness and justification,
and thus to " dispose '' himself for those blessings. Here,
then, again were bona opera, although in Protestant garb,
certainly of a more inward nature, upon which not merely the
personal possession of and participation in the atonement, but
even the real stabibty of Christ's work itself was made to
depend. But here it was quite overlooked, that only free,
prevenient grace, with its word, "Thy sins are forgiven thee,"
(especially the teachings of Dr. Crisp), which perverted the doctrine of Free Grace.
Fletcher, the defender of Wesley and of his offence-giving declarations at the
Conference of 1770 (cf. The Works of the Rev. J. Fletcher, London 1814, vol. ii.
222 ff., and his Checks to Antinomianism, p. 225 ff., vol. iii. 6), not merely
emphasizes sanctification so strongly as to set up a second justification by works,
and perfection as a universal duty attainable on earth, but also represents the
justificatio prima (the reconciliation of God with the sinner) as effected (not
appropriated) by contrite sorrow and faith, to which of course meritoriousness is
denied, vol. ii. 264 ff. ; cf. above, p. 206.
1 Even Frank (ii. 333) sets up a whole series of conditions of justification,
several of which belong to sanctification, and can only be observed by one who
is already a partaker in salvation.

214 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
has the power to elicit the faith of assured trust. True, along
with such teaching went the repeated assertion, that not con
version (repentance and faith) in itself justifies, but only the
contents of faith — Christ, — that faith justifies, as the Apology
says, not as a noble virtue, although the noblest of virtues, but
because it apprehends the justifying contents. But when
again language was used x which impbed that divine forgive
ness really comes to no one, except after he bebeves, or that
in His heart God forgives no one in earnest, except when he
has bebevingly accepted forgiveness, Christianity was not the
offer of forgiveness already present, but only the announcement
of one to come, when the condition is fulfilled ; and in this
case it could not be denied that divine grace obtains its
justifying power in reference to the individual through faith
only.2 It is further true, that Evangebcal teachers, in opposi
tion to subjective, even inward acts, referred again and again
to Christ and His objective merit, and that the independence
of justification upon sanctification was supposed to be secured
by the proposition, that justification is primarily no change in
the subject, nor carries such with it (non importat justificatio
mutationem intrinsecam), but is merely a transaction or act in
God, in virtue of which God imputes Christ's righteousness to
man, not imputing his sin and gubt, but regarding him as just.
But this divine act was not regarded as contained in the
atonement already made by Christ, but was so brought into
connection with conversion, thai; not merely was the possession
and enjoyment of forgiveness on the part of the individual
made dependent on it, but the language used impbed that
even God only forgives in His heart when conversion or faith
is already present. Such dependence of atonement and for-
1 The distinguished President, Dr. John Edwards, sen., in his interesting
Remarks oil the Trinity and the Economy of Salvation, New York 1880, pp. 64-
71, just published for the first time by Dr. Egbert Smyth in Andover, expresses
himself on the present question as follows : " To make faith a condition of salva
tion is to burden the spirit with countless difficulties in respect of faith and
works, and their distinction. The result is to make us dependent on our own
righteousness, and to lead to a new legality (Neonomianism). Faith is not the
condition of receiving grace, but the receiving itself. Christ offers, believers
receive." 2 We may compare therewith a similar doctrine in another quarter, according
to which the means of grace are supposed only to obtain their efficacy through
official mediation.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 215
giveness in general upon faith would change the fact of God's
being reconciled with the world through Christ into something
merely conditional. But nothing merely hypothetical is suited
to be the basis of faith. If faith is to be rescued from the
torment of uncertainty respecting salvation, it needs a fixed,
objective, trustworthy point of support, which cannot be found
in the fickleness and feebleness of human feebngs or vobtions,
but in the last resort only in the objective atonement through
Christ, and thus in the fact that there is a justitia extra nos,
the justitia of Christ, who is our peace and the rock of our
salvation, because the redemption perpetuated in His person
has an objective, actual, and abiding worth for God, even before
we exist and bebeve, although having a relation to us and a
validity for us. On the other hand, a justification, not having
the atonement through Christ for its objective basis, would no
longer be justification in the Christian sense, but a deception.
The objective atonement therefore demands its independence
in relation to justification, and must already possess a reabty
and significance before the individual is in possession and
enjoyment of forgiveness, and in this sense of his justification.1
But however important on all these grounds the independ
ence of the atonement by Christ in distinction from justifica
tion by faith, in order to secure to Christ's work its full saving
worth, and to faith its firm objective basis, it is important on
the other hand to acknowledge, that a special and independent
significance belongs also to man's justification. The moral
character of the whole saving process depends thereupon. For,
were everything finished with Christ's objective work of atone
ment, were a further process superseded or sisted, instead of
1 Even Frank (ii 303, 304) concedes : " In a certain respect it may be rightly
said, that the saving propitiation and atonement for the human race, such as
was accomplished by Christ's redemptive work, involves a justifying of humanity
on the part of God, a remission of guilt even apart from faith, God for its
sake imparting saving grace moment by moment ; " and p. 328 : " The saving
propitiation, which Christ has accomplished, is just the restoring of our right
eousness before God." But he speaks thus without giving effect to the acknow
ledgment, or considering the efficacy of the atonement for the individual as well
as for the world in the matter of justification, and duly employing it within the
saving process itself. He rather views the divine forgiveness as posited supra-
temporaily, simply in the redemptive idea. In this case the divine forgiveness
in reality has to follow as the effect of "justifying faith." Similarly, von
Zezschwitz, ut supra. Cf. on this point, Ritschl, III. 102 f., and I. 542 ff.

216 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
being initiated by it, Christ's atoning work must then act after
the manner of a physical force or of a mere finished legal
business. Because Christ procured the atonement and repre
sented before God the race, to which we belong by nature, the
blessmg procured by Him would pass over to us as matter of
course by physical necessity, by a divine right of inheritance
as it were, becoming our possession without any co-operation
of ours. But this would contradict man's moral freedom,
which is not impebed to salvation or ruin from without against
its own wbl, and is not exhausted in a passive generic bfe.1
Freedom can offer resistance even to the highest revelation of
grace, and the process of diffusing salvation among mankind
cannot be merely physical or magical in nature. Nor can it
be merely juridical. We cannot say : Every debt has been
paid by Christ, or still less, His active obedience has done
everything which we had to do or ought to do hereafter ; His
obedience is a substitute for ours. For the process of salva
tion is no mere legal business, no mere payment of our debt
for the past, and of our obligation for the future. Else, the
consequence would be that we should have a legal claim to
forgiveness without more ado, and without faith ; nay, Christ
would then reaby be the only personality, He alone would
have moral responsibbity. But Christ's substitution does not
absorb, it generates our moral personality. If Christ's atone
ment, instead of requiring faith in order to become the pos
session of individuals, became their possession as matter, of
course because of the objective satisfaction made to God for
us, then converted and unconverted, believers and enemies
of the cross of Christ, would be on a par in relation to par
ticipation in the atonement, and Christ's work would give
support to moral Indifferentism and Antinomianism. The
same result would be reached, only by a bypath, as in the
doctrine that no atonement at all is necessary, because God
cannot be wroth and punish, but can only love. But just as
in this way the gift of salvation procured by Christ is no dead
1 The opposite supposition would lead to an analogous course of action, just as
when regard is only had to generic sin or inherited guilt, the subjective process
being ignored which leads in one case to personal sin, in the other to personal
salvation. Only the atonement accepted by the subject can become his justiSca-
tion, i.e. his possession and enjoyment of forgiveness.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 217
treasure, radiating forth its glory and blessings by natural
magic, without causing any movement in the heart, but
earnest, spiritual toil is requisite, not indeed to beget or create
this treasure of divine propitiousness, but to make it our own
personal possession, because in virtue of its spiritual nature it
can only be spiritually appropriated, and without such toil
would be rejected (which for this very reason would entab
new and worse gubt), — as, in a word, it has the purpose and
the power to introduce bfe and movement into the torpid,
dead masses of sinful humanity, — so, in the second place, we
must not suppose that the atonement procured by Christ,
because in truth it is a self-contained whole, is of the
nature of a ready-made blessing, or a treasure lying ready
to hand and belonging to every member of humanity, that
there is no further divine activity in the appropriation of this
possession and none needed, and that at most a becoming con
scious of or enlightenment respecting this possession is necessary
to man. For, bttle as anything is wanting to the reconcbiation
of God with the world in the abstract, so that it would stib
need a supplement in itself, either through a moral act on
man's part, or a sanctifying operation on God's, still a divine-
buman process must go through its course of development,
if man is to come into possession and enjoyment of the
divine gift which is independent of his faith.1 We shall soon
have to consider this process in detail. Here let it only be
remarked, that neither on the divine nor the human side can
it be one of mere theory.
3. But the interconnection or mutual relationship of the
two ideas must be no less firmly held than their distinction.
The atonement points to justification as its proximate goal.
It is designed to become the divine act of justifying the
bebeving sinner, and thus the possession and enjoyment of
.the grace of forgiveness. If the divine working stood stib
after atonement had been procured by Christ, the work of
atonement would have a lifeless unethical conclusion ; or, if
the movement feb exclusively on the subjective side, this
1 To deny all concurrence of human with divine activity would lead to
absolute predestination, and that in a physical, deterministic form, and withal
to absolute Apokatastasis, if Christ's work of atonement bears a universal
character.

218 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
would bring us back into the bne of the self-redemption
theory, but no personal, reciprocal meeting and febowship
between us on one side, and God and Christ on the other,
could fobow. Hence the divine purpose of atonement itself
requires continuous divine acts by which the atonement
procured by Christ is introduced into the individuabsm of
time, of individuals and their circumstances, into the con
sciousness and nature of believers. Here the heavenly high-
priesthood of Christ has its important place. But in the
same way, conversely, justification of itself points back to the
already aecompbshed reconcibation of the world as its basis
and presupposition, not to the mere possibihty or rendering
possible of the same. Christ's atonement, it is true, took
place in time, but it has eternal and universal import through
the righteousness of Christ, which is an eternal presence, and
represents us before the Father. It forms, therefore, along
with its effect — the fact of God's being reconcbed with the
world, or the forgiveness of God in His heart — the supra-
temporal real basis for the entire process of salvation, God
communicating the grace of salvation moment by moment,
because in Himself before His internal tribunal He has
objectively forgiven man. On one hand, it remains certain
that atonement and justification have the same contents in so
far as both imply that for Christ's sake God does not impute
sin to the world and individuals, but accepts Christ's advo
cacy and security, and therefore contemplates the world and
the individuals, whom in His heart He has forgiven, in Christ.
But it is a new thing that through divine grace these con
tents of the atonement are not merely a blessing availing for
man, but become his personal, nay conscious possession, and are
therefore appropriated by man. And this can only be done
by the implanting of faith, in which man's freedom takes
part. For it is logicaby impossible for an unconverted man
to know or receive Christian grace as that which it is. He
who neither knows nor acknowledges his sin and gubt cannot
desire or appreciate forgiving grace. Accordingly, the relation
of the two — of atonement and justification — is this: God's
being reconcbed through Christ, which is also the divine
purpose of redemption and the forgiveness of the sin of
humanity, remains identical with itself even in the historical

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 219
divine act of justifying the individual believing sinner, and is
continued therein. But in this act of justification, because
of the presence of a new element — faith — there is historically
fulfilled God's purpose of redemption, which, after God for
Christ's sake has become reconcbed with the sin of the world,
now carries its work farther, and renders it historically fruitful,
in harmony with the fact that He designed it to be the
actual, nay, in due course the conscious, blessed possession of
man. But never more can it be said that faith first brings
about the divine forgiveness itself.
4. After what has been said, the relation of faith to atone
ment and justification wbl be settled without difficulty. These
two differ in the circumstance, that in the justification of the
individual faith comes into consideration, whereas the recon
cibation of the world takes place before the faith of the
world. Without faith the process of salvation would lose its
moral character and pass into a mere magical, i.e. physical,
action of objective remedial powers, man remaining passive.
Although God is reconcbed with the world through Christ, no
one can know and rejoice in God's forgiving, fatherly dis
position, who has not in penitent faith been made conscious
of his sin and gubt, and has not a hearty longing to become
partaker in forgiveness. As already said, grace can only be
known and acknowledged as that which it is — forgiving grace —
by penitent contrition. But such contrition, the more far-
reaching and pure it is, ab the more knows the absolute
impossibdity of robing off the burden of sin and guilt from
itself by its own strength, and therefore needs and longs for
divine help such as the gospel proclaims. But this help
avabs nothing, unless man accepts it, and the right accepting
is cabed Faith.
According to ancient Evangebcal teaching, faith is made up
of three elements : Notitia, Assensus, Fiducia.1 Knowledge,
1 To which Burk adds the desire for salvation, which finds its preliminary,
pacifying conclusion in Fiducia in the. promissio Evangelii. From Fiducia is
developed further the Certitudo salutis. On the other hand, Fedor Schmidt- .
Warneck (Die intellectualistische Glaubensdoctrin m ihrem Widerspruch zum
Material-Princip der protest. Kirche, Mitau 1880) would acknowledge only
Notitia and Fiducia, and exclude Assensus, in order to avoid an intellectualistic
pseudo-orthodoxy. But in Assensus he is thinking of the true knowledge of
salvation, which of course can only spring from the believing appropriation of

220 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
feebng, and wiU are cabed into action, and the aim of the
divine calbng is to secure its evolution; for the gospel pro
clamation brings about a certain, although at first merely
historic, knowledge (notitia) ; in proportion as the knowledge
of sin, sorrow for it and for uncancebed gubt, are awakened,
it also excites the feeling or presentiment, how the misery of
man and the promise of the gospel are exactly adapted to
each other, from which arises an assent (assensus) to the
gospel in general. Finally, when desire for deliverance has
gained strength, the grace of calbng draws to a trustful
apprehending of the salvation offered in the gospel, or to the
proper object of the faith which brings about the state of
personal justification. But on this point we must Unger a
bttle. The object of Christian faith in the broader sense is of course
the entire contents of the Christian revelation. Hence our
theologians insist that the stages of notitia and assensus also
are preserved in Fiducia or Fides salvifica. But the entire
substance of revelation only becomes matter of inward, affirm
ing appropriation after the stage of Fiducia. Nay, it is here
rightly and expressly emphasized, e.g. by J. Gerhard, where
saving faith is treated of: the proper object of faith is Christ as
Mediator and Atoner, and everything else comes into view in
relation to saving faith according to the measure of its nearer
or more remote connection with redemption through Christ.1
Or stib more definitely : Forgiveness is regarded as the proper
object for "justifying" faith, which it must apprehend and
appropriate as the opyavov XinirTtKov in confidence and trust.
And here arises the question touched above : Must the con
fidence refer to this, that to penitent faith God will forgive
sin and remit gubt; or must the object of faith be this,
that sins are specifically remitted to man by God (sibi remissa
salvation. Further, he overlooks that Fiducia cannot be blind, and the act of
faith capricious, and therefore unethical, but that it must be performed with a
good conscience. To this is necessary a conscience with an open eye and
a presentiment awakened by the gospel proclamation and preparatory grace,
that in Christ is given that which the heart and conscience need (see vol i
§ 11, p. 140 £).
1 Hence an investigation respecting the distinction between Articuli funda-
mentales and minus fundamentals is appended here. Cf. J. Gerhard vii
§§128-148.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 221
esse peccata)1 must the object, which faith is confidently to
apprehend, be a hypothetical forgiveness depending on sincere
conversion, and therefore merely conditional, or the prevenient
loving manifestation of free divine pardon for Christ's sake ?
The answer is already given in the circumstance, that accord
ing to Evangebcal doctrine Fides must be not merely Fides
generalis, but specialis, and the contents or object of the faith
of the subject must be precisely this : sibi esse remissa peccata.
How can faith be faith that my sins are remitted, if they are
not forgiven before I believe, but are only to be forgiven
afterwards in virtue of the act of faith ? We see that the
difficulty discussed above appears in this place again, and
in a thoroughly practical form. It cannot be said that the
questions arising here are clearly solved by our old theo
logians. For, with a view to securing to faith its full
importance, many expedients are used which favour the
interpretation that forgiveness is imparted on account of
faith, and that there is no divine forgiveness save the one pro
cured by conversion and faith. It may especially have tended
to obscurity in this respect, that the promise of forgiveness or
justification to bebevers was described as the object which
faith apprehends. This expression was preferred in imitation
of Melanchthon and others, because in this way one and the
same object — the promise of salvation — was proposed to the
pious of the Old and New Testaments. But this expression is
plainly more in harmony with the standpoint of the Old than of
the New Testament ; and it is in keeping therewith that nothing
more than a difference in the degree of clearness was usuaby
supposed between the grace of the 0. and N. T., a doctrine
not in harmony with the N. T. and the historical significance
of Christianity for God's real reconcibation with the world.
The Promissio, described as the object for "justifying faith,"
was not always conceived (which would be unobjectionable) as
the " promise of the possession of Christian grace " or forgive
ness, nor faith as a mere acceptance of the saving gift already
present and availing for man. But the acceptance of grace
must not degenerate into the notion that grace is the product
of the acceptance. For the acceptance rather presupposes that
the object to be accepted is already in existence and present.
Nay, faith would not be an opyavov XrjirrtKov, but simply a

222 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
moral, procuring action, if the object which it is to appre
hend were not an already present gift, but only a possible
future one to be produced by faith itself. It was shown
above (p. 213) how this must lead to the Romish doctrine of
dispositiones justificationis, and also to the perpetuating of
uncertainty respecting salvation. If, on the other hand, the
divine forgiveness of the sin of the world is treated not as
the effect of the subjective process, but as the work of Christ,
and considered (as befits the prevenient love of God for
Christ's sake) as the objective basis of that process in which
the reconciliation of the world accomplished through Christ
continues and energizes, then uniformity and continuity
between the fact of God's being reconcbed with the world
through Christ and justification by faith are preserved. The
first denotes the divine gift destined for us, the second the
possession of that gift, brought about it is true by God and
not merely by man. The objective divine gift is designed to
become a personal possession. But in order thereto it requires
faith in God's prevenient forgiveness, or in the truth that
because God has forgiven the world for Christ's sake before it
knew and bebeved the fact, He causes reconcibation and
peace to be offered to it and the individuals in it. It must
remain unconditionally certain, that only on the ground of
the divine sentence or divine contemplation can man regard
himself as righteous, and also that this sentence cannot be
the effect of human action, of any course of conduct whatever
of a moral character, however important, nay indispensable,
such action may be, if man is to be put into personal posses
sion of the blessing procured by Christ, and therewith into
the state of justification. But even this putting into the
state of justification is a divine act. As the calbng is a
divine act which communicates the gospel message that
atonement not merely exists for the world in abstracto or as
a possibility, but is realized through Christ and avails for
individuals as certainly as the latter are included in the
world to which God is reconcbed through Christ, so also a
divine activity is in operation, although not an irresistible
one, in begetting the faith through which man is placed in
the state of justification No less, further, is a divine act
present when this gift becomes matter of inward knowledge

FAITH AND .JUSTIFICATION. 223
and certainty, although an act conditioned by the bebevino
reception of the gift. By this means the already existing
grace, the perfect forgiveness for Christ's sake, penetrates into
the knowledge or consciousness, and penetrates also with bfe-
giving effect into the nature of man, from which therefore the
Apology of the Conf. Aug. deduces a vivificatio, nay regeneratio
of man, and certitudo salutis.1 The reference also by the
theologians of the 1 7th century to an intimatio, insinuatio of
the divine sentence of absolution comes under this head. —
According to what has been advanced, the relation of faith to
atonement and justification is this, that faith must have the
reconcibation of the world through Christ and of the indi
vidual men belonging to it for its contents, that it arises
therefore on the basis of the universality of divine grace
actual and present, but that when it has apprehended the
divine forgiveness as a certain fact specifically including the
bebever, — this particular man, — it is placed in possession and
enjoyment of the divine forgiveness, or in the state of justifi
cation, not merely by divine sentence, but also by divine
act. 5. After we have come to an understanding respecting the
ideas of atonement and justification and the relation of faith
to both, it is due to the importance of the matter, even at
the risk of repetitions, to consider once more the process of
salvation in detab by way of summary and connectedly,
in which course the turning-point from the old to the new
life, and the co-operation of the divine and human factors in
order to the final result, must be especiaby taken into view.
It must be premised, that the nature of the case no less than
systematic order wbl endure no hiatus between the recon
cibation of the world by Christ and the justification of the
individual. Certain as it is that the historical course of the
appropriation of salvation ought not to be conceived deisticaby,
and is not carried out without divine acts which belong to
the " true, high, spiritual miracles " of which Luther speaks,
and which are in complete harmony with the divine immuta
bility rightly viewed, stib, according to what has been advanced,
justification ought not to be represented as an abrupt divine
act, in which what has been gained through Christ must be
1 See above, p. 201.

224 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
ignored or deprecated in order that the justifying God may
begin as from the beginning. On the contrary, the eternally
valid atonement aecompbshed by Christ must be introduced
into the justification of man, and must, so to speak, gain in it
present existence. On the other hand, the atonement must
not stand in its objectivity like an immoveable power (Grbsse),
as if with the blessing of the reconcibation of God procured
by Christ the world already had what it needs. Nor ought
absolute Predestinationism to seek any support in the fact of
God's supra-temporal reconcibation to the world through
Christ. Rather, the aecompbshed reconcibation of God with
the world must operate as the principle of the reconciliation
of the world with God, i.e. must be efficacious in causing the
world by spontaneous faith both to rejoice in the assurance
of forgiveness, and by this very means to be transformed in
consciousness, vobtion, and nature. The process accordingly
is as fobows.
First. In Christ and for the sake of His righteousness God
is reconcbed with humanity, not imputing to it its sins. Since
God has forgiven it in His heart for the sake of Christ's priest
hood, which is continued in His intercession, an absolving
divine sentence before the inner divme tribunal does not
first come into view in the act of justification ; but the effect
of Christ's historic work of atonement is that God regards the
humanity, to which the Mediator belongs, otherwise than
before in virtue of His accomplished satisfaction, namely, as
covered by Christ's righteousness, no longer as merely capable
of redemption but as reconcbed, which fact may be described
as a pardoning sentence of God upon the world in His inner
tribunal, in which the matter rests, and which remains in
force, untd the gospel is rejected by definitive unbelief. It is
solely the fellowship of Christ with us, which He by anticipa
tion formed and maintains with sinners, His advocacy and
surety and not the faith of men, not their trusting and loving
fellowship with Christ, by which this forgiveness is brought
about in God. Nor does this divine sentence or this divine
contemplation of the world in Christ effect a change in man
immediately,1 but needs first of all to be defined retrospectively
1 Hollaz, Baier, and others rightly insist, that justificatio forensis as a divine
act must primarily be defined as occurring outside man. This holds good

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 225
and prospectively in its non-dependence on human merit,
and in its independent value. This is the meaning of the
doctrine of Justificatio forensis. There is scarcely a defini
tion in the old Protestant dogma, at which more offence was
taken than at this. But the meaning and value of the defini
tion can be most easily made evident by considering the
atonement under this point of view. First, the forgiveness of
God in His heart before the world's conversion, and therefore
not determined by it, makes clear the pure, prevenient nature
of the divine love ; and for this very reason, secondly, it is
the overwhelming power which works true repentance ; and
yet, thirdly, this is of such a kind that force or mere physical
procedure has no place, but room is left for a moral process in
which freedom is taken into account, which process, however,
is set in motion by the manifestation of the prevenient, forgiv
ing love of God.
Secondly. But of course the inner reconcibation of God with
the world does not remain shut up in God to the end. God
causes the news of the accomplished reconcibation — the gospel
— to reach the world and individuals in the course of history,
the heavenly High Priest accompanying the process with His
intercession. By the invitation a moral process is initiated,
which leaves room for free decision (§§ 130, 131). This
message holds good on God's part for the whole of humanity,
and not merely for the members of His kingdom.1 It must
be as universal in its terms as the atonement through Christ,
which embraces the sin of the world, and is therefore the
primarily of the atonement, which in a certain way may also be called justifica
tion (p. 209) ; but it holds good also of justification in so far as in the latter the
atonement is continued, which has an objective existence independently of the
subject. Only of course it cannot hold good of justification so far as it is insinu
ated. Rather the aim is that it shall become a personal possession, and in this
way effect a transformation in man. An immediate working of the atonement,
on the other hand, could only come about by magical means, leaving no place
for freedom in appropriating salvation. Just so, were a moral change incor
porated immediately with the idea of justification, the danger would arise
of confounding justification and sanctification, and therefore the danger of
obscuring free grace.
1 God's forgiveness is not for the healthy, but for the sick and sinners. For
giveness could only be limited to the members of the kingdom on the supposition
that the church of God effects the reconciliation of those belonging to it by its
own strength, or that the individual becomes partaker in the church of God, and
thus in forgiveness, by simply entering the church.
Dorner. — Christ. Doct. iv. P

226 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
principle of forgiveness also to all individual men. If, then,
we ask what must form the contents of the gospel proclama
tion, the requirement is, that it proclaim, not a . God to be
reconcbed through works or faith, but a God reconcbed with
out help of ours, His forgiveness and His peace. It must
therefore be affirmed respecting forgiveness, that man's rela
tion to the fact of God being reconciled is not productive, nor
even at once receptive. In so far Luther might speak of the
mera passivitas of man in the work of reconcbing God, as well
as of man being justified. It has at present become very
common to state the contents of the gospel proclamation
thus : God forgives and justifies man, when he bebeves, or
when he sincerely repents of and renounces his sins, as well
as places his hope upon Christ, — in a word, when he is con
verted. But justification would thus lose its central and
essential position. In opposition to this view, John Gerhard
rightly insisted that the divine forgiveness has an absolute, not
merely conditional character, i.e. is independent of our merit
or good works, for the heavenly blessings are offered freely, by
spontaneous grace.1 This does not imply that faith is super
fluous. Rather it is requisite in order to our becoming par
takers in the gift offered,2 but for that reason not in order to
its existence. It is not correct to say, that the gospel pro
clamation should merely assert a covenant relation, so to speak,
and set forth the contents, that God promises pardon and will
grant forgiveness, when man on his side is converted and comes
to true faith, and therefore to fellowship with Christ. Were
the fact of God on His side being reconciled through Christ no
reality in itself before faith, if He only became reconciled with
the individual through his faith, then forgiveness on God's part
would not be a present fact and an earnest offer of prevenient,
pardoning love, but a promise and a hypothetical one, dependent
for its very existence on the feeble strength of man, and on his
fulfilment of the conditions. No firm trust (fiducia) in a grace
of forgiveness freely imparted could then be arrived at, because
1 Tom. vii. p. 171, ed. Cotta, in opposition to Bellarmin, who is of opinion
that they are all conditionales. In the same way Gerhard rejects the notion that
dispositiones for gratia are necessary, i.e. that God may be determined to for
giveness and may pardon. Faith, the tfyuwi XwrTixiv, is no such dispositio with
meritum ex congruo.
* Ibid.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 227
this grace would again in itself be made dependent on human
conduct, which does not deserve firm trust. Moreover, Evan
gelical teaching rightly requires that faith shall not stop at
generalities and take cognizance of Christian truth generally,
and assent to it (notitia and assensus), nor merely stop at the
general proposition, that God forgives sin and is reconciled
with the world for Christ's sake, but it is essential for Fides to
become specialis (quisque credat sibi remissa esse peccata) ; and
this relation of the personabty to a grace already present, not
merely to come and thus hypothetical, is rightly reckoned a
part of fiducia, even as the relation of grace to the personality
(" given for you ") requires such fiducia, and is raised above
the uncertainty of doubt, which is justified so long as the
divine forgiveness itself is supposed to be the effect of our
conversion and faith, our confidence therefore having something
subjective for its point of support instead of the bottomless
compassion and love of God for Christ's sake. Accordingly
the proper object of the faith here treated of is the forgiveness
procured by Christ, free and gratuitous, availing for us and
imputed to us by pure grace.1 The contents of faith are not
originated by faith, but are given to it to be appropriated, that
faith may come into the possession of the divine favour and
grace. Such a gift already present and offered is the contents
or object, which faith can and ought to apprehend, even as it
forms withal the strongest, nay decisive impulse both to the
humbbng and shaming of the sinner, and to the trustful appre
hending of Christ, and in Him of the Father's love.
But perhaps many who acknowledge this to be the pure
Evangelical and Christian doctrine, which alone answers to the
prevenient character of the divine love, such as Christianity has
revealed, may become timid, and ask, whether such gospel
preaching does not open a wide door to carelessness and the
abuse of holy things, whether the sole and necessary barrier
to such a result is not the doctrine, that God forgives, not by
anticipation, but only when man is improved or converted ?
So the Judaistic strain of thought has always judged. On
1 J. Gerhard, torn, vii., ed. Cotta, p. 165, § 130: "Dicimus, fidei justificantis
proprium et adasquatum objectum esse promissionem evangelicam de Christo
Mediatore." That the promissio signifies the offer of a present gift procured for
us by Christ, is shown by the context.

228 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
this point only the following remarks are premised in order to
obviate misunderstandings. A preliminary consideration is,
that the Evangelical doctrine now advanced does not imply
that any one can be in actual and personal possession of for
giveness and justification, who with evil intent presumptu
ously abuses grace, making it a cloak of wickedness, but only
that the divine forgiveness is not originated by repentance
and conversion. On the contrary, the correct handbng of
gospel preaching must insist, that no one can really par
ticipate and rejoice in the forgiveness or justifying grace
imputed and offered to him preveniently by God, who does not
sincerely recognize his sins, and desire to have his conscience
relieved of the burden of guilt. The personal apprehension
of that blessing must be a spiritual act, just as the blessing
itself is spiritual in nature. Such apprehension is logicaby
out of the question for one who knows not what the gospel is
about, who acknowledges not his sin and guilt, and does not
long for pardoning grace and the healing of sin and gubt. To
one who lacks these elements, the gospel, which is glad tidings
of forgiveness, is unintebigible, nay, does not even exist as
such, nor can he accept and possess it as that which it is.
Although, therefore, penitent faith is not the cause of the divine
forgiveness of sin or of justification itself, there are stbl logical
and empirical reasons why penitent faith must precede the
conscious possession of forgiveness. Just so, it is logically
impossible for any one to have the offered grace as his own, if
he rejects instead of accepting it, as it demands, and instead
of responding to the fellowship with man established by Christ
in prevenient love by establishing febowship through faith in
Him. Little as the divine forgiveness in itself is conditioned
by faith, — rather it is a reality before faith, because faith does
not produce its object, but presupposes and accepts it when
given, — stib the prevenient manifestation of divine grace takes
place, in order that the sinner may bebeve in it with humbity
and confidence. The gospel is a loving greeting to sinful
humanity on the part of God, who establishes febowship on
His side, in order that sinful humanity may respond to this
greeting by its febowship with the Mediator through faith.
If, on the other hand, Christ is rejected by the decision of
man, after the influence of the grace of calbng has restored his

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 229
freedom (§ 130 f.), goodness or love itself is rejected in its
supreme revelation, and purely personal, damnable guilt is
incurred by an act of self-condemnation. In such sin, the sin
that preceded the preaching of the gospel is perpetuated, and
the guilt, which was forgiven for Christ's sake, again revives,
so to speak; or rather the scorning and despising of such
divine love incurs guilt of a new species. In the sin of
definitive unbelief all sin and gubt first attains its unhappy
culmination Thirdly. On the other hand, the effect of faith in Christ is
the possession of justification. As a divine act, expressive of
the divine disposition, justification precedes the inner change
of man for the better. The new life or love has yet no
place in man's heart, either as merit or as the condition of
salvation, before God has forgiven and absolved man in His
inner tribunal, nay, has made known His disposition towards
humanity through the gospel But with our faith a new
factor enters even for the divine contemplation. The being
apprehended in effectual calling has now become the spon
taneous apprehending of Christ, and as we are thus made
receptive to further gifts, so God bestows grace for grace.
The first and fundamental gift is the Spirit of peace from
above, stibing every accusation of conscience, healing the
discord in ourselves and with God, and, although we 'still
know ourselves sinners (for it is sinners who are justified),
causing us to see in God no longer the angry, holy Judge, but the
loving Father, whose children we are permitted to call ourselves.
The believer now has experience of the fatherly love which
God sheds abroad in his heart, and which brings with it the
Spirit of adoption, who teaches to pray to God with the
trustful, ingenuous spirit of a child. The forgiveness, offered
in the gospel and made man's possession by faith, is complete,
referring to ab sins and guilt in the past as web as to natural
and still existent sinfulness. Nay, so far as the power of sin
cannot be at once vanquished even by regeneration (for the
new life is itself a progressive one), the power of atoning
grace extends also beyond the present to the later after-
workings of sin, so far as the continuance of penitent faith
also is bound up with them. - Christianity has completed but
one work — atonement, which through justification is made

230 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
completely, not merely partially, man's own possession.
Everything else, like regeneration, sanctification, and glorifica
tion, is still left incomplete, nothing but the certainly
efficacious principle of all these being implanted in humanity.
But the divine forgiveness or justification is total, a whole
neither needing nor capable of increase. Every accusing of
conscience is now hushed, for, by the divine forgiveness on
the ground of Christ's propitiation, guilt is cancelled, the
indictment annubed.1 But guilt being abolished, we are also
freed from punishment. For all evbs are only punishment
through the divine anger and through guilt before God. Still-
continuing evils, after losing their connection with the divine
anger and our guilt, are but means of training, their only
connection being with God's holy love towards us, as faith
also knows right web.2 The consciousness of the forgiveness
of all sins and of the remission of all guilt and punishment, a
conscience lightened of its load and free, along with divine
adoption, forms then the blessed background of our temporal,
progressive, although still always imperfect inner life, the
constant supplement of our imperfection in righteousness
before God, provided only we abide in faith.
Further, although God is reconciled with the world through
Christ once for all, and remains so, unless the world rejects
the divine gift, still God bke Christ is not an idle spectator
of the process of salvation ; He does not carry it on simply
by secondary causes, such as the labour of the church with
its means of grace and the agency of man, but deems man
worthy of an immediate, living relation. The eternal recon
ciliation procured by Christ, abiding in identity and stedfast
continuity with itself, manifests itself in temporal acts, such
as ever correspond to the need and receptiveness of man,
1 Rom. viii. 1.
2 The Catholic Church teaches otherwise, and the erroneous tenet of the
continuance of a penal state even for believers is the bridge to the doctrine of
Purgatory. Hence the Reformation laid great stress on the doctrine, that
we are freed by Christ from all guilt and penalty. On the other hand, the
Rationalistic Theology, e.g. Doderlein, §§ 208 f., 269, 309, and Hengstenberg
(see above, p. 202), would have all suffering even of believers regarded as punish
ment for still remaining sin, whereas Kreibig (ut supra, p. 368) derives the
penal character of the sufferings of those who are justified from the imperfection
of their faith.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 231
chiefly through communication of the Holy Spirit. Hence,
when man has performed the act of faith, the time has come
when God can place him in the state of justification, nay of
adoption, and communicate to him a consciousness thereof.
When the subject has reached the point at which under a
sense of sin and guilt he longs after peace with God and the
certainty of reconcibation with God for Christ's sake in filial
confidence, the pardoning, gracious God sends the Spirit of
peace as a living pledge of His fatherly forgiveness. The
Spirit checks or hushes the consciousness of discord, and stbl
further breathes into the heart the assurance of salvation and
blessedness, by which a new consciousness arises in man as if
he were born anew — the consciousness of adoption, which is
associated with a new spirit and marked off with increasing
definiteness from the period previous to the state of grace.
True, the blessed feeling of forgiveness and adoption is not
always connected with faith, and after its appearance does not
remain uninterrupted ; so far the so-cabed " faith without
feeling" has a measure of truth. But the certainty must
be distinguished from the blessed feebng. The former may
indeed have different stages or degrees, but can never be
whoby wanting, when and so far as faith exists. For in faith
considered as trust and confidence there is already a beginning
of certainty, produced by the inner strength and wealth of
tbe objective real truth, so far as that truth has disclosed
itself in inner cabing to the spirit and determined it to the
act of trustful faith. And again, the contents received in faith
have their effect, as the man learns more and more by the
exercise of faith how the gospel so fully corresponds to his
needs, and the two are made for each other. Growth in
certainty of salvation and in its stabibty, or stedfastness of
heart, is both attainable and to be sought, especiaby since the
stib remaining uncertainty can only spring from the remnants
of doubt, which are connected with sin, and therefore with sin
are to be resisted. The causes of doubt be especially in lesser
or greater unfaithfulness, which must be overcome by penitent
faith in daby renewal. But mere intermission of doubt is
stbl not divine certainty of salvation. Such certainty and
the consciousness of divine adoption are a special divine gift,
called in Holy Scripture sealing by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit

232 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
of Christ.1 Its place cannot be supplied by search after signs
of the new birth; Instead of anxiously feeling the spiritual
pulse, and musing whether we have true, penitent faith, we
must boldly bebeve after the pattern of a Paul and the
Reformers, leave the things which are behind, look forward
to Christ instead of to ourselves, and confide in Him. This
has in all ages created stalwart believers and heroes in Christ,
who grew joyous in faith and stood equipped as witnesses of
salvation. Whoever really believes, knows also — as the
Reformers rightly maintained — that he bebeves, and is saved
from doubting whether he really has faith ipso facto as web
as by the written blessed effect of faith.2 Here also the
maxim holds good : first, true being must be sought, then the
consciousness of that being wib present itself in due time.
For it is not knowledge which makes regenerate or elect ; but
regeneration or the new life, if it exists, publishes and asserts1
itself in the , consciousness by more and more definite de
marcation from the old life.
But although the consciousness of justification has degrees
or stages, for the above reasons the justification itself has no
stages. The opposite doctrine, that sins are forgiven according
to the degree of sanctification, maintained by the Tridentine
Canon,3 abobshes all certainty of salvation untd sanctification
is completed, and therefore transfers it from earth to the next
world, thus relegating us to the 0. T. and robbing sanctification
itself of the strongest, most urgent impulse of gratitude for full
and free forgiveness. For a merely half forgiveness is none, but
abows anxiety and dread of impending judgment to continue in
the conscientious man in reference to stbl unforgiven guilt.
6. The fobowing objections, however, are made against the
Evangebcal doctrine of Justification, with its distinction from
sanctification, by Catholicism, and often even by Rationalism.
First — a point already discussed under one aspect — This
doctrine would imply indifference to the law and its un
conditional obligation, for it ascribes to man righteousness
before God, without his being personally righteous, — an
1 2 Cor. i. 22 ; Eph. i 13, iv. 30.
2 This is explained in special detail by Kirk, Lect. iv. p. 56 ff.
8 To which also Hengstenberg let himself be led away in his last years, as
earlier the Puseyites in England.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 233
objection already discussed under one aspect. Thus it is
antinomian and calculated to beget carelessness, remissness
in what is good, because according to it man may be righteous
in God's eyes, and saved xtopl? epywv. Secondly: It is
impossible in itself, that God should regard and treat one
who is a sinner as righteous ; else God's sentence upon man
would not be a judicium secundum veritatem. Thirdly : But
even granting that such an absolving sentence were possible,
as a mere actus Dei forensis or declaratorius it would be empty
and meaningless. No sentence of God uttered in Himself, no
mere declaratory act at all can help man, but only a creative
act, which is then cabed justitia infusa, inhcerens, habitualis.
Only as inhering in and pertaining to man can the justitia
Christi be called maris justitia. The Evangelical doctrine already
set forth contains a sufficient answer to these further objections.
As relates first of all to the reproach of Antinomianism, the
Evangelical doctrine is bubt on Christ's atonement, which is
itseK an act of homage to the law. The law, it is true, binds
individuals not merely to suffer punishment for disobedience,
but also to do and fulfil the law. But free forgiveness does
not place the future at man's disposal, but under the obliga
tion of gratitude and the free impulse of responsive love.
And as regards the obbgation to the punishment demanded
by the law, it was formerly shown that while the divine
justice unconditionally requires expiation both for good
neglected and evb committed, the expiation does not neces
sarily consist in enduring a definite amount or definite kinds
of sorrow and suffering of a physical and spiritual nature
as an equivalent. The chief requisite in expiation is the
fub acknowledgment of the weight and penal character of
sin and gubt in presence of God's sacred majesty, briefly
humbbng before the unconditional right of the divine
justice and holiness. But this right of the divine justice is
acknowledged and satisfied by Christ's vicarious atonement,
as web as by the demand that the man who desires justifica
tion shab recognize his penal babbity, and pn his own behalf
affirm and acknowledge Christ's satisfying, propitiatory work
in atonement for human imperfection. Without this, accord
ing even to Evangebcal teaching, he comes not into possession
of justification. But stib more, the Romish doctrine itseK

234 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
does not secure sanctification, whbst the Evangebcal alone
creates the possibility of sanctification in pure form. For the
former impbes that forgiveness is the reward of love. But
how can love to God arise, when we flee from and dread Him,
and therefore are not first of all released from the ban of guilt
and sin ? And if we are to merit salvation by our good
works, and this reward is to be the impulse to love, then love
is self-interested, and even in loving we are seeking our own.
On the other hand, when we are assured of forgiveness and
rejoice in God's love, we no longer love merely in order to
salvation, but from a sense of salvation. On this footing only
can our love be pure like God's.
As relates to the second objection : " The sentence of God
on the sinner, pronouncing him righteous, would not be a
judicium secundum veritatem," the answer is : Absolution and
reception into grace take place for Christ's sake, as even the
Romish Church must acknowledge, at least in its doctrine of
Holy Baptism. But Christ's righteousness is a reality, and
His substitution effectual. Justification as a declaratory
divine act does not say that man is not gubty or punishable ;
the absolving sentence is no denial, but in itself an affirming
of penal babbity. Nor does this sentence imply primarily,
that man is holy and righteous habituaby or in himself, but
simply affirms the divine favour and propitiousness to the
sinner, and indeed not to the sinner in himself — -for cer
tainly the truth of the case, the divine justice, would demand
an opposite sentence — but affirms that the divine justice
contemplates and treats man as reconcbed for the sake of
Christ's advocacy and perfect righteousness, of His intercession
and work, so long as man retains receptiveness to salvation,
and does not reject the proffered salvation in unbebef. The
first negative element — the non-imputation of gubt because
of Christ's high-priestly intercession — is perfectly consistent
with truth, for guilt is not here called innocence, and God's
justice does not demand that those who are capable of
redemption should be given over to condemnation. But, on
the other hand, God would not regard the sinner secundum
veritatem, if He viewed the beginning of habitualis justitia
as the completion, or if He ignored the connection of Christ
with the sinner, which really exists so long as definitive

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION. 235
unbelief has not severed man from Christ. Finally, there are
also good grounds in truth for the proposition, that God for
Christ's sake positively bestows His favour on man. On the
other hand, we must of course assert, that God cannot
positively regard man's personality as righteous and holy
before he has entered into febowship with Christ's righteous
ness by faith. For, certain as it is that the fellowship of
Christ with man and His high-priestly character form the basis,
stbl these do not decide the question of the free acceptance
or rejection of salvation. But the Evangelical Church does
not affirm, that without faith man is regarded in his person
abty as a child of God, righteous and holy, for Christ's sake.
The third objection stbl remains : The actus Dei forensis or
declaratorius is empty, outward. It is of course essential not
to conceive of this act as lifeless, as a sentence which God
utters merely within Himself. According to what has been
said above, we are warranted in taking the meaning of this
act to be, that in His heart God is reconciled for Christ's sake
not merely with the world in general, but also with the indi
vidual, and because of the febowship of Christ with him
acquits and absolves him from gubt and punishment as by a
judicial act. But this act or this sentence, which within the
divine nature is independent of all human action of a moral
kind, is not uttered by God merely within Himself. But in
cabing proclamation is made to man, that God on His side
is reconcbed with the sinful world, and therefore with the
individual sinner ; and further, there is implanted in man, and
sealed by the Holy Spirit to the individual, who receives the
message, faith in the saving truth that God has forgiven him his
sins, and regards him in Christ as justified, — a doctrine which,
as we have seen, can by no means be described as idle or empty.
7. Transition to Sanctification or Renewal. — The
independence of divine forgiveness in respect of human acts
or works, which forms a vital interest for the Evangelical
Church, and which we have attempted to make clear in what
has preceded, did not prevent the Reformers and the Evan
gelical theologians insisting on the inseparableness of faith
and love.1 And this can be maintained ab the more purely,
1 Cf. e.g. Apol., de Dilectione, p. 83 ff. ; Luther's Preface to the Epistle to the
Romans; Gerhard, torn. vii. 174 ff., 184 ff.

236 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
when faith is not the cause of God's forgiveness or justifica
tion, but simply receives the gift prepared for it, the real
potency of justification thus lying outside man. For now
everything pertaining to the spontaneous, subjective side of
the saving process appears as the effect, no longer in the least
as the cause, of God's justifying grace. If, then, the above
precaution for the freedom and independence of grace has
succeeded in its aim, no reason any longer exists for anxiously
questioning the ethical character of faith in ab its functions,
and thus impeding the transition from justification to renewal.
Even the receiving of divine grace is a moral act, an obedience
of faith.1 There is a v6fio<s trlarewi. It is a moral duty to
seek the sole means of salvation — the redemption by Christ,
and to surrender oneself unconditionally to it, seeing that
redemption is a free, unreserved manifestation of love. For
only in this way is moral restoration possible. Thus is faith,
considered as a disposition, in itself a virtue, nay, the funda-?
mental virtue. Its connection with the new life is the more
evident as it apprehends Christ — the personal righteousness
and love, who communicates His Spirit. It is true, saving
faith turns to Him in the first instance as the Atoner. But
precisely as such He is the glorification and revelation of
divine love, the contemplation and enjoyment of which not
merely pacifies the conscience, but also fascinates by its
typical perfection and purity, aud is potent to kindle love in
return. It is impossible to stop at the mere personal recep
tion of forgiveness. This is avoided on the objective side,
because the ultimate aim which God wills is the moral
perfecting of man as a member in His kingdom. Even in
calling, as in justification, hobness is wibed as the end,
which both serve.2 And if we regard the matter on the sub
jective, psychological side, faith in God's universal love to man
is involved in faith in justifying grace. This follows from
the connection proved to exist between the justification of
individuals ,and the reconciliation of the world. For he who
supposes that the reconciliation applies only to him, is
entangled in egoistic fancies. Faith is faith in God's fatherly
disposition towards humanity, and this already impbes the
acknowledgment of the duty of love to every one who by
1 Rom. i 5, xvi 26 ; 2 Cor. vii. 15. > Eph. ii. 8-10.

faith and justification. 237
faith receives God's purpose of reconcbiation. But we saw
again that repentance and conversion must precede the pos
session of justification. And both have already a moral
character. Penitence acknowledges sin and guilt as web as
the law, faith seeks a satisfaction to the rights of divine
justice. In addition, experience of debverance from gubt and
penalty revives the despairing conscience, inspires the man
rejoicing in salvation with new bfe and new impulses,
snatches him from the common sinful bfe of the world, and
transplants him into the kingdom of the new humanity, in a
word, makes him in germ a new creature born of God. To
such a creature it is natural to love. It is not merely grati
tude to God, who first loved us, by which responsive love is
begotten ; 1 it is also a law of bfe in the new creature, blood-
affinity as it were, that he who is born of God also love his
brethren, either those who already are or are destined to be
such. Although the new bfe shows itself at first in single
light-glimpses, the Spirit's workings gradually converge nearer
and nearer untd they form a connected series, and a new,
unbroken being and consciousness is able to rise, in which,
whbe the consciousness of sin and guilt is not absent, the
abolition of the discord is implanted by justification. The
consciousness or conscious possession of justification forms
then the decisive standpoint dividing the old existence from
the new bfe, although the old existence was pierced or illumi
nated by scattered rays of grace. It is from this consciousness
of being personally justified, which must needs arise in a
normal course just as definitely as the consciousness of sin and
guilt, that the conscious love must flow in the form of grati
tude, which transforms the heart and creates the incbnation
to present the whole life an offering to God. For ab these
reasons, the transition from justification and faith to sanctifica
tion is not a sudden leap or departure from surrender to God,
nor casual or arbitrary, but is founded on inner necessity,
whether the matter be considered on the side of God's action
and its aim, or on the side of man and the inner concatenation
of the stages of the subjective process of salvation. The state
of justification — the primary result of the process — is again
itself an infinite, life-pregnant beginning of a process stretch-
1 1 John iv. 10 ; Col. i. 13.

238 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
ing into eternity, in which that which is already gained under
goes development, and man is shaped into a new personality
belonging to and resembling Christ.
Observation. — The aim of the exposition given has been, on
the one hand, to distinguish the reconcibation or forgiveness
of God from that which Evangelical theology calls justificar
tion, but on the other again to connect the two in the
closest way, namely, in the way in which the living, abiding
basis (potentiality) coheres with its historical exercise, by
which the believer is placed in possession and enjoyment of
God's pardoning favour. The solution of the problem depends,
again, on the right apprehension of the relation of God to time
' and history, on which the First Part dwelt at large.1 The
essential point is to combine on the one hand God's purpose
of reconciliation and abiding reconciliation through Christ,
and on the other the reality and necessity of a history, and,
indeed, of a not merely human, but divine-human process.2
And this must not be done in such a way as to imply that
the prime fundamental on God's side is merely the redemp
tive idea, and the realization of atonement a purely divine
act, nor conversely, that atonement or forgiveness indeed
was perfect and actual before the faith of man, and for this
very reason the divine activity had no more to do, but the
rest of the process was merely human. Oh the contrary,
actual participation in the supra-temporal atonement procured
by Christ's historic work (i.e. justification) must be imparted
to the believer by God in the way of temporal history. — The
fruitfulness of the dogmatic positions gained in this section
will manifest itself in various ways hereafter^ chiefly in the
doctrine of the Means of Grace, especiaby of Baptism and
Infant-Baptism.

THIRD POINT: SANCTIFICATION.
§133.
The new man is created for a bfe reflective of Christ in His
unsullied holiness, wisdom, and blessedness, and also for
living membership in His body or the Church.
'Vol. i.p. 244 f.
8 Here again the question turns on the right distinction and connection of the
divine Transcendence and Immanence.

SANCTIFICATION. 239
Observation. — The state of sanctification relates not merely
to growth in holiness of will, but embraces the whole man
and the development of his entire personality, and there
fore the preservation and growth of sonship to God in the
regenerate. 1. The first necessary function of the new man is the pre
serving of the salvation in possession.1 As Conservation joins
on to Creation, as everything living co-operates in its own
preservation and seeks food as the means of its preservation,
so the first evidence of existing life is that it avoids or repels
what is hostbe, and seeks after what is helpful to it. Thus
faith (77-40-7-49) in its self-affirming aspect becomes fidelity
(vironovrj), or the virtue of stedfastness, which so holds man in
check that he remains self-collected in communion with Christ,
instead of giving way to distraction and doubt. If up to
the point of justification man's activity consisted merely in
spontaneity of living receptiveness, and the divine activity
so predominated that the man is justified, now that the
new personality is present, co-operation begins.
2. Hand in hand with seK-preservation by persistent
putting away of the old man, and by daby effort in the
renewal of repentance and faith, goes positive growth. The
Spirit of God cannot be satisfied with the death of the old
man. His wib is a new and holy life, putting forth effort on
ab sides. And on man's side, if man desired after receiving
reconciliation to remain inactive, repentance and faith would
not be ethical, not real delight in good, but debght merely in
freedom from evil, in the blessing of freedom from punish
ment. They would not then exist at ab in genuine form.
Nor would there be a new focus of bfe. The Holy Spirit,
when He takes up His dwebing in a man, seeks to be a
fountain of living water also to others, that their bfe too may
issue in eternal life. If the blossoms fall without bearing
fruit, they were dead blossoms from the first, no products of a
union of the divine and human bfe really carried out by faith.
Sanctification is the living test of regeneration (principium
cognoscendi) to itself and others. Where the process of
sanctification stands stib, the cause must be a sickliness of
faith ; and if that is wanting which cannot be wanting where
1 1 John v. 18, Titpiiv ixurit.

240 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
actual regeneration is present, its existence may rightly be
questioned. It is true, even the regenerate man stbl sins ; but
however great the similarity in appearance between his sin
and that of the unregenerate, internally the distinction always
remains, that a resistance is always bound up with the sin of
the former (see above, p. 186), which makes itself known by
retractation of the sin in sorrow or penitence, and that he no
longer puts his whole strength of will into evb. As a new
personabty the man "cannot sin,"1 he delights in God's will,
and knows what is good. As such he no longer needs an
outward law, but is a law to himself by the Holy Spirit.2
But the believer is not merely a new personality, but the old
man with his habits belongs stib to the unity of his person.
That person has consequently an imperfect disordered appear
ance, although in principle the old man is broken. Thus
rises the duty of restoring perfect unity, which can only be
done by increasing the strength of the new man by growing
appropriation of the gospel ; and this is effected by conquer
ing ab the powers for the new man,3 by unlearning evil
habits and propensities, or by cleansing and animating
(Beseelung). But this is nothing else than the growing, the
unfolding of the new man in ab functions, as to which Christ
as lex viva is the example. Thus Christ's prophetic office, to
which His exemplary character pertains, acquires a position
in reference to sanctification, just as prior to personal faith
it had to operate as the principle of repentance. This is the
meaning of the tertius usus legis so called, the didacticus or
normativus. The first usus of the law, the usus civilis or
politieus, serves justitia civilis; the second is the usus elencticus
or pcedagogicus, leading to repentance* Holiness is the final
aim of redemption;6 the crown of the Pauline Epistles is
Ethics based on faith.6 This sanctification, starting from the
KapBta of man, transforms all his powers into powers of
virtue, his knowledge as web as his volition, as is more fuby
set forth in Christian Ethics.
3. The Holy Spirit does not extinguish individuality, but
educes charisms therefrom. The persons remain distinct ; the
1 1 John iii. 6-9. ! 1 Tim. i. 9. « Rom. vi. 11 ff.
4 F. C. 584. 717. 722, 18 ; John xvi. 8. » Eph. i. 4 ; CoL i 22.
« Rom. xii. ff. ; Gal. v. ff. ; Eph. iv. ft, i. i, ii. 10 ; Col. iii. ff.

SANCTIFICATION. 241
nearer they approach perfection, the more purely is their
distinctive, independent core elaborated, the more is their
character disciplined by the Holy Spirit, who thus ratifies
distinctions. It might thus seem as K He only created an
atom,-world of spirits, who all stand indeed in connection with
their invisible centre, but not with each other. But in the
first place, if the Holy Spirit is one and the same in all, and
thus abare already one in themselves, and this only needs to
be recognized, then even with the consciousness of unity an
intimate communion is established in the form of a common
spirit. Further, this potentiaby existing unity becomes an
object of wib and an actual unity; for, just by every
individuabty being perfected in itself is it conducted to its
inner essence, its divinely conceived idea. But personal
consciousness is perfected in true generic consciousness, in
love, just as the world-aim — the divine idea of humanity —
is directed to a bving, indivisible spirit-kingdom, a real
communion of love with God in Christ, and with the brethren.
Since, then, in the new personality even the generic conscious
ness is ennobled and attains its reabty, the antithesis of the
individual and identical is brought to unity in the bving
communion, the organism of which is the supreme end. The
ab-embracing and imperishable organism is the Kingdom of
God. This perfecting of the personal consciousness by the
generic consciousness, and the converse, is secured to Christen
dom through Christ as its Head. To glorify Him is its duty,
which at the same time includes the perfecting of the
individual and the whole, one through the other, each one
standing to the other in the relation both of end and means.
4. The aim of regenerating grace, which is necessarily
directed first of all to individuals, as web as the result of the
saving process fobowing of course in the individual, is the
communion of love primarily as religious, i.e. as a Church.
As rebgion is the heart in the spiritual bfe of humanity,
so the church is the heart of all other moral communities.
In it must be the focus of the flanie of love that glorifies
the world and a reflex of the divine life, for God is love.
Separatism refuses to advance to communion in love, although
it desires faith and hope, and perhaps only finds salvation in
communion with Christ in love. If it refuses all communion
Dokner. — Christ. Doct. iv. Q

242 ORIGIN OF CHURCH.
of love on earth, shutting itseK up in inner or even outward
lonebness, in order professedly to care only for its own soul
and enjoy undisturbed saving communion with God, it is
egoistic, loveless faith, to which even knowledge of sin and
faith are wanting. Christ's wib is not to be a private . pos
session, but the common possession of humanity. It more
frequently happens, however, that Separatism does not reject
communion of love altogether, but desires to hold communioD
merely with the pure or like-minded, with the good of the
same temper or colour, while refusing to join the existing
religious communities as they are on account of their defects.
But in acting thus, it fobows a course contrary to that of
Christ and the apostles. It acts as if the communion of love
only existed for declarative action, or for enjoyment in de
claring what is common. But Christian action is also purify
ing and diffusive or expansive; religious communion is the
instrument and school of the life of love, in giving and
taking. And every one needs such a school ; but its special
instructiveness and influence rest on the fact that not merely
those of kindred spirit or friends are to be loved. Personal
faith, therefore, as soon as it has come into existence, naturally
tends towards religious communion or a church, which it has
certainly no longer to found or form, for now faith arises
through its agency. Seeing that, considered in the historical
process, the church is the end of the process of salvation, it
may be said that the church — that end of Christ — has its
genesis in faith and holds its ground by means of faith,
whether as in the beginning, when the church was enclosed
in Christ only, and no actual church as yet co-operated with
Him, or as now, when the realized church co-operates in its
self-preservation or self-reproduction ; for even in relation to
it the law must apply, that what is bving co-operates in its
own permanence. But this seK-reproduction of the church is
always effected by the reproduction of faith and the rise of
bebevers, who are not merely impersonal passive means in order
to the church as the end, but who in the normal course carry
the church in themselves. For the tendency to communion
and the impulse to exercise the spirit of communion are
not first given when sanctification is complete, but in its
beginning, in regeneration. — As the church arises through

EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH. 243
Christ's fruitful love, the individual standing to it in the
relation of means, so, conversely, the community (and only
thus is it a church) makes itself in love and service a means
to individuals, to their genesis and growth ; and only in such
a cycle, where the individual serves the whole and the whole
the individual, has the life of love in humanity its movement
in giving and taking, but in such a way that its limits are
ever growing wider and wider.

SECOND DIVISION.
THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHUECH.
The Division, falls into three Subdivisions, of which the
first sketches " The Essential and Unchangeable Characteristics
of the Church ; " the second, " The Church organizing itself in
and out of the World;" while the third treats of "The Militant
Church." FIRST SUBDIVISION.
THE ESSENTIAL AND UNCHANGEABLE BASES, OR THE DOGMATIC
AND ETHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHURCH.

§ 134.—,%?,
The Church, building itself up out of individual persons
(Div. i.), always has its existence indeed as engaged in
a process of reproduction or rejuvenescence (§ 133),
but stbl retains its self-identity by means of the un
changeable basis on which it is renewed and rises higher
and higher. This bving basis is Christ and the Holy
Spiritr who takes of the things of Christ. Now Christ
continues actively at work in His state of exaltation
(§§ 127, 128), or in the church He has a permanent
continuation of His office, but for this end, that the
world may become partaker in His life. Hence two
things are to be distinguished in the church :
I. The Continuation of His official activity.
II. The Reflecting of the same.

244 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
The Continuation takes place in the church by Christ
appropriating the church as His organ, in order to
exercise His influence through its ministry. This con
tinuation of His office through the church, which, how
ever, is not a deputing of His activity to it, He Himself
ordained as certainly as the church was founded by
Him in order to be preserved. In accordance with His
threefold office, the doctrine of its continuation takes a
threefold form :
The doctrine of the Continuation of the Prophetic
Office of Christ in the Church is the doctrine of
the Word of God.
The doctrine of the Continuation of the High-
priestly Office is the doctrine of Holy Baptism.
The doctrine of the Continuation of the Kingly
Office is the doctrine of the Holy Supper.
But since Christ not merely continues to work in the
church as His organ, but also desires to have in it a
living ethical Reflection of Himself, Christ's entire life
must be mirrored in the bfe of the church.
The Reflecting of the prophetic office takes place in
the ecclesiastical ministry of the Word ; the reflecting of
the high-priestly is seen in the priestly spbit and action
of the church in worship, in vicarious, educating and
instructing love, in care for souls and for the poor;
' finally, the reflecting of the kingly office is represented
in the power of the keys, or in the power of establishing
and administering church ordinances resting on the
joint-lordship of bebevers with Christ, which has its
centre in prayer in the name of Jesus.
In these two combined — the continuation and reflect
ing of the office of Christ in the church — the unchange
able dogmatic and ethical characteristics of the church
are described.
Accordingly, six points emerge in reference to the

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHURCH. 245
characteristics of the church, each two of which — one
dogmatic and one ethical — combine in a pair, and are
related to each other as the continuation and reflecting
of Christ's office.
1. The body of disciples surrounding Christ before His
exaltation was merely a becoming (werdende), not yet a self-
declarative (sich darstellende) church, a seminarium credentium,
a paedagogy unto faith. The perfected church is no longer a
seminarium, but merely declarative. Since Pentecost the
church exists in earthly historical reality, and is declarative and
a seminarium at the same time. In the course of the world's
history, in the fluctuation of generations and the still limited
extent of the church, both forms — that of being or existence,
and that of extensive and intensive becomings — must always
be conjoined,— a circle of becoming Christians around a circle
of existent Christians not outwardly distinguishable, who have
just to show that they are Christians by their ministry to those
designed to become such. It is thus clear that the two forms
are essentially related to each other, and that it would be
unnatural to try to sever them.
2. The teaching of the above paragraph and its division are
in affinity with Schleiermacher's celebrated exposition of the
essential characteristics of the church, which he also refers in
part to Christ's office.1 His three pairs are :
(1.) Holy Scripture and the Ministry of the Word (where
the principle of division is the distinction between continua
tion and reflecting as above).
(2.) Baptism and the Supper, which are related to each
other as the estabbshing or founding and the preserving of
communion of love with Christ.
(3.) The Power of the Keys and Prayer in the name of
Jesus, where the principle of division is the distinction of
the relation of the whole to the individual, and of the indi
vidual to the whole. Our division is based on one thorough
going principle of division, and for this end aims at showing
(1) the continuation of Christ's threefold office in the church,
which is the dogmatic side of its characteristics; (2) the
reflecting of the same by the church, which is the ethical side,
1 Clir. Ql. ii 127.

246 •;¦ EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH. '
a division not thoroughly carried out in Schleiermacher, who
also omits the reference to Christ's threefold office, which,
however, is given us by § 127. Therewith is connected a
further difference. Whdst Schleiermacher indeed groups the
first pair as our text does, but combines Baptism and the
Supper in the second, we place the confirming beside the
baptizing church. And since the kingly office is related to
the community as the kingdom of Christ, while the Holy
Supper is the meal of communion, and chiefly of the exalted
Lord and Head with His church, in the meal of His founding
we have the continuation of His kingly activity in order to
preserve and increase His kingdom ; whereas the reflecting of
the same takes place in the power of the keys belonging to
the church, which through prayer in the name of Jesus is a
participation in His government
3. On its reflective side the church is in course of growth,
still burdened with imperfection in inward and outward
respects, and hence fallible, although the duty of reflection is
proved to be divine. In those of its characteristics, in which
Christ's activity is continued, it possesses an unchangeable
governing base-type and an ever-sufficient corrective. Even
the first, dogmatic side — Word and Sacrament — has a change
able element in its form. Word and Sacrament had at first a
different form from the later one, but the change does not
affect the essence and contents. Christ's oral word preceded
the written one, which we now have. The disciples were not
baptized by Christ Himself,1 the electing and educating
influence exercised by Christ immediately on the disciples
being a perfect substitute for baptism in their case until
Pentecost crowned His work.2 In the same way, finally, the
Holy Supper was not the same in every respect at its in
stitution as since His glorification. But the only conclusion
to be drawn is, that we must recognize an accidental element
in all three, and search for the essential, which remains the
same in the changing forms.
1 1 John iv. 2.
2 Granted, it may be said, that they all received John's baptism. In the first
place, this is not historically established ; secondly, they were baptized with fire
and the Holy Spirit first at Pentecost, therefore in the baptism of John they
still had not Christian baptism. •

THE WORD OF GOD. 247
FIRST POINT: THE CONTINUATION AND REFLECTING OF THE
PROPHETIC OFFICE OF CHRIST.
A. — The Continuation of the same, or the Doctrine of the
Word of God.
§135.
As certainly as Christ, in whom the Eternal Word became
man, was given to the world in order to be permanently
preserved to it, so certainly is it part of the founding of
Christianity itself as a vital historic power (Grosse), that
the objective presentation of Christ was permanently
preserved to humanity in primitive purity, and an inde
structible, immoveable manner. An authentic represen
tation of His person and words was created in His
disciples by Christ and the Holy Spirit, so that in their
mutually supplementary entirety a pure and trustworthy
image of Him remained in the world after His ascension,
which was not merely transmitted in their oral preaching
but fixed in writing, and recorded by the aid of the
spiritual comprehension of their faith with authentic
fidelity. Thus the apostles and the apostobc men
appointed and acknowledged by them are true witnesses
of Christ, and that not merely for their age, but for aU
generations and nations, and through their testimony
Christ continued His testimony to Himself. In refer
ence to primitive Christianity as historic, they are the
decisive source in a thoroughly sufficient manner (suffi-
cientia Scriptures sacrce), and a norm and corrective for
the doctrine of all ages, both because the several sacred
writings have a unique authority (autoritas normativa)
resting on the direct relation of this first body of
disciples to Christ and on their apostobc blumination,
and also because their collection into the Canon was
carried out by the criticism of faith under the leading
of the Holy Ghost dwebing in the church. But since
the authentic testimony of Christ in the historical books

"248 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
which is preserved to us in their writings, as well as
the testimony of their personal Christian piety in the
epistolary portion of the New Testament, is the specific
means for generating faith (efficacia Scriptures sacrce),
their word, so far as it has God's Word or the revelation
completed in Christ for its contents, is not merely the
authentic and thus normative source of knowledge
of Christianity to the church, but also a specific means
of grace to individuals. But Holy Scripture does all
this because it has the power of passing over into the
understanding (Perspicuitas, semet ipsam interpretandi
facultas). The Old Testament derives its highest attes
tation from Christ, for whom it prepares and whom it
predicts.
Cf. vol. i. 3, § 7, p. 47 ff; § 11, pp. 146-150; vol. ii.
§ 59, pp. 189-199 ; § 63, pp. 221-231 ; § 70, p. 284 ff.
Literature.— Cf. vol. ii. p. 183. Phdippi, Kirchl. Glaubens
lehre, L Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, 1874. J. Muber, das
Verhdltniss zwischen der Wirksamkeit des heiligen Geistes und
den Gnadenmittel des gottlichen Wortes. In dem dogmat.
Abhandlungen, 1870, pp. 127-277. Frank, System der christi.
Wahrheit, ii. 235-250 (The Word of God in distinction from
Holy Scripture), and pp. 393-417 (the Written Word). Hase,
Dogmatik, §§ 198-204. Cf. John xiv. 25, 26, xv. 27, xvi. 7, 12,
13, xx. 21-23 ; Luke xxiv. 46-49 ; 1 Cor. vb. 10, 40. Respect
ing the O. T, Matt. v. 17 ff. ; John v. 39 ; 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Pet.
i. 10-12 ; 2 Pet. i. 20, 21. For the Church doctrine cf. Art.
Smalk. 308; Form Cone. 572, 7, 8. 638, 10, 13 ; Conf. Aug. v.;
Conf. Helv. 1536, §§ 1-5; Helv. 1566, c. 1, 2; Scot. xix. The
four: Conf. Belg. \\.-y\L; Anglic, vi. vii.; Gallic, of 1561, b.-v.;
and Conf. Fid. Westmonast. cap. i. enumerate the canonical
writings separately.
Observation. — The Word of God occurred before under
different points of view, first in the Introduction in the
doctrine of the Genesis of Christian Faith (vol. i. §§ 7, 8, 11,
p. 144 ff), again in the doctrine of the Conservation 'of' the'
Historic Revelation (§ 63). In both cases the Word of God
is considered with reference to the decisive importance of
securing harmony of faith with historic primitive Christianity.

THE WORD OF GOD. 249
In Specific Dogmatics, again, the Word of God came under
consideration in the doctrine of cabing especially as a means
of grace, and as such it has a much freer and wider sphere
than when it is considered in its fixing in Holy Scripture
as the source or record of revelation. But both points of
view are united here, where the proper sedes of the dogmatic
doctrine of the Word of God is found, and where we have
to assign it its place in the system, in relation to Christ, to
the Holy Spirit, and to the Church. The relation of the
Word of God to Christ comes especiaby under consideration,
so far as the point in hand is the continuation or preserva
tion of the revelation given in Him in its purity for the
consciousness of humanity, and therefore the securing of the
identity of the faith of the church with itself. Further, the
origin of the Word of God, which satisfies this need, points
back already to the Holy Spirit. But the relation of the
Holy Spirit to the Word of God comes especiaby into view
in considering the efficacy (Efficacia) of the latter.
1. The Word of God in the Wider and Stricter Sense. —
We are rightly reminded x that the activity of the Holy Spirit
in reference to the self-communication of the Redeemer is
carried on primarily through the Word as a means of grace
(not through the Sacraments). We have formerly shown the
necessity there is2 that revelation (i.e. the Word of God)
should not merely remain and work internally, but that it
should also enter into the sensuous finite world, and stand in
contrast with the human spirit as God's external Word, partly
that consciousness may more clearly distinguish what springs
from God's revelation from its own ideas, partly that, by such
contrasting of the divine, freedom of appropriation may be
preserved, but finally, and above ab, that the divine may
embody itself in finite form, and thus be the more readby
apprehended by us.3 Fundamental importance is also attributed
in Holy Scripture to the Word of God in the wider sense,
in relation to the founding of God's kingdom. The Word is
the principal means by which revelation is introduced and
1 Frank, ii. 235 f. Cf. Luther's Werke, by Walch, xviii 1796.
2 Vol. ii. § 52, p. 142 ff. Cf. § 38.
3 This certainly involves the presupposition, founded for us in the doctrine of
Creation, and confirmed by Christology, that the outward and sensuous is able
to receive the inward and spiritual, and either to express it symbolically or to
subserve its objective realization. But this presupposition follows already from
the unity of the world ; the opposite supposition of Spiritualism is dualistic.

250 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH. ,
communicated. The kingdom of heaven grows from an in
significant germ or seed : that seed is the Word of God.1 And
as it forms the beginning, so the Word of God is preserved
and transmitted through .the Kerugma, the glad tidings.2
It initiates krisis for individuals and the world. When the
gospel shab be preached to the whole world, then follows
the end.8 To this word of Christ the power is ascribed to
purify, to enbghten, and to make free through knowledge of
the truth* For the contents of the Word of God are Christ
Himself, who, thus continues His presence with His people
through the same Word. Hence abiding in His sayings,
the keeping of His word in the heart, is regarded as identical
with abiding with and in Him.5 And not merely is the word
of Christ Himself, or the word of the apostles of Christ,
described as the means of transmitting the gospel blessing
of salvation, and the vehicle, so to speak, for communicating
the treasure of the Christian salvation. On the other hand,
such influence is not affirmed exclusively of the written Word.
A believing church existed long before the writings of the
New Testament. And even after the formation of the Canon,
the Word of God assumes various forms within the church,
in pious converse, in preaching and sacred song, in science
and Christian art. The word of the believing church has
its divine force, not merely in so far as the words of Holy
Writ are repeated in it; every believer is to partake in
original fashion in the truth and the certainty thereof, nay, to
be a relatively independent spring of living water.6 The
living word proceeding from Christ begets living personalities]
who do not depend on foreign, even apostolic, authority, but
themselves know and possess the truth as truth.
2. But of course the Church is only able to be assured of
its Christian character through its being in a position every
moment to become cognizant of the identity of its faith with
the primitive church, of its agreement with the faithfully
transmitted Word of Christ. Nay, even the individual
believer, despite his subjective certainty of what he believes,
1 Matt. xiii. 3, 19, 24, 37, and 1 Pet. i. 23.
8 Rom. x. 17 ; Matt, xxviii. 19, x. 7 ; Luke x. 5 ; Acts i 8, x. 41.
3 Matt. xxiv. 14. * John xv. 3, viii. 32.
4 John xiv. 23, xv. 7, 10. 6 John iv. 14, vii. 38. See vol. ii. p. 221.

THE WORD OF GOD. 251
can only be certain of his Christian character through his
knowing himself one with objective historic Christianity,
either with the fixed written form of the same in the New
Testament, or at least with the church ; the latter, however,
can only satisfy him so long as he retains his undoubting
conviction of the agreement of the church with primitive
Christianity. The need of the church and of individuals
finds its satisfaction in Holy Scripture as the historic record of
Christianity, which alone is the sufficient norm of the church's
faith and bfe for ab ages.
According to what has been said, the necessity of a fixed
written form of the Word of God, i.e. the need of an authentic
statement of the revelation completed in Christ, is grounded
partly in the character of Christianity, in which the historic is
so essential an element — (even the faith of later generations
must have in it power to come into firm, conscious relation
with that historic element, while certain knowledge of the
historic is only possible through testimonies of a documentary
kind), — partly in the uncertainty of oral tradition.1 In view
of the power of sin and error in the world, in which the
church must have its place, in order to maintain beneficial
intercourse with it, and of the after-workings of sin even in
believers, it was inevitable that the still unrenewed world
should cast its shadows into the very heart of the -church.
By the preservation of the authentic form of Christianity, and
only by it, are recurrence to the original, and . comparison of
the church with the primitive norm, possible to every age.
Without Holy Scripture the Reformation would have been
impossible. As freedom is secured by it to the individual in
relation to the erring church, as well as independence of
human authority in matters of salvation, so through the record
of revelation the church and the faith of individuals are
preserved from subjective caprice and fanaticism.2 That the
perfected revelation should receive its documentary fixing, was
therefore an essential moment in the divine purpose to
preserve it. As concerns the manner of its realization, it did'
not take place abruptly, as if revelation had to begin afresh
with Holy Scripture ; but it took place according to the law
lying at the basis of all preservation — the essential co-opera-
1 Cf. vol. ii pp. 222-225. ' * Vol. ii. pp. 224, 225.

252 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
tion of secondary causabties. The record of revelation is not
indeed to be confounded with the revelation itself. But
revelation must needs itself provide for its secure transmission.
This is involved in the founding of Christianity itseK as a
historic power destined to live. As such, the power of self-
preservation must be innate in Christianity. Else it would
not have been adequately equipped for really passing over to
humanity as a spiritual possession, as bebeved and known truth;
for, provided humanity had Christianity as an actual possession,
and as an element (Bestimmtheit) of its being, it could testify
to and diffuse it, from which it clearly appears that the
actual transition of Christianity to humanity is identical with
its capacity of propagation1 But certain as it is that this
possession (i.e. faith) is an essential factor in the preservation
of Christianity to humanity, still through it alone the church
would not be secured against intermixing anomalies and fal
sities ; and the divine purpose to preserve original Christianity
in its purity and entirety to humanity for ab ages found
its secure reabzation only through the plan that the written
recording took place on the part and with the guiding
co-operation of those who had enjoyed the company of Christ,
were His eye- and ear- witnesses, and were trained by Him for
the office of bearing witness to Him, and finally were par
takers in a special degree of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from
Christ, and were charismaticaby endowed for their vocation —
all which it is only necessary to mention here after what has
been said before.2 The spirit of the natural man is not the
spirit of Christ. Hence the organs of the true authentic
transmission of Christianity had not to work with purely
human means, but needed to be seized and inspired by the
Spirit of Christ in order to be able to do what was essential.
Through this inspiration the authors of these books are not
simply passive machines, but independent Spirit-fibed per
sonalities. Their productions, therefore, are of the same
character ; and it cannot be said : Their believing personalities
indeed were inspired, but not their writings. Rather, the
1 Vol. ii. pp. 191, 221. Still it is not enough to call Holy Scripture merely a
product of the Christian church. In this case the intervenient prescient working
of-the Divine Spirit is left out of consideration.
s Vol. ii. pp. 193-195, 226-229.

THE WORD OF GOD. 253
latter breathe the Divine Spirit, the gift of the Holy Spirit, who
became the possession of the sacred authors through their faith.1
3. Formation of the Canon. — The gospel being recorded
in an authentic and written form, these writings necessarily
found acknowledgment with those who had enjoyed the oral
instruction of apostobc men, who recognized their faith therein,
and placed a high value on the fixing of oral tradition in the
same ; and upon this naturally fobowed zeal to preserve and
collect these writings. But this zeal was employed by the
presciently working, self-preserving power of Christianity for
the purpose of transmitting and securing at the right time to
the church of the succeeding centuries the memory of the
Christian fore-time. The Holy Spirit must needs have
impelled to this work, that these authentic writings might
remain to the church for its guidance. And just so He must
have directed this work,2 which was rendered easy to the
ancient church by historic accounts respecting the authors,
1 But certain as it is that it is a scientific advance to go back from the
inspiration of sacred books to inspired personalities, we ought not to make the
degree of their life of faith the measure of the trustworthiness of that which
they give us as primitive Christian tradition. Their testimony to Christ is not
the mere product of their piety. Through the Hving recollection of Christ's image
they had more than what their piety had appropriated ; and so little is what
they say of Christ a simple reflex of their religious spirit, that, on the contrary,
through the objective beholding of Christ, their knowledge was in advance of their
Volition and being ; cf. vol. ii. p. 194. True, only their historical position, not
their participation in the Holy Spirit, is specifically different from that of other
believers ; and as they are not on a level with the infallibility of Christ, so also
Christ must be believed in on the ground of His redeeming power, not on the
ground of their authority : cf. vol. ii. 226 ff. ; GaL i. 8. Nevertheless, through
the Spirit of truth they were equal to their mission. Despite their personal
faUibility, they were neither under necessity nor wishful to give forth errors
and false principles as truth. Their wish was to impart truth. Untruth has
not the power to give inner certainty of itself, like truth. They were well able
to distinguish what they were authorized to invest with the authority of Christ,
and what not (1 Cor. vii. 10 ; Rom. xi. 25, xv. 18). Hence it is very well
consistent with the imperfections of their exposition in secondary points, to
affirm that their writings form the God-given, trustworthy, undeceptivo record
of the revelation of God in Christ, sufficient until faith passes into sight.
8 Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl ii § 130, pp. 331, 338 : "The faithful preservation
of the apostolic writings is the work of the Divine Spirit acknowledging His own
products. He distinguishes that which is to remain unchanged from that which
assumes various forms in the further development of Christian doctrine, and on
the other hand partly repels the Apocryphal directly it arises, and partly causes
this kind of productivity, and the taste for such products, gradually to disappear
from the church."

254 EXISTENCE of the church.
the place, time, and circumstances of the composition. But
however important this historic element, a second factor must
needs have co-operated at least as a negative active principle,
in order to guard against possible errors in historic tradition.
Since Christian faith is a work of the Holy Spirit, and the
Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, no writing can lay
claim to canonicity which offends against Christian faith, or
" does not treat of Christ." By this canon-forming activity,
the church in no sense makes itself a judge of apostles. On
the contrary, it submits to the universal laws of scientific
historic criticism. It has to deduce its judgment from the
facts of the case, and is subject thereto. It confers canonical
authority on no writing, but only asserts the facts of the case
as seen from the historic and dogmatic point of view, but
independently of the wishes of the subject. Since faith just
as little permits what is not God's Word to pass for it,
because some human authority counts it such, as it permits
what is God's Word to pass without recognition, the work of
criticism or canon-forming cannot be regarded as concluded
once for all. Every generation which aims at clearness and
certainty of Christian consciousness, must reproduce to itself
the conviction of the canonicity of the Holy Scriptures, and
has a right itself to form a judgment thereupon In this
process the rule holds good, that no writing can be canonical
which is in contradiction to faith. Christian faith must
therefore be brought into use in the work of criticising the
Canon. Since faith is not founded by mere external human
authority, even apostobc,1 but is a relatively independent
power2 (Grbsse), co-operation in the work of criticism cannot
be refused to it,' at least in so far as that it ought not to regard
a writing as canonical, which contradicts that which forms
the primal certainty of Christian faith. If, on the , other
hand, a writing does not contradict this postulate, and is
at the same time attested by credible historic witnesses as
belonging to the circle of apostolic men, normative authority
is due to it. It has such authority precisely for faith, not for
others. But the church has to make this authority effective
1 This constitutes the relative independence of the so-called material principle
in contrast with the formal, see vol. i. § 7.
2 Cf. Schleiermacher, ii. § 128, p. 323.

the word, of god: i 255
with its adherents. This, as already said, is not done on the
footing that any one should believe merely because of human
authority, but on the footing that by the normative authority
of the Holy Scriptures that matter is secured for preaching
which carries with it the power of self- attestation. Therewith
a distinction between Proto-canonical and Deutero-canonical
always has its place in the sense that, the authority of the
latter is conditioned by that of the former. But faith itself
sees more and more the depth and inexhaustible wealth of Holy
Scripture, and especiaby of Christ's words ; and thus Scripture
is not to it a mere external norm and law of faith, but an
ever-gushing spring of light and bfe. From what has been
said, fobows the right of the science of criticism on the sob of
the Evangebcal Church. To desire to exclude the science of
criticism in opposition to the Reformation, which unanimously
excluded the Apocrypha from the canon, and to Luther, who
also questioned the canonicity of particular writings of the
Old and New Testaments, would not tend to the advantage of
the authority of Holy Scripture as a unity, which, on the
contrary, is so confident of itself that it desires the grounds of
its claims to be known. In that case we remain absolutely
bound to the authority of tradition, and therefore to the
judgment of the church of a particular age, in reference to
what is to be regarded as the Christian norm, and this
radicaby coincides with the Roman Catholic principle. Hence
Evangelical theology cannot cease to regard . the formal
criticism of the Canon (formale Kanonik), i.e. criticism of the
Holy Scriptures, as one of its essential parts, of course not
separated from the science of material criticism of the Canon,
i.e, of Biblical Theology. Extravagances, which are disturb
ing to faith, are certainly possible in such a course, but abusus
non tollit usum; faith is an unceasing stimulus to the
correction of aberrations. The independence of the existence
of saving faith in respect of the results of critical research and
its sense of truth assure to it the equanimity belonging to the
pursuit of scientific investigation ; and such investigation may
with all the greater confidence bebeve that criticism can
never destroy that which belongs to the vital conditions of
faith and the church, since all historical criticism is subject
to the law, that it has to work with historical sources, not

256 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
with subjective, a priori hypotheses, which implies that of the
sources belonging to the original age a portion must always
be acknowledged credible and genuine,1 and therefore that it
can only operate against certain portions of the Canon from an
acknowledged historic datum, and seek to show that they are
not consistent therewith. But as regards this end the task of
theology is simply this. To unwarranted attempts to separate
the portions of the canon it has, so far as is consistent with
truth, to oppose the scientific proof of their harmony or
homogeneity, and to show how the contents of one writing
confirm those of the rest. And thus it may be said : Scientific
historic criticism is a work carried on by the Canon itself
through the medium of the impartial critic, who has not to
invent but to find his judgments in subordination to the facts
of the case. And thus the science of criticism of the Canon
— formal and material — serves to bring up afresh before the
consciousness of Christendom the historic connection with the
founding of Christianity, as well as the inner organic connec
tion of the parts of Holy Scripture belonging to the Canon — •
a work which is itself a Ministry of the Word.
4. To the whole of Scripture, then, as the Canon, the dis
tinctive predicates specified in the text belong. After the
previous exposition, nothing more need be said as to its
normative authority. Only this may be added, that it can
only have authority in the fub sense for one who bebeves.
This involves the postulate, that what of the contents of
the Christian Scriptures is not definitely and vitaby appro
priated by faith, is not satisfied with standing over against
man as an external law unknown in its contents or at least
in its truth, but that it desires such a union with the spirit
as attests it to man as truth. This holds good especially
of ab that which has been transmitted on credible historic
grounds as the acts and words of the Lord. Moreover,
speaking generally, the canonical character of the rest of the
N. T. has on good grounds the presumption in its favour,
that it sets forth a higher, more mature stage of the Christian
life.2 The normal way for appropriating the rest wbl be,
1 As e.g. even the Baurian school proves ; cf. my Hist. qfProt. Theology, ii. 410.
2 Schleiermacher rightly suggests (§ 130. 4), "that we may conceive to our
selves the Holy Spirit ruling freely in the thought-world of the entire Christian

THE WORD OF GOD. 357
that the already existing faith, which is a germinal unity,
wbl grow into that which has to be stbl appropriated,
recognizing and acting upon the inner necessity of its de
velopment on this side. Christianity itself, which faith has
accepted, is a firmly compacted whole; the divine acts
form an organic system, and are only perfectly intebigible
through it. But from this it also fobows, that this organism
or system of truth must be laid down, although not in
systematic form, in Holy Scripture, K Scripture is to do what
it exists for. Holy Scripture is in its contents a presenta
tion of the organism of Christian truth; and through this
system each one of its parts with its special contents
receives new significance. The truth organized in Holy
Scripture is sufficient for ab ages (Sufficientia Ser. sacrce).
Hereto belongs also its Perspicuity (Perspicuitas). To
those thirsting for salvation it is intebigible in itself, at
least in things necessary to salvation, which implies the right
and the duty of believers to read Holy Scripture. Especially
has Evangebcal piety to strive after a sharply-defined conscious
ness of primitive historic Christianity, with which the believer
must know . himself in accord, in order to be sure of his
Christian character. This perspicuity implies that Holy
Scripture does not first need the help of the interpreting
church in order to be understood to the extent mentioned.
Else a human authority would take the place of Holy Scrip
ture as the norma et judex, e.g. human learning and science,
or the interpreting church. On the other hand, this predicare
of Holy Scripture does not mean to deny the necessity of
the ibuminating agency of the Holy Spirit, of which Holy
Scripture is the channel. For the Word of God has not
so naturabzed or incorporated itseK in Holy Writ as to be
equally accessible and intebigible to every one, to the crude
and stupid as to the receptive.1 The proposition of the
Perspicuity of Holy Scripture is not merely directed against
all false ecclesiasticism and disparaging of simple, childlike
sphere, in the same way as every individual in his own world of thought. For
every one can distinguish his best thoughts, and so treasure them up as to secure
their re-presentation, while he rejects the rest," etc.
1 This implies, therefore, that Perspicuitas belongs to Holy Scripture by its,
being also a means of grace (see below).
Dokner.— Chkist. Doct. iv. R

258 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
faith,1 but is also of importance for distinguishing the- funda
mental from the non-fundamental. On the other hand, it
demands an interpretation in accordance with the universal
laws of human language, to which, however, along with
grammatical and historic research, the homogeneity of the
interpreter with Scripture, his bving in its atmosphere, or at
least in a state of earnest spiritual desire for salvation, is
necessary. Since human participation in the Holy Spirit
co-operates and opens Scripture, it may be said that Holy
Scripture has the power of seK-interpretation through the
interpreter as an organ (semet ipsam interpretandi faeultas).
Finaby, the Holy Scriptures possess Efficacy (Eflicacia)
corresponding to the origin ascribed to them. This leads to
the second main aspect of the matter.
5. The Word of God, especiaby in Holy Scripture, as a
Means of Grace, and its relation to the Holy Spirit.—
Whoever calls Holy Scripture a mere dead letter, is either
the victim of an optical delusion in transferring out of him-
seK the dead sense which is within himself, whereas the
seeker of salvation, bke the bebever, has a very different
experience, or he is unable to coalesce with Scripture,
because his piety wears a spiritualistic character averse from
history, and he fancies himself, in his efforts after false
freedom, to have outgrown the teaching of the objective Word
of God That the Holy Spirit is the author of our conversion
and renewal, is certainly often asserted in Holy Writ.2 But
no less is this effect ascribed also to the Word of God ; and
when Holy Scripture speaks of the power of God's Word or
of the gospel to beget bfe and be the means of salvation (Rom.
i. 16 ; 1 Cor. i. 18, iv. 15 ; 2 Cor. ib. 8), this does not mean
the oral word of preaching merely, but must also hold good
of the Word of God in Holy Scripture. As certainly as
Christianity is a historic power, and history an essential factor
in it, so certainly is not merely internal spiritual working
necessary in order to Christian faith, but also the working of
the objective word of God, which, as we saw, must always
in the last resort test and legitimate itseK as such by the
1 Matt, xi 25.
2 Tit. iii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3 ; Rom. viii. 9-17 ; John xiv.-xvi, vii. 39. See
above, pp. 160, 182.

the word of god. 259
record of revelation, i.e. by the Word of God in Holy
Scripture. But again, unless God Himself as the Holy
Spirit wrought directly and immediately with and in
the Word, immediate communion with <3»d would be
denied us, and we should be stbl standing in the pre-
Christian age. But what conception must be formed of the
relation between the agency of the Word and that of the Holy
Spirit ? *
One possibility, to which Lutheran Dogmatists of the 17th
century suspiciously approximated,2 is the fobowing. In
order thoroughly to exclude all fanaticism andi objective
caprice, which may at first have a pious or mystic' tone, but
sooner or later readily passes into Rationalism or Ideabsm, a
kind of incarnation of the Holy Spirit in Scripture may be
supposed ; and it may be said : The Holy Spirit has fastened
Himself, so to speak, to Scripture, so that He- has no. longer
any special activity outside it, but His activity coincides with
that of Holy Scripture ; and since the Scripture came- inta
existence, the divine power which dwelt originally in theHoly
Spirit dwells in it alone ; through His, embodiment in Holy
Scripture, His divine power is. delegated,, so to speak, to Scrip~
ture, which is even extra usum an embodied divine power, as
to substance the Holy Spirit. But, Scripture is something
material, which the Holy Spirit cannot be ; and if we could
come into connection only with this divine substance^
Holy Scripture — immediacy of communion with God would
be denied us, Holy Scripture would become a separating
mediator. And this would be stbl more the case, if the
activity of the Holy Spirit were limited to His having
inspired Holy Scripture, and deposited in it supernatural doc
trines, which now operate purely of themselves, in a natural
way by logical and moral niean& analogously with other
writings.3 The second possibibty would be to conceive the
1 Cf. the excellent treatise of J. Muller : Das VerltMtniss zwischen der
Wirksamkeit des heiligen Geistes und dem Qnadenmittel des gSttlichen,. Wortes.
Dogm. Abh. pp. 127-277.
2 Especially in consequence of the controversy- with. Rathmann, cf. my Hist,
of Prot. Theology, vol. ii. p. 129.
3 With Episcopius, Claude Pajon, and others, especiaUy Supematuralists of
the last century, cf. J. Muller, pp. 215-224. The notion of an, incarnation of
the Holy Spirit in Scripture is a Pantheistic paroxysm, wliich,, when, it yields.

260 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
bond between Word and Spirit more loosely, the working of the
Spirit in the Word as accidental and external — " parastatic,"
dependent on a divine purpose (e.g. twofold Predestination),
on which view therefore the Holy Spirit would only work
intermittently in the elect, or only by accident co-operate with
Scripture. But the universality of God's purpose of grace
excludes such a separation of the activity of the two. Thus,
the third possibibty remains, namely, to ascribe to the two —
inspired Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit — a relative inde
pendence of existence and operation, whbe thinking of thenr
as co-operative. On this view, the activity of the Holy Spirit
is not exhausted in that of Holy Scripture, whbe at the
same time secondary causality is not denied, or a mere logical
and moral causabty left, to Holy Scripture, as if it were
nothing taken alone. The Word of God in Scripture is stbl
a real manifestation of spiritual power, of divine truth in a
finite form. But the co-operation of the two must not be
viewed as if Holy Scripture did one part of the saving work,
and the Holy Spirit the other. Instead of such a distribution,
we must affirm that the two embrace the whole work of
salvation, but in a different manner. Holy Scripture gives
faith its object, it puts Christianity in its purity and attractive
force objectively before our eyes, as a challenge and induce
ment to enter into union with it by faith. The agency of
the Holy Spirit opens the heart and understanding to the
objective Word of God, implants that Word in the heart of
man, and endows it with power to transform and renew man.
The Word of God in Holy Scripture can and ought more and
more to become "an inner Bible."1 It has a mediating o
influence, placing us in connection with the Christ of his
tory, for without the Word we should know nothing of Him,
without the primitive Word in Holy Writ nothing historicaby
trustworthy. But " this mediating position of the Word is
not meant to dispense with or exclude the immediate working
of the Holy Spirit in man's spirit. The working of the Holy
Spirit penetrates, embraces, and rules the working of its own
to sobriety, transfers the Holy Spirit, after His founding of Scripture, into a
state of Deistic seclusion in order to contemplate Him in permanent inde
pendence. ' Cf Harms' Sermons on the Bible.

THE WORD OF GOD. 261
instrument." a The Holy Spirit perpetually glorifies Christ as
He is set forth in Scripture, makes Him emerge, so to speak,
from the letter and Stand in living form before us. He thus
brings us, through the medium of Holy Scripture, into com
munion with the bving Christ, from which it is specially
clear, how the exalted Lord of the church continues through
the Word of God His prophetic office among humanity and
in the church. The before-mentioned predicates also first
gain their fub meaning through the activity of Holy Scripture
constituting it a specific means of grace. For in this way,
instead of being a mere outward rule or critical principle, it
becomes a productive power (Grosse), even as a norm and
authority ; in this way also its true understanding and
sufficiency are first really secured to it, so that through its
use the Holy Spbit can just as well lead us into all truth
as the apostles themselves, and all those who enjoyed Christ's
immediate instruction.2 Although, further, the Holy Spirit
does not cease even now and perpetuaby to beget thoughts in
a direct and original way, it may still be said, since the
gospel is contained in authentic totabty in Holy Writ, and is in
itself a bving whole concentrated in Christ's person, that all
the riches of the Christian world of thought are merely the
unfolding and applying of the contents given in Holy Writ —
contents, however, to which increasing motive power belongs
by virtue of its essential relation to the continued working of
the Holy Spirit. Thus it may be said in a certain sense, that
ab knowledge of the Church is interpretation of Scripture.
6. The Old Testament. — It is indeed a Jewish error to
require in the church direct faith in the 0. T., i.e. faith not
mediated by the authority of Christ; it cannot be necessary
to become first a Jew, then a Christian. The economy of
the 0. T. does not so much attest Christ, as it receives its
attestation from Him ; and the value of the 0. T. as a whole
and in detail, as web as the degree of its enduring normative
force, depends in the last resort on Christianity. However,
an indirect authority, guaranteed by Christ, certainly belongs
to the Old Testament.3 Christ sees in the Q. T. the
1 Miiller, pp. 236, 244. 2 Schleiermacher, ii. 344.
3 John v. 34 ff., 45-47, vii. 23 ; Matt. v. 17 ; Luke xxiv. 46. Cf. 2 Tim.
iii. 15 f.

262 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
revelation or Word of God. True, much in the 0. T. is
temporary, especially the theocratic and Jewish national ele
ment. Stbl it is merely the form of the eternal divine
thoughts, which in the 0. T. gives an imperfect expression
to them. Further, the doctrines of universal rebgion are
contained in purest fulness in the 0. T., such as the idea of
the Personal, Almighty, Wise, Holy, and Just as well as
MercKul God, the doctrine of Creation, Conservation, Pro
vidence, and others, — doctrines which, when uttered, commend
themselves naturally to the rebgious consciousness as true,
and upon which .the N. T. budds as its presuppositions,
without repeating them systematicaby and in full. Again,
as law the 0. T. points to Christ, and prepares the way for
His appearance. And this preparation stbl has its place in
the heart even in Christian days, as the Church intimates by
fixing Advent-season before Christmas. Finally, prophecy
contains ideally, as the history of the 0. T. and the ceremonial
law contain typicaby, what is to be realized in Christianity.
In this, certainly more limited sense, the saying has its truth :
N. T. in vetere latet, V. T. in novo patet. The knowledge of
a coherent system of revelation in its organism and stages is
only possible through the 0. T. together with the New Testa
ment. For this very reason the 0. T. sheds bght in many
ways on the N. T. Especiaby can no conception of the
latter be true, which is inconsistent with the connection of
the two, or according to which Christianity is made to bring
something absolutely new, not even ideally prepared for — an
important canon at least negatively. Even in these days the
0. T. renders a paedagogic service to Christianity, in placing us
in the bne which conducts to true knowledge of Christ. But
inasmuch' as law and prophecy ab obtain theb? fub. clearness
and certainty in the fulfilment, it is only Christendom, which
possesses the key to the 0. T. in its self-consciousness (i.e. in
the Christianity not dependent on the 0. T.), not unbebeving
Judaism. Here too the saying holds good : Christendom is
the true Israel.

THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD. 263
B. — The Ministry of the Word.
§136.
Since the written Word cannot preserve itseK and reach
individuals without human intervention, there is an
activity perpetuated in the church under the guidance
of Christian knowledge — the ministry of the Word —
which not merely transmits the Scriptures with fidebty,
by critical aids restores their integrity, multipbes them,
and seeks to conduct to completion the forming of the
Canon, but also by interpretation disengages their
meaning from its veb and applies it to each age, in
order thus to reproduce amid the humanity of ab ages
the preaching of the apostles with the greatest possible
fidebty and force, — all in harmony with the properties
of Holy Scripture specified in § 135.
This Ministry of the Word is in part informal, in
part strictly organized, and rejoices in being able to trace
itself back to Christ's wbl. The duty and right (i.e. the
office) of teaching is committed to the Church indeed in
the first instance as its main function. But it is
necessary on ethical, although not on dogmatic grounds,
to secure this function by transferring it to definite
persons. In this way a standing or regular and strictly
organized office of teaching arises through the Church,
which rightly affirms the harmony of such a result
with Christ's wbl. But this office is bound to the
gospel, and, apart from the preaching of the same, which
is the source of its independence, has as a special office
only the authority transferred to it by the Church.
Literature. — Spener, 70 Fragen und Antworten vom geist-
lichen Priesterthum. Petersen, Die Idee der christlichen Kirche,
3 vols. 1839 ff. Honing, Grundsatze der evangelisch-lutherischen
Kirchenverfassung, ed. 2, 1851. Harless, Kirche und Amt nach
lutherischen Lehre, 1853. Etliche Gewissensfragen hinsichtlich

264 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
der Lehre von der Kirche, Kirchenamt und Kirchenregiment,
1862. Harnack, Die Kirche, ihr Amt, ihr Regiment, Grund-
legende Sdtze mit durchgehender Bezugnahme auf die symb. BB.
d. luth. K, 1862. Kostbn, Luther's Lehre von der Kirche,
1853. Ibid., Das Wesen der Kirche, beleuchtet nach Lehre und
Gesch. des N. T, 1854. Luther's Theologie, 2 vols. 1863.
Preger, Die Geschichte der Lehre vom geistlichen Amte auf
Grund der Geschichte der Rechtfertigungslehre, 1857. G.
Pfisterer, Luther's Lehre von der Beichte, 1857. K. Lechler,
Die N. T. Lehre vom heiligen Amt in ihr en Grundzugen und
auf die bestehenden Rechtsverhaltnisse der evangelisch-luther-
ischen Kirche in Deutschland angewendet, 1857. Walther, Die
Stimme unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt ; eine
Sammlung von Zeugnissen uber diese Frage aus den Bekennt-
nisschriften der ev.-luth. Kirche und aus den Privatschriften
rechtglaubiger Lehrer derselben, von der deutschen ev.-luth. Synode
von' Missouri, Ohio, etc., als ein Zeugniss ihres Glaubens vorgelegt,
1852. Miinchmeyer, Das Amt des neuen Testaments nach Lehre
der Schrift und der lutherischen Bekenntnisse. Ibid., Neun
Thesen abermals erkldrt und gegen Herm Hofling gerechtfertigt,
1853. Kliefoth, Acht Biicher von der Kirche, vol. i. 1854.
Liturg. Abh. 2. Die Beichte und Absolution, 1856. Debtzsch,
Vier Biicher von der Kirche, 1847. Lohe, Drei Biicher von der
Kirche, den Freunden der lutherischen Kirche dargeboten, 1845 ;
Aphorismen iiber die N. T. Aemter und ihr Verhdltniss zur
Gemeinde, 1849 ; Kirche und Amt, neue Aphorismen, 1853.
1. The Biblical Doctrine of the Ministry of the Word. —
To the church, which existed first of all in the apostles, is
committed as a duty and right the function of preaching the
gospel to all the world.1 Through the apostles, as the original
faithful witnesses, the preaching of Christ is continued ;2 they
are to judge the tribes of the new Israel, i.e. to govern by then-
word.3 But on the basis of the apostobc Word, and under
its constant governance, preaching gives birth to faith,4 which
cannot but speak out of the fulness of the heart. Christ has
not provided for a continuous supplementing of the apostolate,
nor yet for the founding of a distinct teaching, or stbl less
priestly, order. The apostles indeed, as already shown, had a
unique position through their immediate relation to Christ.
1 Matt, xxviii 19 ff. ; Mark xvi. 15 ff. ; John xxi 17, xx. 23, xv. 27 ; cf.
Rom. x. 17.
2 Luke x. 16 : Whoever hears you hears me,
3 Luke xxii. 30 ; Matt. xix. 28. * Rom. x. 17.

THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD. 265
But this position of theirs is unrepeatable, and the apostolate
in this sense continues only in the writings of the N. T.
(§ 135). For example, in the church of Corinth, and simi
larly stib in the days of Origen, bebevers in general could speak
with a view to edification in worship, without all the speakers
having the office of teaching for their life-vocation. Each
church had leaders, but the worship was not of necessity
conducted exclusively by them. On the other hand, a teaching
office was never wanting, i.e. the right or authority and the duty
of preaching. That faith, where it is planted, should propagate
itseK by further preaching or testimony, i.e. that there should
be a continuous teaching function in the Church, is the wbl
and command of Christ. This rests on dogmatic necessity.
Through faith He has implanted in His Church, wherever it
exists, the preaching of the gospel as its inmost impulse.
Not individuals, not an order, but the Church (Art. Smalk.
353), is the original bearer of the office, bound as well as
warranted to preach the gospel. It is responsible for seeing
that the function of teaching is never wanting ; and thus the
teaching office, considered as a permanent, established teach
ing function, has divme authorization. The form, on the
other hand, in which it has to make provision for this, is not
divinely prescribed. Hence it is not necessarily the same in
ab ages, save that the Church must ever make as good pro
vision as possible for the continuance of this function, which
may be done in a freer or stricter form. For the rest, the
primitive Christian Church submitted itself to the universal
ethical laws, according to which the objective call or "mission"
must be added to the inner subjective impulse and cab by way
of confirmation and acknowledgment.1 It must be the right
of the Christian Church, on which the duty of preaching is laid,
to transfer the right of speaking in its name, and therefore of
acknowledging or not the teaching of one who discourses from
free impulse, and of passing a corrective judgment.2 With
this limitation, the Trpotyrrrevetv is conceded by Paul to ab
believers who have the impulse.3 But although a free
Ministry of the Word had its place in the primitive days of
the Church alongside the teaching office in the apostles and
1 Rom. x. 15. 2 1 Cor. xiv. 29.
8 1 Cor. xiv. ; 1 Thess. v. 19-21 ; cf. Jas. iii. 1.

266 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
attached by them to fixed persons,1 Paul would stib have
provision made for due order (evraijta) in this free movement
or exercise of the teaching function on the part of bebevers
at the impulse of the Spirit. The Pastoral Epistles exhibit
already an advanced pobty.2 A setting apart to teaching on
the ground of evident charisms obtained, not merely for
missionary purposes,3 but also for the edKying of churches.
But in the age to which we owe the writings of the N. T,
the administration of Baptism and the Holy Supper, Church
discipbne and government, which includes the election of
persons according to their gifts, were not committed to a
special order, nor necessarily to persons, to whom the teach
ing function had been transferred by the Church ; but in the
earliest church ab these pubbc functions were distributed in
the most various ways, but so that what was to be done in
the name of the Church should only be done on the basis of
the transference of its office to the individuals, or at least
stood in need of recognition by the church.
2. The Ecclesiastical Doctrine.4 — In harmony with
the N. T., the Augsburg Confession requires first of all the
Ministry of the Word in general (Ministerium Verbi divini),
whatever the form of its constitution, save that a regular call
(the rite vocari) is necessary to pubbc teaching (publice docere
et administrare sacramenta), by which the right of speaking
and acting in the name of the Church is transferred. Vocatio
or ordinatio (see below) is to be regarded as an act of the
Church, not as a sacrament, nor is a sacerdotium supposed
to be established by the transference of authority.6 The
selection may fab on the unworthy, and is so far falbble, not
a directly divine act ; but the duty is imposed on the church
of setting apart persons for the Ministry of the Word to the
best of its knowledge, not as if the Word preached by the
regular official teacher were alone sure of effect.6 Such a
Cathobcising error would again interpose a priestly order, " an
official means of grace," between the believer and Christ. On
1 Tit. i. 5, 9. 2 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; Tit. i. 5 ff. » Acts xiii 1-4. ,
4 Conf. Aug. v. xiv. ; AH. Sm. 352. 353 ; Apol. 201. 204. Of the Reformed
Confessions, ed. Augusti, Conf. Helv. p. 55 ; Gall. 121 f. ; Angl. 134. 140 ;
Belg. 190 ff. 192 ; Bohem. 295 ff. ; Cat. Gen. 518. J. Gerhard, to. xii.
6 Apol. 201. 204. 6 As Kliefoth supposes, in opposition to the Art. Sm.

the ministry of the word. 267
the contrary, the Confessions preserve to all bebevers their
priestly right, expressly reserving to them the right of com
forting or teaching by pious private converse. Thus, the
Reformation doctrine of the Office or Ministry of the Word
holds its ground against a twofold opposition, that of the
hierarchical and that of the anarchical extreme, which latter
would leave the function of Evangebcal preaching to chance
or supposed inner divine impulse, as the Anabaptists and later
the Quakers. To Evangebcal bebevers ordination is no sacra
ment, but according to John Gerhard and others merely solennis
et publica testificatio vocationis. The vocatio is therefore the
chief thing, and great weight is rightly laid upon the regular
cab, or " ordination to the Ministry of the Word." It is not
necessary de fide, but a praiseworthy custom, for the vocatio
by the Church to take place in solemn manner with prayer
on the part of the Church and imposition of hands. Nor
need this accidens be done by bishops.1 Nay, the right of
ordination, in which the vocatio is the chief thing, according
to the old Evangelical teaching does not even rest exclusively
with the clerus, but, like ab Church power originally, with
the Church (see above), in which laymen also may co-operate.2
3. Dogmatic Investigation. — The church is to be a
reflex of the prophetic office of Christ. It becomes this by
appropriating Christ's word, giving it the widest circulation and
increasing extension. But although the saying, "I believe,
therefore do I speak," holds good of every Christian, the duty
of the church' is not discharged with this informal testifying or
ministry of the Word. Everything informal is imperfect, subject
to caprice or chance, without stabibty, exposed to aberrations
without any certain antidote. Hence, although the Ministry of
the Word is committed to the Church as a unity, and not to a
special order, although the right of testing, selecting, and
appointing the ministers of the Word is conferred on the Church
(in which mistakes on its side are just as possible as unfaith
fulness in those called to office), stib it is not left to it
whether it wbl or wbl not have a regular, i.e. a reaby fixed,
Ministry of the Word as an essential part of its organization,
1 J. Gerhardi Loci, to. xii loc. 24, § 159.
a This follows also from the idea of ordination as testificatio vocationis. Hence
even Evangelical magistrates ordained at first.

268 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
nay, as a fundamental institution of its existence, but this is
a divine necessity of a moral order, having the example of
Christ and the apostles on its side.1 And in harmony with
this duty is the fact that the Holy Spirit never abows the
church to want those who present themselves to it, equipped
with special charisms in keeping with this end, charisms of
didaskaba and gnosis, exhortation and consolation, gifts of
inspired holy discourse in speech or writing, or hermeneutic
and historic as web as rubng talent.2 In continually calbng
forth such talents, which seek a place for their constant exercise,
the Holy Spirit virtually or creatively reveals the wbl of the
Lord of the Church, that it should give scope and place for
the ordered ministry of the Word in its manifold branches,
even as, conversely, just as manifold and expbcit a need of
such talents is always arising. Fitted into their place, the.
charisms thus obtain a field of constant and abiding exercise,
so that the giving and receiving members are able to rejoice
together. But, to say nothing of the difference of gifts and
the corresponding need of the Church, the necessity of this
ordinance lies also in the successive series of generations, by
which a younger generation is always associated with an older.
To the teaching office proper naturaby joins on the care of
souls in applying the Word to individual persons and their
needs, for the right administration of the Word requires also
the right distribution of the Word of truth.3 But however
necessary this strict organization of the ministry of the Word,
that ministry should never forget, that it has indeed to reflect
but not to continue Christ or to take His place. No divine
authority or infabibbity pertains to the ministers of the Word
or to the teaching order, considered even as a whole, but it has
perpetuaby to grow intensively by living itself more and. more
comprehensively into the Word of Christ. Nor has the fixed
ministry of the Word the privbege of being the sole deposi
tory of Christian truth ; but as even in the 0. T. the prophets
had their place alongside the established offices, because the
Spirit blows where He wibs, so must the Church also set itself
1 Matt. x. ; Luke x. ; Tit. i 8 1 Cor. xii. 1-11, 28-30 ; Eph. iv. 11 ff.
3 So far, certainly, as the care of souls demands also a loving transference of self
into the position of others, it has its place in the reflecting of the high-priestly
spirit of Christ (see below).

THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD. 269
to allow air and free movement to the free ministry of the Word,
especially to look upon the free investigation of science, which
has to do with the truth, and not merely sacred traditions,
with joyous confidence in the victorious strength of Christian
truth. This victory is only achieved by the mutual supple
menting of the free and the fixed, by living wrestle and strain
of the faculties, not by mere lordship of the fixed The
good conscience of the Church in its traditional teaching is
not shown in imposing sbence within its borders on opposi
tion to that teaching, so far as opposition does not break loose
from Christ's Word, and suppressing it, but in being always
ready to give reply, and far from relying on mechanical means,
in letting itself be roused by opposition to bring to light new
aspects of Christian truth, as each age needs, by deeper digging
into the mines of the Divine Word, to solve the problems stib
left to every age, and therefore to acknowledge the truth lying
hidden in the opposition to its tradition.
4. Independent as are the ministers of the Word, in the
stricter sense, of the wib of the several empirical churches in
reference to the matter to be preached, they have this inde
pendence only as ministers of the Word. Since with the
Church they are dependent on the latter, in such common
subordination to a higher power they both have due freedom
and independence in relation to each other. For independence
of judgment belongs to the churches also, Holy Scripture
being equally accessible to them, and the right of scriptural
knowledge being equaby their duty. They are not, therefore,
bound or even warranted to acknowledge dependence on the
minister of the Word, where he is not dependent on God's
Word, but have in this case to prove their independence and
stedfastness in the faith.1 We must not, in opposition to
God's Word, practise idolatry from regard to ecclesiastical
order. 5. The conferring of other powers (e.g. the administration
of Baptism and the Holy Supper, Church discipline, govern
ment, etc.), which rest originaby in the bosom of the Church,
on the same persons to whom the ministry of the Word is
committed by regular cab, rests on no dogmatic necessity,
save that it is obligatory on the Church to call into existence
1 1 Tim. vi 5.

270 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
an organized activity for these duties, and in general for every
thing done in the name of the Church. The more precise
character of such arrangements depends on time and circum
stances, and is therefore a question partly of Ethics and
Practical Theology, partly of Church law.

TRANSITION TO THE SECOND PODNT : RELATION OF WORD AND
SACRAMENT, §137.
The Sacraments are sacred actions, instituted by Christ and
connected with the Word of God, in which, under out
ward signs, invisible grace is not merely preached, but
dispensed to the individual receptive thereto by Christ
Himself, to whom the Church is merely an organ
(§ 134). The benefit of this offered grace is personally
appropriated by faith.
Literature. — Ad. Wuttke, De ratione quce interest inter Ver-
bum et Sacramenta, 1842. Hoffmann, Das Gnadenmittel des
gottlichen Wortes; Jubelschrift fur D. Strauss, 1859. J. Muller,
Das Verhdltniss zwischen der Wirksamkeit des heiligen Geistes
und dem Gnadenmittel des Wortes. Sudhoff, De Convenientia,
quce inter utrumque Gratice Instrumentum, Verbum Dei et Sacra-
mentum, intercedat, Comment, dogm. theologica, 1852. Harless
and Harnack, Die kirchlich-religiose Bedeutung der reinen Lehre
von den Gnadenmitteln, 1869. Thomasius, Christi Person und
Werk, ib. 2, 112-135. Phibppi, v. 2. Of the Confessions, cf.
Conf. Aug., v. xbi. x. ; Apol. 98, 86. 203, 18. 252, 11-13. 265,
59 ; Heidelb. Cat. qu. 65. 69. 75 ; Scot. 18.
1. The word sacramentum has received by convention,
not by etymology, the stricter meaning indicated in the text.
The idea of the sacraments held in common by Evangelical
teachers is, that they are sacred actions instituted by Christ
Himself, which, under visible signs, offer the invisible grace
promised in the word of institution. This idea decides as to
the number of the sacraments. Accordingly, of the Cathobc
number, seven, which were accepted also by the later Greek

RELATION OF WORD AND SACRAMENT. 271
Church under the influence of the Latin, there are left only
two, Baptism and the Supper, because each of the others lacks
either the divine institution and promise (bke the sacraments
of Confirmation, Ordination, and Extreme Unction), or the outer
sign, like Penance and Matrimony. Other sacred actions in
the ethical sphere, bke prayer, instabation of authorities, or
anointing of kings, might as sacred actions be called sacraments
in the wider sense with as good right as the last-named.
Here we have to do with dogmatic, not ethical, sacraments,
because the point in hand is agencies, by which Christ accord
ing to promise continues His work upon individuals (§§ 127,
134), and in which the Church is simply the organ of His
action, so that its act is to be regarded as His act, because
done in His name and by His command. But since we see
in them the act of Christ Himself offering salvation, their
being or validity is independent of the faith or worthiness of
the administrator; and in the same way faith does not make
them sacraments, but receives their benefit. Moreover, the Evan
gebcal view, in its opposition to the number seven, apprehends
Christianity as a unity, not spbt up into fragments, although
human receptiveness for the entire undivided salvation given
in Christ may be of different degrees. This weighty principle
is also the deepest reason of the fact, that Evangebcal teachers
of the Reformation age refuse to concede a different grace in
the sacraments from that in the Word, in which, as in the
sacrament, the bving Christ works and invites to Himself,
that He may impart HimseK to us. Hence, with Augustine,
the Symbols cab the sacraments a pictura Verbi.1 The second
characteristic trait of Evangebcal teaching is, that the
sacraments work not ex opere operato, but that faith is
requisite to then- efficacy.2 Stbl the meaning is not, that
the sacraments only have significance for those who bring
faith thereto, but simply that then* benefit first reaby comes
to man by means of faith, for the Conf. Aug. says that
1 Apol. 200, 5.
2 Conf. Aug. 25, 22. 28. 29. Apol. 98, 86. 252, 11 ff. 203, 18. 265, 59. Conf.
Aug. xiii., damnant illos qui docent, quod Sacramenta ex opere operato justifi-
cent, nee docent fidem requiri in usu sacramentorum quae credat, remitti peccata.
Apol. 213, 18, rejects the notion, quod Sacramenta non ponenti obicem con-
ferant gratiam ex opere operato sine bono motu cordis, hoc est sine fide. This
is impia, perniciosa doctrina, simpliciter Judaica.

272 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
the Holy Spirit works, excites, and confirms faith by Word
and Sacrament.1
2. Relation of Word and Sacrament. — The saying of
Augustine, according to which the sacraments are to the eye
what the Word is to the ear, is true in so far as faith has to
see in both a divine self-mamfestation, which may be cabed
God's Word in the wider sense ; and in so far as they ought
not to be distinguished in such a way as to exalt one at the
cost of the other. But stbl they are not identical The differ
ence expresses itself historically thus : The Reformed in general
lay stress rather on the Word, which is nearer to the spirit ;
the Cathobcs, on the sacrament with its sensuous symbolism.
The dogmatic problem wib be to show, that in their difference
they are mutuaby related. In doing this, the starting-point
wbl be the unity of Christian grace, which does not permit
the difference between Sacrament and Word generally to be
sought in their contents, hut in the diversity oiform, in which
the one grace is offered according to the variety of need in the
subject. Now the affinity of the Word and the Sacrament is
evident from this, that the Word — the continuation of Christ's
prophetic work — must prepare the way for all further mani
festation of grace, since without the Word the latter could only
influence man by magic, outward or inward. The Word
addresses itseK to the intebigence, that intebigence may arouse
the wib, thus giving rise to Christian faith, which could not
exist without knowledge of Christ, because it would lack its
object, which cannot be given by purely inward spiritual
influence, but only by the preaching of the Word.2 Again,
without the Word of divine institution and founding, the
sacrament were no sacrament. It is itseK nothing but the
carrying out of the word of institution and promise, brought
within the actual present. Were we to imagine the sacred
action cut off from the Word, it would lack the definite mean
ing which interprets and gives effect to it. The Word, then
—and this leads to the other aspect — has indeed Christ for its
' Conf. Aug. xiii. Apol. 265, 59, as the right usus sacramenti it is indicated,
ut fides aceedat (not antecedat), or ut fides concipiatur. This must especially
apply to Baptism, for in a normal way faith must be already assumed at the
Holy Supper.
2 § 127, 3.

RELATION OF WORD AND SACRAMENT. 273
contents, nay, since it is preached in His name, it involves
also an action of Christ ; and since the Word of the gospel
embraces in its way the whole field, there is no difference
between Word and Sacrament in reference to contents.1 Oil
this is based the old Evangelical doctrine, that as to contents
the spiritualis manducatio supplies the same as the oralis.
But although the Word is a clothing of spiritual truth in
sensuous garb, in order that faith may preserve the conscious
ness of an objectivity in its contents independent of its own
act, and know itself one with the historic Christ in externally
historic fashion through the Word, which is a continuation of
Christ's act, stbl the Word does not satisfy the need. Although
in it in its own way the one and entire gospel finds expression,
the Word is largely dependent on the skill and gifts of the
ministers of the Word for debvery and effect, as web as for
the living representation of Christ. Further, by its nature it
is first of all a communicating of doctrine or truth to the
intelbgence, which it addresses ; and this is necessarby done
in a multipbcity of sentences of human discourse, into which
the unity and entirety of Christian truth is divided in its
manifestation. The presentation of the gospel in its unity and
entirety, such as was given in the living Person of Christ and
the contemplation of that Person, is very unequaby accom
plished by the Word preached according to the gifts of the
speaker, and never perfectly. Moreover, in this its divided
manifestation the Word extends equally to ab the hearers of
preaching, whereas one and the same aspect of the Word is
not that which suits ab at one time ; for preaching gives
special distinctness to particular aspects of the — in itself
thoroughly united — Word, the rebuking and condemning, as
web as the comforting and encouraging aspects. It is thus
impossible for the individual to know what part of the Word,
which mentions none by name, applies to him as he is at the
present moment, whether for example he must apply to himself
words of grace (which application has its time and hour) or
words of rebuke. And yet the estabbshing of a secure state of
grace depends on his not appropriating grace arbitrarby, but on
good objective grounds. For these defects of the Word taken
* As Harless rightly insists, after the example of Augustine and the Refor
mation. Dorneb. — Christ. Doot. rv. S

274 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
alone, the Sacrament brings the supply. As an unquestionable
institution of Christ, the Sacrament is an invitation on His part.
This invitation in historical process He causes to come to
individuals in such a way, that along with the outward action
He is wbbng to communicate His grace, nay HimseK, accord
ing to promise. It is meant to bring the individual into
union with His person, in whom the unity and entirety of the
gospel is enclosed; and thus, as an action in whieh Christ
continues His work of receiving men, to restore to the spiritual
vision of faith that which was given by Christ's outward
manifestation during His earthly ministry. Thus the Sacra
ment combines apparently opposite but equally necessary
elements. First. Whereas the one Word divides in its manifesta
tion into words and sentences, grace thus fabing asunder
through Holy Scripture and preaching into a multipbcity of
rays, which yet only have their true effect when they
again combine for consciousness into a unity, it is the
Sacrament which presents grace in its ab-embracing complete
ness and makes it visible to the eye of faith. It gives therefore
not a mere ray of grace, but the whole Christ; and how
rich its blessing shall be, depends simply on the degree of
receptiveness. On the other side, the Sacrament specializes grace, not in
itself, but in reference to individuals. It appbes the one and
complete grace to individuals in historical progress. It does
not, as the Word unavoidably does, exhibit one single aspect
of Christianity, and that in such a way that the same aspect
presents itself equally to all, however different they may be,
and without the individual knowing what he ought to apply
to himseK. On the contrary, the Sacrament addresses itseK, by
Christ's commission and as His action, to particular individuals
by name, who thereby, provided they bebeve in the divine
institution and promise of the Sacrament, come into relation
with Christ in His unity and entirety, enter into gracious
covenant with Him, and thus rejoice in Christ's redeeming
purpose as referring to their own personality, and that at the
present moment, without putting subjective wishes in the place
of objective truth. Thus, through the sacraments instituted by
Christ, and dispensed in His name as though He Himself

RELATION OF WORD AND SACRAMENT. 275
administered them, Christ's work of cabing and receiving
men into communion with Him is just as directly applied
to men as once to His disciples, so that they may be as confi
dent of His loving wib as those disciples. Hence too it is
clear, that when some suppose the significance of justification
by faith must be limited, if the sacraments are to receive their
due honour and their objectivity is to be acknowledged, this
is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning both of the Sacra
ment and of faith. So bttle is one a hindrance to the other,
that faith itseK longs for the Sacrament, because faith longa
after personal assurance of communion with Christ, and that
not a seK-made, subjective, but subjective-objective assur
ance; and conversely, the Sacrament on its side looks for
bebeving partakers of it, because only to such can it impart
its benefit. Here, therefore, Evangelical doctrine also steers
between two errors — the Romish, which injures faith by its
opus operatum, from fear lest the sacraments and their objective
significance should suffer loss through the Evangelical doctrine
of faith; and the Anabaptist and Quakerish, which thinks faith
should be set against the Sacrament, as if faith did not need
the Sacrament, but would be placed by it in false dependence
on the external. The Protestant Fides, in which Fiducia and
assurance of salvation — Fides specialis — are the chief matter,
agrees best with the exhibitio gratice specialis by the Sacrament,
which most perfectly meets the need of faith. For the sacra
ments are personal acts of Christ to persons, as is recognized
in the Form. Concordia;.1
Observation. — Thomasius prefers another distinction be
tween Word and Sacrament.2 In the sacraments, he says,
grace operates through physical means directly on the nature
of man, on his entire psychico-physical, essential being (there
fore without intervention of knowing and volition); they
transplant us into Christ's holy human nature, and into the
organism of the Church ; they are the church-forming powers
which the Church administers. The Word, on the other
1 F. C. 807, 37 : et quidem cam ipsam ob causam (re de revelata erga nos Dei
voluntati dubitemus) promissionem Evangelii Christus non tantum generaliter
proponi curat, sed etiam Sacramenta promissioni annectere voluit, quibus
tanquam sigillis ad promissionem appensis unicuique credenti promissionis
Evangelicae certitndinem confirmat.
2 Ut supra, iii. 2, p. 113 f.

276 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
hand, operates on the self-conscious personality, on the in
telligence and the successive unfolding of the personality,
whereas the Sacrament establishes a new relation by one
drastic stroke, in one act and moment. — It is true, that in
the Sacrament the undivided, concentrated grace is offered,
and this grace also requires a concentration of the entire
man, i.e. a cobected bving receptiveness ; but it would
neither be Scriptural nor commendable to ascribe to the
sacraments in distinction from the Word an influence on the
nature in a physical way, i.e. not through the medium of the
spirit, so that only the nature of man, as determined by the
sacrament or Christ's holy human nature, could influence his
spirit. This would lead back to a physical process of salva
tion, to the opus operatwm. It is also strangely wrong to
exclude the Word of God from the church-forming powers.
This is in keeping with the overlooking of the fact, that the
Church has its constantly self-renewing genesis in germinant
faith, not in impersonal nature. Finaby, this mode of con
ception contradicts the fundamental principle of the New
Testament, according to which the gospel first of ab aims
at the spirit, and only through it at transforming also the
physical side of man in conformity with Christ's holy human
nature. On the other hand it has been already premised,
that it is certainly of value for faith to come into relation
with the historic Christ through the medium of institutions
of His which also touch the senses, only it is overlooked by
Thomasius that even the Word of God comes to man in
sensuous form.

SECOND POINT.
A. — The Continuation of the High-priestly Activity of Christ.
§ 138. — Holy Baptism.
Holy Baptism is the sacred action instituted by Christ, by
means of which the individual is received by Christ's
substitutionary, high-priestly love into His communion,
that the old life may die and a new reconcbed one
begin — a bfe of sonship to God.
Literature. — Matthies, Baptismi Expositio biblico-historico-
doymatim, 1831. W.Hoffmann, Taufeund Wiedertaufe, 1840.

BAPTISM. 277
Oster, P. J., Brief e uber die Lehre der H. Schr. von der Taufe,
1840. Brauns, J. F., zur Verstdndigung uber den Anabaptismus,
1844. Nagelsbach, Luth. Zeitschr. 1849, 4. Schoberlein, Stud.
u. Krit. 1847, 4. p. 1024.1 Honing, Das Sacrament der Taufe,
2 vols. 1846, 1848; cf. especiaby II. 132, 105, 106, § 22.
Martensen, die christi. Taufe und die baptistische Frage, 1847,
ed. 2, 1860. Culmann, Welche Bewandtniss hat es mit der Taufe
in der christlichen Kirche ? 1847. Steinmeyer, Vortrag auf dem
Kirchen-Tag zu Frankfurt, 1854 (cf. the records of this Kirchen-
tag and Ev. Kz. 1854, 55). R. Stier, Taufe und Kindertaufe
(from the "Words of the Lord Jesus," vb.), 1855. Hase, Polemik,
ed. 2. Leiner, Das Sacrament der heiligen Taufe; Ausleg. des
IV. Hauptstucks des kleinen lutherischen Katechismus, 1857.
Wblms, Beleuchtung und Widerlegung der Schrift von Leiner,
1862. Ribbeck, F., Aus der Landeskirche in die Baptisten-
gemeinde, 1854. (In opposition to him write : Esch, C. W., Die
evangelische Landeskirche, etc., and J. L. Muller, 1854. Sub
sequently Ribbeck again renounced the Baptist doctrine.)
Miinchmeyer, Das Dogma von der sichtbaren und unsichtbaren
Kirche. Ein historischer und kritischer Ver such, 1854. (For
the definition of the Church as Societas fidei in Conf. Aug. VIII.,
he would substitute the definition of it as a community of
baptized persons.) In English Literature: Pusey, Scriptural
Views of Holy Baptism, 1836. Rob. Wilberforce, The Doctrine
of Holy Baptism, ed. 3, 1850 (in opposition to Goode's Effects
of Infant Baptism). Wardlaw, Dis. on Infant Baptism, ed. 3,
1846 (in opposition to Dr. Habey's work: The Sacraments).
Haldane and Birt, Strictures on Infant Baptism? write on the
Baptist side, in opposition to Wardlaw.

I. — Biblical Doctrine.
Baptism was instituted by the Risen Lord, after pre
vious intimations,3 in accordance with John's baptism,
which, although not a mere baptism of repentance, but
also a promise of the approach of the kingdom of heaven,
only finds its fulfilment in the Christian baptism with the
1 J. Miiller (das gottliche Recht der Union, p. 203) declares against the notion
of Nagelsbach and Schoberlein, that Holy Baptism relates also to the nature of
man, and imparts the prima stamina of a heavenly corporeity for the forming of
the new personality. Cf. Thomasius, iii. 2. 1-47. 140.
2 Biit says of Infant baptism : It is a cause without effect, means without end,
cloud without rain, tree without fruit.
3 Matt, xxviii. 19 f. ; Mark Xvi. 15. Cf. John iii. 5 ; 1 John v. 6-8.

278 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
Holy Spirit.1 The Johannine baptism in its turn joins on
to passages in the law and prophets of the Old Testament
respecting sacred washings.2 But Christian Baptism is first
a rite of symbolic cleansing, and then of consecration and
reception into the community of Christian confessors. It
takes the place of the Old Testament circumcision,3 and from
the beginning is the New Testament covenant-sign.4 The
nature of circumcision was chiefly to impose obligation,6
namely, to obey the wbl of God as it is and will be revealed.
Still even the Old Testament covenant is also a covenant of
promise. In the New Testament, in harmony with the cha
racter of the prevenient grace of Christianity, baptism is not
primarily obligation or service, but a promise and communication
of divine grace. But forgiveness of sins appears everywhere as
the fundamental factor in Christian grace ; in many passages it
is regarded as the first and surest fruit of baptism. In Peter,
baptism is called the inquiry after a good conscience.6 But
the benefit of baptism is not exhausted in this negative factor
— forgiveness. The gift of the Holy Ghost, implanting a new
bfe, the germ or seed of a new man, is essential to Christian
baptism. Hence baptism is called a laver of regeneration.7
Paul combines the Johannine and Christian baptism, but so as
to give repentance a Christian character, and uses the outward
action as a symbol, seeing in the submersion the dying of the
old man with Christ, the being planted into His death which
procured the forgiveness of sins, and in the rising again from
the grave of the water the resurrection of the new man into
Christ's fellowship.8 The intimate connection with Christ,
into which baptism brings, is already expressed in the words
of institution, according to which it is a being baptized into
the name, i.e. into the revealed nature, of God as Father, Son,
1 Acts i. 5.
2 Ex. xix. 10, xxix. 4, xxx. 18 f. ; Num. xix. 7 ff., and Zech. xiii. 1, xiv. 8 ;
Ezek. xxxvi 25.
3 Col. ii. 12, 13.
* Cf. on this point Ecce Homo (by Seeley), ed. 4, 1866, p. 83 ff.
J Gal. v. 3.
6 1 Pet. iii. 21 : ewiiSwtas ayxlris Impwrtiftx. The answer to the inquiry is
sought and found in baptism. Cf. Acts ii. 38.
7 Tit. iii. 5. Cf. John iii. 5 ; Gal. iii. 27.
8 Rom. vi. 3 ff. The relation of baptism to His death was already declared
by Christ, Mark x. 38 ; Luke xii. 50.

BAPTISM. 279
and Holy Spirit. If baptism unto Christ only, or unto His
death, is often spoken of,1 the conclusion must not be drawn
that ancient Christendom baptized unto Christ only. The
opposite is clear from the fact that even the Ebionites used
the Trinitarian formula. Rather, baptism is often cabed
baptism unto Christ, because the revelation in Him is the
centre, which points in a mediatory character on one side to
God as Father, on the other to the Holy Spirit. The New
Testament indicates nothing more definite respecting the re
lation of the outward element in the act to the inner spiritual
meaning, apart from the symbolic use of that outward element,
save that the gift of the Holy Spirit is viewed as connected
with baptism in a normal way. In the beginning the baptism
of adults was customary, a new and blessed consciousness
of filial relationship being usually expected as its fruit. In
harmony with this view, regeneration is especiaby described
as its result, but in order thereto it is necessary to become as
chbdren ; and so much is the receiving, and not any human
observance, any human action whatever, the chief point in
baptism, that Paul brings it into the most intimate association
with Christ's substitution and high-priestly love. Baptism is
symbobcaby the death and grave of the old man, but only as
union with Christ's death, which His substitutionary love
endured for us, thus acquiring the power so to draw us into
the spiritual fellowship of His death that His death is effectual
for our benefit.2 For, dying with Christ, we also rise again
with Him as men, whose old life, permeated with the generic
sin of Adam, is as it were swabowed up by His substitution
appbed to us. Hence Paul even says, that by baptism we
have put on Christ, the righteousness of Christ, as a white
garment, so that we stand in God's sight as parts of His
manifestation.3 For these reasons the baptized are called
sons of God, God looks upon them in Christ. Accordingly
it is proved by scriptural evidence, that Christ's heavenly,
high-priestly love continues its activity through baptism in
His name, which takes place indeed but once,4 but in which
Christ's high-priestly love unites with man and pledges itself
1 Acts ii 38, viii. 16, x. 48 ; Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 27.
2 Col. ii. 12, 13. 3 GaL iii. 27. Cf. Rev. iv. 4, iii. 4, vii. 9, 13 f.
4 Acts viii. xvi. xvii

280 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
to continued operation. But through Christ's mediation the
baptized one enters also into relation to the Triune God in
general. Observation. — Holy Scripture says nothing of an effect of
Holy Baptism on the nature, of another heavenly gift (materia
ccelestis) than the Holy Spirit; but this does not preclude the
divine power, which the new personality receives, conversely
exercising also an influence on the physical side belonging
to the personabty.

§ 139. — Continuation.
II. — Forming of the Ecclesiastical Doctrine.
Literature.— Conf. Aug. IX. ; Apol. 156, p. 329 ; Cat. 379.
401. 534; Heidelb. Cat. qu. 69 ff.
1. The common Evangelical doctrine is, that Holy Baptism
is necessary for ab, because it is the form ordained by Christ
HimseK for bringing the individual person into communion
with Christ's person and salvation, and because without
participation in His redemption man remains in the natural
corruption which, apart from counteraction, must result in
eternal death. Hence both Evangebcal Confessions, however
earnestly the Reformation maintains the cause of the conscious
religious personabty, are at one in rejecting not merely
Anabaptism, but late baptism in general, and in retaining
infant-baptism. As in respect of the sacrament generally, so
here also they have fixed two limits, which must not be
transgressed. On one side, according to them, the Sacrament
without faith is a signum inefficax1 for the benefit of baptism
— the Holy Spirit — cannot be imparted ex opere operato. On
the other side it is not faith which makes the sacrament a
sacrament, but Christ's institution and fidelity to His promise.2
Thereby the objectivity of the Sacrament is rendered secure,
even as by the, first condition all magical influence of the out
ward act is excluded. A consequence of the objectivity of the
sacrament is, that baptism remains vabd, and is not to be
repeated, although in the .baptismal act itself faith was not
1 Cat. Maj. 549, 73. * Ibid. 545. 546.

BAPTISM. 281
exercised, and therefore the benefit of baptism was not
effectual. A distinction must be made between validitas and
efficacia. Repetition would involve the erroneous conception,
maintained by Romish teaching, that the significance of
baptism is but momentary, namely, valid so long as the
baptized one does not again fab into sin. But, on the contrary,
according to Evangebcal teaching the revelation of something
eternal, of God's faithful purpose of grace, is contained in the
temporal moment. Baptism is on God's part a covenant
with man, which only definitive unbebef can dissolve. Hence,
even after the fall of the baptized one, a return to baptismal
grace is possible through repentance without a new sacrament
(Confirmation, or the sacrament of Penance, or Extreme
Unction). " He who did not actually believe at his baptism,
let him now believe" in the gracious promise revealed con
cerning him in his baptism, which is stib in force.1 The
complete grace is wrapped up and made sure to man in this
promise on God's part ; he has only to appropriate it by faith.
Thus, the wealth of the baptismal benefit is so great, that he
can only completely make it a personal possession when his
entire bfe is a " continuous baptism " by union in dying and
rising again with Christ.2
Hereby also the chief point is given in respect to infant
baptism. The Conf. Aug. speaks of a twofold oblation.3
Through baptism offertur Gratia Dei to the baptized one, and
the children are offeruntur Deo et recipiuntur in gratiam Dei.
No mention is here made of regeneration in the fact of infant
baptism ; but the meaning of the Conf. Aug. implies,4 that
regeneration, on its emergence with faith, is the carrying out
or realization of the promise connected with baptism.
2. But the relation of baptism to faith and regeneration was
variously defined, and in the case of infant-baptism problems
of pecubar difficulty arose as to that relation. The Cathobc
Church could assume a substitutionary faith in the Church,
or a magical effect of baptism, and consequently a faith before
baptism (conferred as it were), as well as an effect of baptism
on the person in the moment of the outward act apart from
his own faith. This the Reformation was forced to reject;
i Cat. Maj. 546, 56. s Ibid. 548, 65. 543, 41.
3 Conf. Aug. ix. « Cf. Art. II.

282 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
and Luther, in order to leave no place for the opus operatum,
assumed, although not with fub certainty, the personal faith
of the child in order to baptism (Cat. Maj. 544, 47 ff, 546).
The ancient formularies, indeed, had the confession of faith
recited in the name of the chbd before baptism, upon which
the baptism followed.1 Luther assumed that God gives the
child faith for baptism in answer to the intercession of
the Church before baptism. But there is no exegetical
authority for ascribing a consciousness of God and Christ,
or Christian faith, to infants who as yet have not even self-
consciousness. And if a general, mere receptiveness for Chris
tianity were called faith, then ab men would be believers
by nature. But faith comes by preaching, not by nature.
Granted that we are right in ascribing the effect of the
production of faith to the bebeving intercession of the Church,
such intercession may be wanting in the baptismal act ; and
since it is uncertain, the authority of such baptism would be
doubtful, so far as it is supposed to depend on the existence
of faith in the child before baptism. To assign to the
intercession such potency as would command with certainty
individuals and the origination of faith in them, would only
transfer the magical element of the Romish doctrine to the
spiritual sphere and the act of the Church, instead of to
the outward act of the priest. The outward opus operatum
would then, it is true, be averted from infant-baptism, in so
far as the baptismal blessing itself would not pass to the
chbd by magical means, but only through its faith ; but it
would be otherwise with the origination of the faith itself.
Moreover, the supposition of a faith before baptism includes
yet another danger. Since, according to the common Evan
gelical doctrine, regeneration is originated by faith, it would
fobow that regeneration as web as faith comes before baptism,
and therefore could not be thought as its effect. If faith and
regeneration are already brought to baptism, the only meaning
left to the latter is that of seabng what has been done, i.e.
!Cf. Honing, II. 1-20: "The ancient and also the later Catholic Church
gave no marked expression in a liturgical respect to the difference between
adult Christian children and proselytes ; they transferred the entire liturgical
treatment of the Catechumenate and of proselyte baptism more or less to the
baptism of children, thus paving the way for the importance which they
attribute to the aponsorial institute.''

BAPTISM. 283
the prefixing of faith to baptism leads to the Baptist theory.
No wonder that Luther again betrays uncertainty whether
faith in the proper sense is to be ascribed to children, although
he cherishes the hope that they believe.1 In the Large
Catechism he says, whether chbdren have faith, let the learned
decide;2 and on the occasion of the Wittenberg Concord,
1536, he conceded, that because children have as yet no
intelligence, they can only have an analogon of faith, namely,
a natural bias of the soul to God, just as Calvin also spoke of
fides seminalis in chbdren. In the Large Catechism, Luther
finaby contented himself with saying : " The matter does not
depend on whether chbdren have faith ; baptism is valid, even
when faith is wanting in the act of baptism, and brings its
blessing through the faith that emerges later." 3
The Lutheran theology of the 17th century abandoned the
standpoint, that faith must be required before baptism, con
sidering it rather, in opposition to Baptist teaching, as the
effect of baptism, bke regeneration. But this effect of baptism
was considered as directly involved in the outward act ; and
thus the result was a faith produced by the baptismal act,
and a regeneration apart from personal self-consciousness,
apart from all knowledge of sin or of Christ, and therefore
apart from all spiritual intervention on man's side, and the
reproach of the opus operatum lay again only too close at
hand. Certainly the same was not understood by faith and
regeneration, which we with Holy Scripture understand thereby;
rather a mere resting of the soul in God, connected with a
miraculous restoration of free will, by which in due time the
child is able personaby to appropriate grace and justification.
But this is too much for the moment of baptism in the case
of children, and too little for the entire significance of baptism.
It is too bare a view of the contents of the blessing conveyed
to man in baptism, to suppose it merely to give the possi
bility of personal faith and conscious regeneration (which was
then usually called conversion). See above, p. 204 f.
1 Cat. Maj. 546, § 57. * Ibid. Ui, 47 ff.
3 Ibid. 545, 52 : hoc quoque dicimus, nobis non summam vim in hoc sitam
esse, num ille, qui baptizatur credat, necne : per hoc enim baptismo nihil
detrahitur. § 55 : quamquam pueri non crederent . . . tamen baptismus verus
esset. 546, § 56 : Propterea dico, si non recte credidisti prius, tamen adhuc
crede.

284 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
For these reasons, Pietism, with its stricter idea of faith
and regeneration, opposed this view. It insisted on the
necessity of personal faith in order to salvation and to
regeneration, and left no place for a faith which is mere
passivity or unconscious receptiveness. Only, the teaching of
Pietism was such as to make regeneration begin too sub
jectively from the conscious person. It wished, indeed, to
retain infant-baptism, but was unable to weave the fact of
baptism as an efficient factor into the process of regeneration,
and to apply the fact of its consummation to the conscious
life. The logical result of such inabibty must necessarily be
the giving up of infant-baptism.
In very recent days a reaction has again set in against
these views. The Puseyites maintain " baptismal regenera
tion." They indeed understand thereby justification especially,
but obscure and minimize the idea of faith and regeneration,
describing regeneration as already effected by baptism. In
Germany of late the opus operatum has been again openly
adopted by many in the interest of infant-baptism, and even
the Catholic consequences of the theory with respect to the
idea of the Church are not shunned, but drawn.1 The church-
idea was transformed by them to this effect: the sacrament,
and not faith, decides as to belonging to the true Church ;
even hypocrites, blasphemers, if baptized, are members of the
body of Christ ;2 the Church is not to be defined as a societas
Fidei et Spiritus Sancti, but as a community of the baptized.
More moderate writers say, regeneration in baptism, and the
faith which baptism straightway produces, are certainly
stbl imperfect. As birth must fobow generation, so must
conversion follow baptism and the regeneration (i.e. the genera
tion of the new man) in it. But in this case it is a mystery
how a regeneration worthy of the name is possible before
conversion, or how after regeneration man can still be
unconverted.3 Nor can the restoration of liberum arbitrium
be called regeneration.
This review shows very plainly, that a clear and definite
1 E.g. by the Volkblattfur Stadt und Land; the latter by Miinchmeyer.
4 On the other hand, the Apology describes them as membra Satanai. — Apol.,
de Ecclesia,. p. 147, 16. More fully below, § 148.
3 See above, § 131. For the rest, in the notion of a relation to Christ, even

BAPTISM. 285
form of doctrine is stbl to be framed, at least in respect to
infant-baptism. The essential points are — first, that baptism
must not find the best work already done, as the Baptist
theory supposes, but that faith and regeneration are the fruit
of baptismal grace ; secondly, that no place be left here for
opus operatum, or the magic of grace, to serve as a centre of
doctrinal corruption on other points ; thirdly, that the idea
of faith and regeneration be not here suddenly diluted in an
unevangelical sense, whereas elsewhere it is to be maintained
in full energy against Cathobcism. In the case of the baptism
of adults, when it reaches its consummation in a normal way,
the union of these three postulates wib be secured without
great difficulty, and that union and its right dogmatic settle
ment wib shed bght on the difficulties of the doctrine of
Infant-Baptism. § 140. — Continuation.
III. — Dogmatic Statement of the Doctrine of Baptism in
general.
1. The eternal redemption accomplished objectively still
needs accomplishment in the subjects. The salvation given
in Christ must stib be applied to each individual. No one
can produce it or seize it as a prey, and on the other hand
it cannot be forced on any one by violence. The gift of God
is free ; its acceptance must also be free. Midway between
a grace lying absolutely at the disposal of man and a
passively-conceived human personabty, bes a bvingly-conceived
relation between God and man, according to which free grace
is offered preveniently, whilst there is a free receiving on
man's side. That offer rests on a choice or election, for one
nation being invited before another to salvation, and one
individual before another, implies a preference.1 And the
offer leaves room for the rejection of Christian grace, for its
nature is to require free appropriation. From these main bnes
apart from conversion, perhaps the truth finds unconscious expression, that we
are united with Christ by a bond reaching farther back than sin. Only, this
natural relation should neither be called faith nor regeneration.
1 See above, pp. 167. 185.

286 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
sketched above (§ 130) we must not now deviate. But there
was further shown already (§ 137) the necessity of a sacred
act having reference to the person, by which the person may
be consciously placed, as by a divinely-given objective pledge,
in historic connection with Christ, and be assured of being
received into His communion in accordance with His wbl.
This sacred act is baptism, instituted by Christ for all ages.
By this means, firstly, the individual is saved from the great
uncertainty, whether he is warranted to regard himself as
called and received by Christ into His communion, notwith
standing that redemption advances only by degrees. Whoever
is in earnest about his salvation cannot rest satisfied with
the universal proclamation of the gospel, or with reception
into the communion of the Church of any place or country.
Nor can he base the certainty of salvation on what is purely
inward alone. For what he seeks is reception into the com
munion of Christ, the historic, objective, but still actively
working Mediator. But Christ's act of reception in reference
to the person finds no certain expression in the purely
inward sphere, apart from connection with Christ's historically
revealed and continuously working purpose of grace. Even
reliance on the signs of regeneration could of itself never be
exempt from the suspicion of self-deception. Now this defect
is suppbed and this need satisfied by Holy Baptism in Christ's
name, which, since it is done by His command, and is without
doubt merely a continuation of His institution, is to be regarded
as His act, in reference to which the Church simply presents
itself as Christ's organ. But in the same way, secondly, the
Church also is saved by this institution from uncertainty as
to whom it must regard and treat as belonging to it. The
church can despise no one whom the government of the
world, which is subservient to the gospel, brings to it in such
circumstances, that duty compels it to offer to him the
salvation designed for mankind; and as it can refuse itself
to no one whom Christ wishes to be received among His
disciples, so also it can recognize no one whom Christ does
not acknowledge. Since, then, knowledge of man's heart is
denied to the Church, it would be in constant danger of
doing too much or too little, of excluding those whom Christ
wishes to see received, and of receiving those whom He does

BAPTISM. 287
not approve, unless Christ had instituted Holy Baptism, by
which He HimseK declares to the Church — provided it is
wilbng to administer the sacred act simply as His faithful
organ, i.e. according to His commission — that He on His part
wishes the chbd to be regarded as belonging to His com
munion, and to impart to it the benefits of His substitution.
If the Church is so attentive to His gracious wib as to
perform baptism, wherever the offer of it cannot be refused
without coining into cobision with Christ's loving will, it is
also certain that every baptized one, who does not openly
reject its blessmg subsequently, is to be regarded as received
by Christ, and therefore is also to be acknowledged by the
church. Living membership in it is not grounded in the
wib of the church, and just as little in the wbl of the indi
vidual himself; but reception by Christ is the fundamental,
the first condition. But His purpose of reception is revealed
out of the depths of eternity in time through the baptism of
His institution, in reference to which His church is merely
the organ. This act is irrevocable on the part of God and
Christ until man's unbelief definitively rejects baptismal
grace. God remains true to the baptismal covenant. If the
baptized one fabs into sin, which is not sin against the Holy
Ghost, the way of return to baptismal grace stands open to
him in repentance. He needs no second baptism — which
would be a declaration af the invabdity of the first — or a
second supplementary sacrament. Reception into Christ's
communion, and reception into the Church, therefore, ought
not to be separated.
2. But then all depends on knowing the way in which the
Church ought to administer . Christ's commission, in order
that no human caprice may insinuate itself, but the Church
may be simply an organ of His will in this act. Since
Christian grace is universal by intrinsic tendency, all men are
certainly designed for baptism, and mistake on this point
might thus seem impossible. This view is true in the sense
that Christ wbl let no baptized one suffer for the mistake of
the Church, nor is a second baptism required, or the baptism
performed to be declared invalid. But the Church must
seek to be as far as possible the executant of His wbl ; and
the universal tendency of grace decides nothing as to the

288 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
time when the individual shall be baptized, for here election
has its place (§ 130). Here it must first of ab be laid down,
that the Church ought not to baptize every one on whom it
can lay hands — the unwilling, or chbdren of unwilling parents ;
for by divine ordinance the access of the Church to the chbdren
bes through the parents as God's representatives. Here also,
according to the Evangelical view, the ordinances of the first
creation are not ahobshed by the second. It is unseemly to
unite Holy Baptism with an act of resistance on man's part.
Enforced baptism would be an object of contempt instead of
a blessing. Only a magical theory could recommend such
arbitrariness and violence. Precisely because baptism con
tains a blessing which claims for itself the whole bfe, its dis-'
tribution ought not to be conjoined with a violence injurious
or possibly fatal to the first germs of the blessing.1 In the
case of adults, not merely must wibingness to submit to the
outward action be required, but also a preparation by which
they may learn the meaning of the action, and be led to
conscious desire for it. On the other hand, it is just as
erroneous to require antecedent regeneration and the signs of
it in the candidate for baptism. If regeneration already
exists, the only meaning left to baptism itself is to confirm
what has been done. If it is only right to administer it,
provided regeneration is certainly present, it would not be
valid if it took place before regeneration. But since the
presence of regeneration is not discernible with absolute cer
tainty, neither could the Church ever baptize with absolute
certainty, nor the baptized one bubd upon it as a divine seal
of his reception into Christ's communion. And supposing
the regenerate one afterwards to fall into temptation, it would
be only too natural for him to regard himseK as baptized
illegally; and baptism, instead of being a firm anchor of
faith, as it was to Luther, would rather be a memorial of
heavier sin. Add to this, what is already implied, that all
faith, which is unable to base itself on the objective attesta
tion of God's prevenient grace, remains exposed to temptations,
from which it is most certainly saved by remembering the
1 On the ground of the inseparableness of baptism from Stidrxuv and the
Word as a means of grace, Hbfling rightly condemns its administration where
there is no prospect of the necessary consequence — the $ieWxs/»  following

BAPTISM. 289
certain fact (Facticitdt) of baptism having taken place. Finally,
it is objectionable with Schleiermacher to make the coincidence
of regeneration and baptism the ideal of baptism. Since the
church ought to come as near to the ideal as possible, the infer
ence from this theory would be, that it should delay baptism
untb the probabibty of this coincidence is present. It would
also mean, that regeneration is not the effect of baptism,
else baptism would precede it, but only takes place parallel
with baptism, although not under its influence. Further,
such maturity would in this case be required for baptism, that
every one baptized must forthwith be a fub-grown member
of the church ; but to such fub-grown maturity long prepara
tion is necessary, in which the blessing of antecedent bap
tism itseK may take the chief share. Therefore, to make the
coincidence spoken of the ideal of the church, were to deny
that Christian grace, in virtue of its prevenient character
(§§129,130), originates even the preparations for regeneration ;
whereas it was formerly shown, that Christianity is also the
perfect law and principle of repentance (§ 130, c. 2, § 131),
and need not calculate on a pre-Christian truth proceeding
and working alongside itseK, since it is itself the all-com
prehending truth. The specificaby Christian truth must
co-operate to saving repentance. The Christian grace embraces
also a sphere of Christian psedagogy. Christ would not have
the mature alone reckoned among His disciples, and therefore
not in the kingdom in which He rules,1 although ab are to
become mature, which wbl be realized best K Christ prpvides
for their training and growth from the beginning. From this it
also fobows, that Holy Baptism finds more complete expression
as the cause of regeneration precisely where regeneration and
baptism do not coincide ; but where the former fobows the latter,
in such a way, however, that baptism constantly enters as a
living factor into the process of regeneration as well as intro
duces it. Certamly if a human performance were the point
at issue in baptism, i.e. were confession of sin and faith this
performance, which must precede baptism by its very idea,
then would the reception of the man only be justified after
confession and faith, and baptism would be a sort of vow.
But in this case baptism would fab primarily into the sphere
1 Matt, xviii. 6 ff. ; cf. xi. 25, 28 ff. ; Acts ii. 38.
Dorner.— Christ. Doct, iv. T

290 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
of requirement or performance ; it would not be primarily a
gift, but a law bke the baptism of John. But on this view
the prevenient character of the gospel would be obscured at
the very moment of entrance into Christianity. It would
seem as if God's grace were unable to offer itself to man as he
is, i.e. as a stbl unconverted, unregenerate sinner, and declare
to him, that God is reconciled with him in Christ. Rather
we should thereby affirm, that a transformation or perform
ance of man is necessary before the offer of salvation,
whereas this transformation wbl be effected by the offer,
which not merely demands but has the power to produce
faith. Faith cannot arise without the object which it has
to lay hold of ; but the object is the offered salvation, the
earnest and sufficient offer of which in God's sight is made
precisely in baptism. If, therefore, as already stated, the
church ought only to baptize in the case of adults, e.g. on
mission-ground, when it perceives the conscious desire for
baptism, the reason of this must not be sought in the fact
that the Christian grace, before it can offer itseK, presupposes
subjective dispositions or performances (such as Romish
teaching requires for the sacrament of Penance, which is
supposed to form a substitute for the sacrament of Baptism
abeged to have been rendered inoperative), but only that the
baptizing church may be assured that it is not baptizing men
against their wbl, the inwardly unreceptive or hypocritical.
Therefore, in saying that in Holy Baptism according to its strict
idea we have to do not primarily with an antecedent perform
ance of the candidate, or with an already existing mutual
relation between Christ and man, but with the estabbshing of
a relation of Christ to man, we simply remain in harmony
with the conclusions reached in the doctrine of Justification
(§ 132). In baptism Christ gives expression on His part to
His prevenient purpose of love ; He estabbshes communion,
and that in the substitutionary spirit which desires to repre
sent the sinner before God for the purpose of making him a
personal partaker in God's favour. Since no human perform
ance is the essential element in baptism, it fobows that the
church may and ought to baptize wherever baptism is legaby
sought at its hands, and where, instead of resistance, recep
tiveness for the Christian salvation is to be presupposed ; and

BAPTISM. 291
in taking such a course, it is assured of being in conformity
with Christ's declared wbl. But receptiveness for salvation
is already part of human nature universally (because it is
designed for Christ as well as needs Him), provided no
sinful resistance has developed itseK subsequently, with
which of course baptism cannot coalesce. Hence the apos
tolic practice was not to delay baptism until regeneration
or its approach was discernible, but regeneration was expected
as the effect of baptism. No one, it is true, can become a
living, personal member of the kingdom of heaven without
regeneration ; but for this reason Christ can on His part by
way of anticipation, and therefore at first on one side only,
begin the fellowship by His regenerating grace, by His blessed
greeting of love, as He did once,1 and give expression to its
beginning in order that it may become mutual.
3. Effects of Baptism. — Holy Baptism is a dogma only
because it is a manifestation of something eternal, although in
the individuality of space and time, a manifestation of eternal
grace in individual appbcation, of the love of the Triune
God to the person of the candidate, who is made partaker
not merely of reconcibation, but also of sonship to God.
Baptism cannot be understood by a dead deistic lin^ of
thought, which severs God from the world and Christ from
humanity. Its meaning only discloses itseK to one who sees
Christ stbl bvingly present and rubng in due order in His
house. The divine purpose of love, which finds expression in
baptism, embraces not merely communion with God in Christ,
but the infinitude of blessings destined for man ; and every
thing which grace lavishes on man must be regarded as an
outcome of the grace imparted or promised to man in baptism
or of baptismal grace. Consequently, the effect of baptismal
grace is not to be limited to that for which receptiveness
exists at the moment of the act, but it includes also the
faithfulness of God to His promises for the future ; and the
unfolding of grace in the subsequent bfe is part of the baptismal
blessing, the performance on God's part of the baptismal
covenant. Baptism lays the foundation, which must continue
active and vital for the whole bfe. Through the impartation
and promise of the complete grace being given and prefixed
1 Mark x. 13 ff.

292 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
in the baptism of the child, in order that its blessing may be
appropriated moment by moment, it is possible for the entire
development of men to proceed from the first on a uniform
plan, for the entire conscious life to be passed in the light of
Christianity. That baptism cannot reveal all its powers at
the temporal moment of the outward act, is not its weakness,
but its wealth, by which the whole life must be adorned,
which Luther meant when he said : " The whole bfe of the
Christian is meant to be a continuous baptism." x From this
it fobows, that the genesis of conscious faith and regeneration
is brought about in the most normal and happy manner
under the influence of the baptismal blessing, and therefore
under the consciousness of having been received preveniently
by Christ's love. But further, we stand in need of the substi
tution of Christ in respect of the after-workings of the old
man, for by baptism deliverance is given indeed from guilt
and punishment, but not from sin. But, in accordance with
the baptismal covenant, Christ's substitution and intercession,
and the wib of God to regard us as justified, stbl continue
in respect of these after-workings of sin; and there is no
need of the sacraments of Confirmation, of Penance with
priestly absolution, and Extreme Unction, interpolated by the
Cathobc Church without scriptural ground as a substitute
for the nominal baptismal grace which was at once forfeited.
All these give no security, and what they promise is contained
more fuby and richly in the sacrament of Baptism than in
that which the Cathobc Church obtains by those supple
mentary means. After every new fab, the Christian may
and ought to recur to the grace of baptism or to the baptismal
covenant, assured of the abiding significance of baptism on
the part of a faithful God.
4. Absolutely necessary to salvation certainly outward
baptism is not. The disciples of the Lord scarcely received
it from Christ, and the baptism of John was not Christian
baptism. Hence also the church, distinguishing essence and
form, teaches that the baptismus flaminis or sanguinis (the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit or a martyr's death) may be a
substitute for the baptismus fluminis. Further, the Evan
gelical Church rightly teaches, that not the want but the
1 Cat. Maj. 548,

BAPTISM. 293
despismg of baptism is damnable, from which it follows that
the non-baptized children of non-Christians are not (as the
Synod of Carthage in the year 418 supposed in a critically
suspected canon) to be regarded as condemned. But still it
must be held that every one must receive that which con
stitutes the essence of baptism, either in this world or the
next. This essential element may be given in very different
ways, but it consists in the outward reception into Christ's
communion realized through an historic act. In the case of
the disciples this act took place through their invitation by
Christ Himself to follow Him and their reception into His
communion with the promise of the Holy Spirit. Thus they
are to be regarded as reaby baptized. A simbar judgment
perhaps must be held respecting the children (Mark x. 13 ff.)
whom Jesus took into His arms and blessed. How God will
impart that essential element to man depends on His free
choice, not on our caprice. And for this reason the so-called
baptism in extremis may be justified,1 although not so as to
imply that those dying unbaptized must on this account be
lost. Necessitas baptismi non est absoluta, sed ordinata. But
we must adhere to the ordinance instituted by Christ, the
necessity and blessing of which we now see.
Observation. — The later theology of the 17th century
distinguished in baptism, after the analogy of the Holy
Supper, the materia terrestris, the water, and the materia
ccelestis, which was thought to be now the Trinity, now the
Spirit, and the sanguis Christi as web, which were united
by Gerhard (ix. c. v. p. 133 f.) and Quenstedt (iv. 110). The
latter cannot be proved on biblical grounds, and is therefore
objected to by others. But, in general, the theory of a
materia ccelestis in the water of baptism comes near the
theory of Thomas and the Dominicans contested by Luther :
" Deum spiritualem virtutem aquas contubsse et indidisse,
quae peccatum per aquam abluat," Art. Sm. v. p. 329.

§ 141. — Infant-Baptism.
Infant-baptism is not merely permitted in the case of those
born within the Christian church, but corresponds more
1 J. Gerhard, Loci Th. torn. ix. p. 198 ff.; cf. Hbfling, ii. 296 ff.

294 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH:
completely than late baptism to the idea of baptism
(§ 140), and is therefore the right mode of adminis
tering baptism for a church that has gained such insight,
apart from the field of missions.
1. The church ought not to be satisfied with regarding
infant-baptism as something merely permitted. The merely
permitted is an intermediate region, . which vanishes before
full knowledge, either falling back into the region of the
forbidden or advancing to the divinely wbled. It sprang first
of ab from the need of regarding the children of Christian
parents as belonging to Christ, not merely on the ground of
the wib of the church but of Christ Himself, and of regarding
the age of chbdhood as consecrated and hallowed by Christ,
who bved through and hallowed all the periods of our bfe.1
The natural bonds between parents and chbdren are not
reduced to msignificance in Christianity, but acknowledged in
their importance, as was done even in the 0. T. by circum
cision.2 These bonds are not simply left by Christian parents
to their quiet unconscious influence, but contain a definite
hint to them, that they should present their chbdren to
Christ, nay, that through them God wishes their children
brought into the number of Christ's disciples, a sign of His
grace directed towards chbdren.3 This natural connection
involves the duty, and therefore the right, of parents to present
their chbdren to Christ. To say in objection, that consecra
tion in reference to children is already implied in the natural
connection, and that baptism is therefore needless for them,4
would be to attach more importance to the bond of nature
connecting children with Christian parents, and thus indirectly
with Christ, than to a direct bond of union with Christ. But
the former view would only be sufficient on the supposition
of parents ascribing the power of consecration to themselves.
On the other hand, the more that parents and the church
are conscious of their needy condition and dependence on
1 According to the speculative thought of Irenseus. See Martensen, § 255.
2 Acts ii. 39 ; 1 Cor. vii. 14.
3 This may be gathered from 1 Cor. vii. 14, and 0. T. circumcision.
4 The appeal to 1 Cor. vii. 14 is not relevant, because there the mixed
marriage might hinder the baptism.

BAPTISM. 295
Christ, the more must they go back in behalf of their
children, not to their own substitutionary consecration, but to
Christ's alone sufficient substitution, seek His blessing, and
cling to its expression in the baptism of the Lord's own
institution, which of itself points to Christ's substitutionary
death and life. Ab the more have Christian parents the
right to seek Christ's blessing and consecration, as the pre
senting of their chbdren accords with His mind ; for He did
not reject the parents who presented their children to Him,
that He might touch them, lay His hands on them and pray
for them, as if He could do nothing with them, or they
had nothing to do with Him, but He said : " Suffer the bttle
chbdren to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is
the kingdom of God," and He had compassion on them, laid
His hands upon them and blessed them.1 This blessing and
reception into His love might take the place of baptism to
them. Thus, then, the church in conformity with His insti
tution offers itself to Him as an organ for the continuance of
His purpose, that through its hands He may baptize the little
ones and take them into His arms as His possession. The
church cannot be poorer than the synagogue ; the new
covenant cannot express less love than the covenant of
circumcision, whose benefits appbed also to chbdren. The
first sermon of Peter abuded to this.2 At the same time, the
natural febowship of the parents renders this service, that
their recobection of the chbd's baptism is a substitute for
the chbd's own knowledge, and in due time this knowledge
is communicated to the child after self-consciousness is
awakened. But the knowledge of Christ's prevenient love is
effective and fruitful in bringing about desire fpr communion
with the Redeemer, and therefore regeneration, through faith.
Observation. — Since the infant-baptizing church offers itself
to Christ in accordance with His wib as an organ in bringing
children into His kingdom, and desires to see its own faith
reproduced through intercession in them, it may even be said
in a certain sense, that Christ desires to regard their faith as
substitutionary, i.e. as security for their chbdren until the
time of maturity. For this is the nature of childhood, that
1 Mark x. 13-16. Cf. Matt. xix. 13-15.
s Acts ii. 38, 39. Cf. Luke xix. 9 ; Acts xvi. 15, 81, 33.

296 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
the religion of the parents is in the first instance transmitted
to the children with a sort of physical certainty, of course in
an impersonal manner as to rebgious meaning. But, this
inheritance has already a value and co-operates in the origina
tion of fides specialis, belonging to the region of impersonal
and unconscious, although salutary workings of grace.1
2. That the church has a good conscience in baptizing
infants, and rightly regards itself as in unity with the divme
wib, is readby evident, whether the matter be considered on
the side of Christ or the church or the child. First, of
Christ. If late baptism is required, it is required because
preparations are deemed necessary before Christian: grace itself
can have a place. But to deny to Christianity that it is meant
to cover the entire life, is to deny its absoluteness, and implies
that we must first belong to a religion preparatory to Chris
tianity. That Christianity is the absolute religion, embracing
within itself ab religious . truth and power, finds its most
perfect expression in infant-baptism. In the same way, in it
the nature of prevenient grace is set in the clearest bght. In
infant-baptism the church opposes the notion that Christian
grace does not hold good for chbdhood. Chbdren are indeed
but imperfect Christians, but stbl they are Christians, because
Christ has received them.
As to the Church, in refusing baptism to chbdren, it would
not do sufficient honour to its own mission and to Christ's
right in chbdren If it supposed that it deprived them of
nothing because of its desire to give them a Christian educa
tion, it would place reliance on its own influences without
basing itself on Christ's grace, and incur the danger of putting
itseK in Christ's place. The child taken into His arms, and
consecrated by Christ Himself, forms also quite another obliga
tion to the work of Christian education than mere human
bonds can do.
Finally, in virtue of Christ's ab-embracing purpose of grace,
the individual within Christendom has a right to claim that no
1 This security of the church, in the entire absence of which baptism would
be out of the question, is embodied in the form of an institution in the spon-
sorial relation, cf. Hbfling, ii. 230. §§ 132, 133. An obligation for the child is
contained in the sponsio of the sponsors only in so far as faith in Christ is to be
regarded as a universal human duty.

BAPTISM. 297
portion of his bfe shall be outside Christianity. This is secured
to him by mfant-baptism. Loving education, along with the
refusal of baptism, would be no compensation. Withal, the
consciousness of having been the object of Christ's prevenient
love is the effectual means for begetting faith, and for respond
ing to the febowship established by Christ.
3. The history of infant-baptism (§ 139) has certainly
shown us the difficulty of preserving a Christian doctrine of
infant-baptism free from opposite errors ; and this difficulty is
specially emphasized on the Baptist side. Nevertheless, the
reasons urged by Baptists against infant-baptism are not con
clusive, but to some extent prove the opposite. They are
partly Biblical, partly dogmatic and ethical.
First of ab, the exegetical reasons in favour of late baptism
are not conclusive. If, as must be conceded, the baptism of
adults was the custom in the apostobc age, the reason was the
same as holds good at present in the mission field. Since
the way to the chbdren bes through the parents, Christianity
first of all necessarby addressed itseK to adults. But even
adults had again to become children in order to receive the
blessing of baptism, and the willingness or the desire to be
baptized was sufficient. Or was it possible for the apostles at
Pentecost to preface the baptism of the 3000 candidates by
an examination of theb" faith I1 In instituting baptism,2 Christ
does not set up as a universal rule: "Teach first and then
baptize," but : " Make disciples " (fiaOrjTevo-aTe) ; and how this
is to be done, is said in the fobowing words which connect for
this end the two means of grace, Word and Sacrament :
"Baptizing and teaching" (ab nations) — two requirements,
respecting the necessary order of which the passage is meant
to decide nothing, for that adults are first taught is grounded
in the nature of the case. On the other hand, the necessity
of teaching always coming first can ab the less be inferred
from the passage, as it puts baptism first. A disciple is one
received into training by Christian grace ; chbdren also belong
to nations. The passage thus intimates that Christianity not
1 Cf. Acts ii 41. The words (viii. 37), "If thou believest with thy whole
heart, thou mayest be baptized," etc., received in the Elzevir editions, are most
probably to be regarded as spurious.
2 Matt, xxviii. 19. Cf. Mark xvi 15.

298 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
merely seeks existence in adult, individual persons, but seeks
also to have a national form. Moreover, the passage in Mark
describes ab humanity (the icoo-fios, the ktI<ti<s) as the object
of training by Christianity, and connects baptism with the
preaching of the gospel in such a way that the case is contem
plated of baptism taking place without the presence of faith,
for the meaning of the words (which for the rest are not words
of institution) is : " He who believes and is baptized shab be
saved, but he who bebeves not, although baptized, shall be
damned." Here the case is conceived as possible, that one is
baptized without faith, therefore prior to faith. Not this is
blamed, but the being found at the judgment in unbebef.
Such an one is lost, because he had a call to baptism and the
possibbity of bebeving. Further, not merely in a general
sense does the love of Jesus extend to chbdren, but He says
expressly : " Of such is the kingdom of heaven," i.e. the nature
pecubar to chbdhood is speciaby suited to the kingdom of God,
because there no abnormal tendency is actual or estabbshed ;
on the contrary, trustful surrender is natural.1 Little as any
one is a citizen of the heavenly kingdom by his natural birth
and descent, stib Christianity is meant for fambies and nations,
and has therefore estabbshed an institution for mviting ab
humanity into God's kingdom. " To you and your children is
this promise." 2 The objective natural connection consecrates
the children of Christian parents with a view to their being
conducted with the parents to the communion of Christ, and
reception into His communion takes place ordinarby through
baptism. When the dogmatic idea of the Church as the Societas fidei
et Spiritus Sancti is alleged in favour of late baptism, and it is
inferred therefrom that the Church ought to consist only of
the regenerate, to whom infants do not belong, on the other
hand it must be remembered that the Church is without
infabible means of knowing who is really believing and
regenerate. Therefore it cannot be its duty to set up such a
standard of membership in the Church as would exclude every
one who is not regenerate. Rather to it is the command
given : " Let both grow together untb the harvest."3 More-
1 Cf. Matt, xviii. 10, 14 ; Luke xviii. 15 f. ' Acts ii. 38, 39.
3 Matt xiii. 30. More fully on this point, § 148.

BAPTISM. 299
over, a psedagogic side belongs essentially to the Church. It
only answers to its idea when it seeks and cherishes fellow
ship with those who are stib without the gospel. But thus
there grows up around it a receptive circle of germinant
disciples of the Lord, who can all the less be excluded from
the Church, as the degree to which individuals partake in the
Holy Ghost is not discernible to the human eye. But chil
dren may very web belong to the number of the receptive.
Just as bttle does infant-baptism necessarby imply magical
ideas. It is wrong to assert that ab gracious workings of
the Spirit before faith, or before the consciousness which can
alone appropriate them, are magical.1 There is also a sphere
of unconscious workings in the natural ground of the soul.
Certainly salvation cannot become a personal possession with
out faith, and therefore without consciousness. But even the
Baptist theory, unless it passes into Pelagianism, must require
workings of the Spirit in order to regeneration, and these
workings precede the consciousness of Christian grace, else the
consciousness itself could not be the work of grace. Without
the calbng into existence of bving receptiveness, no receiving
or consciousness of grace could take place. Further, in
infant - baptism the personal appropriation of the salvation
promised to the subject in the offer is perfectly reserved.
But bebeving acceptance wbl take place most securely. on the
basis of God's prevenient grace, such as finds its expression in
baptism. This leads to the objections on ethical- grounds. When it is
said : " Infant-baptism forestalls free decision, since plainly
the chbd cannot decide freely for itseK," the question must be
asked : " How is it to come to a good and free decision V Is
the freedom of the decision alone of importance, and not its
goodness ? If we have the firm assurance that Christianity
is the true and saving rebgion, and if it is acknowledged
that true freedom need not be injured by an influence whose
1 Kliefoth in his Tlieorie des Cultus der evang. Kirche, with whom Hbfling
here agrees (ii. 229), rightly reminds us, that it is an illusion due to that period
of our life when everything comes to us through reflection, to suppose that the
Spirit of God can only come to us through thought and consciousness. Only he
goes too far in making a faith worthy of the name come into existence through
the Holy Spirit without consciousness and will. Cf. Steitz, Theol, JReakncycl.,
Art. Taufe.

300 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
aim is a good decision, it cannot be a duty, nay, not even
moraby justifiable, to submit all other possible religions to
choice; thus smoothing the way for a false decision. A
free appropriation of Christianity is possible, through man
being in circumstances to decide freely for or against it. But
this freedom is not limited by infant-baptism. On the other
hand, it is necessary to a free decision for man to know what
Christianity is about. Now this is made known by infant-
baptism. The characteristic essence of Christianity is the pre
venient manifestation of the love of God and Christ. But
thus its essence is revealed by the prevenient offer of a
present grace of God, not of one merely to be hoped for.
Nay, it is this manifestation of love that first places man again
on the ground of freedom, and makes a free decision possible
to him (§§ 129, 130). For the prevenient grace, contained in
baptism, releases man from the power of the sinful generic
connection and of his own sinful nature. For these reasons,
the Evangebcal Church has a good conscience in so acting as
to aim at a good decision with the greatest possible certainty,
without being wbling or able to exclude the possibbity of a
bad decision. Of course it dispenses baptism only in connec
tion with Christian intercession and education, which even
conscientious Baptists do not omit, and that without fearing
any damage to freedom therefrom. But in its activity the
church desires to base itself on Christ's injunction, on His
activity in receiving men, and not to ascribe to itself the power
to communicate the Holy Spirit.
Finally, it is said : The infant chbd can as yet receive
nothing spbitual, therefore the sacred action performed on it
is empty and .objectionable. But infant-baptism is no empty
ceremony. It would not be such even if it merely possessed
significance for the moment of baptism. But it is rather an
institution of Christ of such, a kind as to be an expression of
the eternal, faithful purpose of grace preveniently applied to
the chbd. Or wbl any one assert that the child is not already
an object of the loving purpose of Christ, the children's friend ?
Even the chbd is stib a human being, distinguished from a
merely animal creature by the essential relationship of its soul
to God. There wants not, therefore, an object, to which by
baptism Christ can apply and assure His love, which is in-

BAPTISM. 301
finitely more than if the Church merely had the consciousness
of Christ's universal love and represented it to the chbd.
The fact of Christ having received the child through His
institution into gracious covenant with God can and ought to
be made known to the chbd hy the Church, and especially by
the Christian parents, with the first awakening of its human
consciousness. Or can it be necessary for sin first to come to
actual development in man, and in the same way error on the
side of consciousness, before baptism can be performed on
him ? The fact of the reception of the child in Christ's name
and authority into the covenant of grace, which is immove
able on God's side, is a fact full of meaning, destined his-
toricaby to penetrate into the life of the child and stamp a
distinctive character on its seK-consciousness — a treasure great
enough to fertilize and enrich the whole bfe. Although the
child may stbl lack the consciousness of how rich it is through
the love of Christ revealed respecting it and personaby hold
ing good to it, Christ's prevenient love depends as little on its
consciousness as on its wib. But precisely in its preveniency
lies the kindhng force, the power which it has to awaken in
due time faith and love in personal form ; and the normal
origin of faith and regeneration has to take place on the basis
of the offer and assurance of salvation necessarby preceding
them, but actuaby made in baptism. Consequently all
depends, as Luther teaches, on seeing in it the revelation of
something eternal in the individual moment of space and
time in order to its becoming a historical power, and therefore
on contemplating the benefit and effect of baptism sub specie
ceternitaiis. Whoever apprehends baptism in this way cannot
measure its benefit by what may be subjectively and con
sciously appropriated by man at the moment of baptism.
Withal, the appropriation fobowing the baptismal act must
itseK be regarded as the effect of baptismal grace. Accord
ingly baptism is the sacrament which carries in itseK the
powers of regeneration from the preparatory workings of sal
vation up to the goal All this is merely the manifesting and
revealing of the love of Christ, whose fundamental exercise is
in baptism. Through the promise holding good to him, the
baptized one receives in baptism a claim, conferred by God
HimseK, to Christ's faithful purpose of grace ; but this purpose

302 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
he has on his part to affirm and appropriate by conscious
volition. Consequently, within the circle of Christendom
baptism must occupy the position, where all the workings of
grace may most certainly appear as the outflow of Christ's
purpose to receive the chbd into His communion, And in
response to a request on sufficient grounds the Church must
baptize so early, that ab its influences on the child in inter
cession, education, and instruction may be based not on the
choice and power of the Church, or on the disposition and
ripeness of the child, but in the last resort on the grace of
Christ made known in the sacrament, and solemnly pledged
by Christ, or on the fact, that through baptism in His name
Christ has already declared that He regards the child as an
object of His good wib.

B. — The Church as a Reflection of the Substitutionary Love of
Christ, or the Confirming Church.
§ 142.
The high-priestly love of Christ, continued in Holy Baptism,
is also the principle of ab the priestly spirit which
reflects Christ in the Church. On this above ab is
based intercession, and also ab condescending love in
the Church which is reflective of Christ. Such love
has its sphere of activity on behalf of the needy in a
material and spiritual respect, partly in a free, partly in
an organized form. But it embraces principally the
entire sphere of training immature into mature members
of the Church, the divisions of which are Psedagogy
and Catechesis (Education and Instruction). It is here
proved, that the most perfect administration of baptism
is that by which it becomes possible to place the entire
development of bfe under the dominion of Christian
grace ; and thus it is' made no less clear that the Baptizing
Church is only a reflection of the love of Christ by
becoming a Confirming Church.

CONFIRMATION. 303
1. All love has in it a substitutionary spirit.1 On the
other hand, ab spiritual development in man is brought about
,by the mature spiritual life at first living and working vica
riously in the stbl weak and merely germinant life, in order
by the nourishment suppbed to awaken independent life in
the latter. The reflecting of Christ's high-priestly office by
the church has therefore endless scope for exercise. But it
cannot show its substitutionary character so well in the
relation of equal to equal, as in its relation to the unequal.
By putting itself on a level with the needy or inferior by
sympathy and communication, and therefore as active love in
the relation Of inequabty, it seeks to effect an equality for
the purpose of intensive febowship in love.
2. The wide spheres here brought into view are, firstly, of
a free kind Here come in ab informal, casual, unconnected
activities of substitutionary love in a material and spiritual
respect (Beneficence, Christian Associations of every kind,
Home Missions). But the Church has also to provide for a
fixed system of charity, and to organize itseK for this purpose.
Here comes into view in a material respect the regular pro
vision for widows, orphans, sick, and all sufferers. The earliest
church organized the diaconate before it organized its govern
ment and administration.2 It cabed the poor the altar of the
church, in order to express the priestly character of care for
the poor. This is in a peculiar sense the duty of the Church,3
not of the State ; for its principle is to endeavour through the
spirit of love to effect an equabzation (although not an
identification) of the distinctions in the community, whereas
the primary duty of the State is to guard the distinctions.
The parable of the mercKul Samaritan shows that diversity
of faith is no limit to Christian love. On the contrary, such
diversity is a chabenge to it to communicate not merely
material good, but also the highest good — the Gospel — by
missions among non-Christians. Nor is Christian love com
municative merely according to the degree of good desert.
It imitates God, who makes His sun to shine on the just and
1 § 120 f. » Acts vi. l ff.
3 Cf. Schleiermacher's Predigten Uber den christlichen Hausstand. The
function of the State is not to be beneficent but just, and therefore to guard the
right of the personality to self-preservation.

304 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
unjust. But of course one of its inner laws is, not to salve
spiritual wounds by material gifts, but by material to pave the
way for mental and spiritual gifts. A further inner law is,
that according to the apostobc saying we are to do good to
every man, but chiefly to kinsmen in faith as well as in blood.1
Christian love acknowledges therefore degrees in love and in
the duty of showing love. In a spiritual respect, the high-
priestly spirit of Christ is reflected in everything belonging to
care for the souls of others, to care for souls in the widest
sense, chiefly in education and instruction. The spirit of
vicarious love is the soul of ab labour of the Christian
educator and teacher. This substitutionary love of the
church takes an organized form, on the basis of baptism and
especiaby of infant-baptism, in regulated Christian labour in
maturing the immature members of the Church by Christian
education and instruction in school and Church. Baptism
shows the end and the method. The end is sonship to God
as a conscious possession and exercise, and therefore free
Christian personality, which has to reveal itseK along all
the radii of the spirit. Education has to take into view
the totality of man, and that under the viewpoint of the wib,
which requires discipline along with positive excitation.
The organization of Church-instruction is Catechesis. The
method for both is determined by the end. As the latter is
free personabty, ab drib, and mechanism, ab forced schooling,
is excluded as mere compulsion to legabty. On the other
hand, it is authority of a substitutionary kind, which presents
the right contents to the immature spirit. Hence good, fixed
habits and training to obedience are essential to the forming
of Christian character. To declare of fub age on any other
basis than that laid in Holy Baptism does not strengthen and
cobect, but scatters the powers of freedom. But if infant
baptism impbes that not merely the world of adults but also
the chdd-world, nay entire nations, are to be laid hold of by
Christianity, the demand for a system of national Christian
education is a logical inference.
3. The substitution of the Church for the individual has its
place in reference to immaturity, but its end is maturity.
The Church is substitutory for the individual, in so far as
1 Gal. vi. 10 ; 1 Tim. v. 8.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 305
that, where infant-baptism obtains, it vicariously preserves
th« knowledge of his baptism, of his reception into Christ's
febowship. But it not merely communicates this knowledge
to the individual when consciousness is awakened, but employs
and renders it fruitful through its intercession and its love
exercised in education and instruction. But this activity
culminates in Confirmation. The latter is neither a repetition
nor substitute, nor supplementing of the sacrament of
Baptism.1 The sacrament lacks nothing in itseK or objec
tively, since it possesses abiding significance. Rather the
purpose of Confirmation is to supply something lacking on
the subjective side, and necessarby lacking in infant-baptism.
This something, however, so little confers its validity on the
sacrament, that the blessmg of Confirmation must rather be
regarded as the outflow of baptism. The work of the confirm
ing Church is not to communicate the Holy Spirit. Express
divine institution and promise are wanting to Confirmation.
The Church has simply to labour for this, that the baptized
one by faith, confession, and practical vows may on his part
make the covenant concluded with him on God's part a reality,
in order that the communion preveniently formed by Christ
in baptism may become mutual. By this means the believer
is qualified to be a guest at the Holy Supper. Confirmation as
an act of the Church is under this aspect a testimony to
admission to the Holy Supper, i.e. a testimony to personal
fitness for receiving all the spiritual blessings of the church.
But it is not on this account a testimony to fitness for acting
in and upon the Church, for which a more mature physical
age is necessary. THIRD POINT.
A. — The Continuation of the Kingly Office of Christ,
or the Holy Supper.
§ 143.
The Holy Supper is not merely a memorial-sign of Christ's
meritorious suffering and death, but in abusion to the
Passover, of which it is the completion, the N. T. com-
1 Cf. §§ 140, 141.
Dorner.— Christ. Doct. iv. U

306 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
munioh- or covenant-meal between Christ the Head and
His people on the one hand, and between bebevers among
themselves on the other, — a meal prepared by the Lord
HimseK, who — at . once Giver and gKt — imparts His
body and blood to His guests in order to the closest
union with Him and with each other.
Literature. — Cf. Nitzsch, Dogmengesch. I. p. 396, 1870.
Honing, Die Lehre der altesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben und
Kultus der Christenheit, 1851. Steitz, Die Abendmahlslehre der
griechischen Kirche, Jdhrb. f. d. Theol. 1864-1867. The doctrine
of the first centuries is discussed also by Dobinger, Engelhardt,
Rinck, Marheinecke, Patrum de Prcesentia Christi in coena
Domini sententia triplex, Heidelb. 1811. Paschasius Radbert,
Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini. His opponent, Ratram-
nus, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini ad Carolum Calvum. H.
Reuter, De Erroribus qui estate media Doctrinam Christianam
de S. Eucharistia turpdverunt, 1840. H. J. Holtzmann, De
Corpore et Sanguine Christi quce statuta fuerint in Ecclesia
examinantur, 1858. With this comp. his essay, Darmst. Allg.
K. Z., 1858. Scheibel has written several works on the Supper
from 1823 onwards. Rudelbach, Reformation, Lutherthum
und Union, 1839. Lindner, Die Lehre vom heiligen AbendmaM,
1831. Schulthess, Die Lehre vom heiligen AbendmaM nach den
fwnf unterschieden Ansichten, die sich . aus dem N. T, scheinbar
ergeben, 1824. Dav. Schultz, Die christi. Lehre vom heiligen
AbendmaM nach dem Grundtext des N. T. mit einem Abriss der
Geschichte dieser Lehre, 1824, ed. 2, 1831. Schenkel, Wesen der
Protestantismus, I., and his Dogmatik, as web as his article
Abendmahlsstreit in Herzog's Theol. Redlencycl. I. ed 1. Ebrard,
Das Dogma vom heiligen AbendmaM und seine GeschicMe, 2 vols.
1845,46. Kahnis, Die Lehre vom AbendmaM, 1851. Stier, R.,
Das heilige AbendmaM, exegetisch-dogmatische Abhandlung im
Sinne der Union, 1855. (From the Sixth Part of the Reden des
Herrn Jesu — Words of the Lord Jesus.) Jul. Midler, Lutheri et
Calvini Sententice de Sacra Coena inter se comparatce, 1853.
Ibid. Die evangelische Union, ihr Wesen und gottliches RecM,
1854 ; also his article AbendmaM, Herzog's Real-Encycl. ed. 1,
1854. Stahl, Fr. Jul., Die lutherische Kirche und die Union,
1859. (To Rud. Stier's " Critical Review," 1859, of this book
Stahl has given a rejoinder in the appendix to the 2d ed. of
his work, 1860.) Dieckhoff, Die evangelische Abendmahlslehre
im Reformationszeitalter geschicMlich ddrgestellt, vol. i. 1854.
Melanchthon's Abendmahlslehre in Herrbnger's Theol. Melanch-

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 307
thon, pp. 123-166, 1879. Riickert, Das heilige AbendmaM, sein
Wesen und seine Geschichte in der alten Kirche, 1856. Keim,
Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1859 (on the Schwabian Syn-
gramma). Hasse, Das Leben des verkldrten Erlosers in Himmel,
1854. Sartorius, E., Dorpater Abhandlungen, 1860, ed. 7 ; Medita-
tionen iiber die Offenbarungen der Herrlichkeit Gottes in seiner
Kirche und besonders uber die Gegenwart des verkldrten Leibes
und Blutes Christi im heiligen AbendmaM, 1855. Thomasius,
Christi Person und Werk, vol. ib., Abth. b. p. 47 ff. Schoberlein,
Die Grundlehren des Heils, entwickelt aus. dem Princip der Idebe,
1848 ; ibid. Die Geheimnisse d. Glaubens u. Princip u. System d.
Dogmatik, 1881. Rocholl, Die Realprdsenz. Schmidt,, R, Stud.
u. KHt. 1879, Heft 2, 3, zur Charakteristik der luth. Sacra-
mentslehre, Art. 1 and 2. Martensen, Dogmatik, § 260 ff.
English Works. — Nevyn, The Doctrine of the Reformed Church
and the Lord's Supper, Mercersburg, 1850. (He seeks to gain
support for the doctrine of Calvin in opposition to Zwingle.)
Pusey, The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, a Sermon,
Oxford, 1853. R. I. Wbberforce, The Doctrine of the Holy
Eucharist, 1853, ed. 3, 1854. Denison, The Real Presence, Three
Sermons, ed. 2, 1854. Bennet, An Examination of Archd. Deni
son 's Propositions of Faith, on the Doctrine of the H. Eucharist.
W. Goode, The Nature of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist,
2 vols. 1856. Whately, The Scripture Doctrine concerning the
Sacraments, Lond. 1857. The last three combat the Romanizing
view of the Eucharist. On the other hand, Bishop Joby, The
Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist, ed. 3, 1857, and others
endeavour again to maintain even its sacrificial* character.;
I. — Biblical Doctrine.
1. The Holy Supper is a sacred action designed for repeti
tion, instituted by Christ before His final passion by way of
bequest,1 in any case in abusion to the Passover, whatever
the relation of the Passover to the day of Christ's death. He
marks its high significance by this among other things, by
making it the expression and setting forth of the new
covenant2 in distinction from the old, and consequently
affirms that the prediction of a new covenant is fulfilled.
The blood of the Paschal sacrifice blessed the Israelites only
by external means, partly through sprinkling of the posts of
1 Matt. xxvi. 26 f. ; Mark xiv. 22-25 ; Luke xxii. 18-20 ; 1 .Cor. x. 15 f.,
xi. 23-30. Cf. John vi.
2 The cup is called the cup of the new. covenant.

308 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
the houses, partly through sprinkling of the altar, in the case
of the covenant-sacrifice (of which the Passover reminds) also
through sprinkling the people. In the Supper, on the other
hand, bebevers are to be made directly partakers of the body
and blood of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb, and therewith
of His personality, His merit and bfe. Certainly it is founded
also in memory of Him, and this element ought not to be
undervalued, precisely because it recalls most definitely the
intention of Jesus, that it should be repeated. It is ordained
in remembrance of Him, and therefore for the future. This
is denied by Riickert (and by the Quakers in another form).
The most trustworthy account, he thinks, is given by Mark
and Matthew, from whom Paul and John diverge by inter
mixing the notion of a glorified body of Christ. The original
state of the case, according to him, is as fobows : " Moved by
the thought of His sacrificial death and by love to His fol
lowers, and therefore by the thought of His departure, Christ
desired to perform a symbolic action accompanied with prayer,
and to include His disciples in it. As the prophet by the
symbolic breaking of a stone pitcher symbolized the overthrow
of the city,1 so Christ by breaking the bread wished to sym-
bobze His approaching death, and to invite His disciples
before His death to undergo His death with Him. Christ
as bttle thought of an institution for the future through the
Supper as of a gift." But the conception of this meal as a
sacred act meant to be repeated, undoubtedly goes back to the
apostles, who have probabibty in their favour when they are
summoned to give the true meaning of the Lord in preference
to exegetes of the 19th century. The entire primitive Church
without exception celebrated this meal as Christ's institution.
Again, the text of the words and the symbols are incompatible
with this interpretation, as with that of the Quakers, which
assumes merely a teaching or promise of a spiritual gKt
clothed in sensuous language. Were the symbolizing of His
death the chief matter, the cup also must be meant in some
way to express the destroying of His bfe, bke the bread
which is broken. But since there is no mention of a pouring
out of the wine, the parabebsm of the action is inconsistent
with this interpretation. The cup is drunk as the bread is
' Jer. xix. 10 f.

THE lord's supper. 309
eaten. Riickert is unable to assign a meaning to either, because
he supposes that no gift is in question. But why does Christ
say : Take, eat, drink ? Nor can the breaking of the bread
mean principaby the breaking of His body, for His body was
not broken.1 It is more natural to refer the breaking of the
bread to the distribution for eating in common.2 Paul desires
the Lord's death to be announced through this meal untb He
come, and with him Luke records the addition : " Do this in
remembrance of me."8 The chief argument adduced by
Riickert against the correctness of the conception held by
the Church in all ages is : According to it, the first Supper
could not be the same as the later one, which however must
he required K the action on the eve of His passion were meant
to be the institution of a permanent rite. Now, he says,
Christ is no longer visible, the body belonging to His state of
humiliation is now glorified Conversely, He could not at
that time communicate His glorified body, because He was
not yet glorified. Consequently identity is in any case
wantmg between the Supper on that evening and the present
one in the church, which latter is therefore without institu
tion. Moreover, the natural body of Christ could not have
been given on that evening, therefore the aim of the action is
merely symbobcal. The Church interpretation is only the
result of a forced combination with the glorified body of
Christ on the part of John and Paul To this argument we
cannot reply, that Christ's body was already glorified before
His death.* Had Christ possessed His resurrection-body
already in the Transfiguration on the Mount, the subsequent
Resurrection, nay, even His death as a separation of the soul
from the body, would be an ibusion. The Transfiguration
must be regarded not as a transforming of the substance, but
simply as an irradiating of His bodby manifestation by the
bursting forth of His inner glory. But a certain difference in
the first Supper from the later one, an unrepeatableness of
the former in certain respects, which must of course be con
ceded, does not do away with the essential identity. The
first Supper may well be an instituting of the Supper which
has to be repeated to some extent in another form. As Holy
1 John xix. 33, 36. s Acts ii. 46. 8 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26 ; Luke xxii 19.
* Matt. xvii. would be appealed to in vain in favour of the notion.

310 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
Baptism has a progressive history from tbe 0. T. and circum
cision along with sacred washings onwards, and again from
John's baptism and that of the disciples untb Pentecost,' when
first the completion of baptism by the Holy Spirit' took place,
and as nevertheless an inner concatenation exists, by which
the one form points by way of promise to the other, the Old
Testament and Johannine form typically to the New Testa
ment one as its fulfilment, so is it with the Holy Supper.
The conception of the Supper is seeking its realization from
the time of the Passover. In the latter, neither the expiation
nor the communion with God was perfect and intrinsic ; but
stbl the highest solemnity even in the 0. T. cultus was the
eating at God's table, which is bkewise the matter in question
in the Holy Supper. But even after its institution the con
ception of the Supper has several stages of reabzation. The
common element is, that Christ, desires to make Himself a
gift to those invited to God's table. The communion with
God expressed' typically in the 0. T. is now communion with
Christ, who desires to keep the Supper with His disciples,
that He may give Himself to them without reserve. But He
desires to give HimseK as He is at the time, and this of course
differs in different states.1 In the state of Humibation He
cannot give what He gives in the state of Exaltation 2 as the
glorified, kingly Host, although His body is the same, and
although His people always receive what they have receptive
ness for. The one form is ever typical, promissory of the
fobowing one, a circumstance already abuded to in the words
at the institution, which speak of a new eating in His kingdom.
Even at the first Supper He makes Himself over to them ; there
they possess and partake of His real bodby presence, His self-
sacrificing love and faithfulness with the promise, that as He
is now going to death for them, whom He cabs friends, so He
will remain the Mediator of the New Covenant for them. Thus
His seK-forgetting purpose of love, which desires to surrender
itself for and to them, finds expression even in the first Supper.
He gives Himself there to be partaken of in the way which
the circumstances and their degree of receptiveness made
possible. For He wib only be completely in them, they wbl
only be able to receive Him with complete intimacy, when He
1 John xiv. 21 ff., xvi. 25. s John vii. 39, xvi. 7, xiv. 23, cf. xvii. 21-24.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 311
is perfected and glorified, and when the Holy Spirit, whom He
wbl send as Head and King of His people, has opened their
inmost nature to Him. Hence, the further second stage is the
breaking of bread in the Apostolic Church, or our present
Holy Supper, which offers us more, because the glorified Lord
as the Head of His people can now carry out His personal
presence and loving surrender to us in an inward and spiritu
ally real way. But in the third place, at the institution of
the Supper He promises to come again, points again to a
perfected Supper, which He wbl drink with them anew in
His Father's kingdom.1 In the Gospel of John also,2 where
the idea of the Holy Supper finds expression, He points to the
last period when its fub reabzation shab be seen for the first
time. For these reasons the institution of the Holy Supper
for the future, although not in a form always the same, is
certain. But what, then, is the more precise meaning of the
words of institution ?
2. They are not handed down to us in unKorm terms,
from which it may justly be inferred, since the early church
received these different forms without opposition, that they ab
contain what is essential. At least the essential part must
not be discovered in that in which they vary. Now, that
lari may mean signifies is beyond question, and ought
never to have been denied In proof, it is enough to refer
to the interpretation of the Parables. The meaning then
certainly is : The bread is a figure of my body. But in the
days of the Reformation the Schwabians rightly said, the
question does not depend on this point. The typical part in
the act can in no case be denied The elements remain, and
even the Romish Church cannot quite get rid of the " sign,"
only that it makes what remains after transubstantiation a
mere sign even of the substance of the bread and wine. The
chief point must be in this, of what the bread and wine are
meant to be a figure to us. If of that which as an object of
remembrance is merely past and absent, as of the breaking of
His body and shedding of His blood, this would lead to
Zwingle's theory, according to which the Holy Supper is a
1 Luke xxii 30, cf, ver. 18 ; Matt. xxii. 2, xxv. 10, which in Rev. xix. 7 is
called the marriage-supper of the Lamb.
1 John vi 44, 54-58, cf.. xv. i ff., xiv. 23, xvii. 21 ff.

312 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
commemorative sign, associated with thanksgiving and con
fession. But in this case, as in Ruckert's interpretation, the
words, " Take, eat," would contain no meaning, or at least not
a natural one, because bebeving, thankful commemoration is
not a taking, but presupposes a having taken, whbe in itself
it would be better regarded as an act in response. Were it said
that the words have reference to the fruit of His death,
the atonement, and were the commemoration of His death —
supposed also to he a receiving or " taking " of this fruit —
the forgiveness of sins, to this is opposed the consideration
that before His atoning death Christ could not well say,
" Take, eat " the fruit of my death. Moreover, the symbolism
which thus results would be confused and indistinct. For
the bread as broken would be a type of His death, His death
again being a description of the forgiveness which is its fruit,
and of which we are to partake. The elements also do not
point with sufficient clearness to His dying, for, as already
said, the wine is not poured out; and it is altogether an
unusual phrase to say, that Christ's atonement is to be eaten
and drunk. Since, then, the elements in the sacred act exist
to be partaken of, and are partaken of, denoting consequently
a gKt to be received, and since the words, "Eat, drink,"
cannot mean a past or future gKt, aU that is left to be said
is : The symbolism denotes a present gift offered to be partaken
of; the elements are aliments. But that which is offered
under the symbobc veil of the elements is described by Christ
in the words "my body" and "my blood," by which, in
opposition to anything merely ideal or merely material, is
meant the entire reabty of His personabty, Christ HimseK
with body and blood; and in order to understand the full
meaning of the act instituted for all future time, we must go
back to the import of Christ's person in general, and its
relation to bebevers as their Head, to His parable of the vine
and branches, to His words of promise, such as : " Where two
or three are gathered together in my name, there amlin the
midst of them ; " " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the
end of the world j"1 further, to His exaltation to be the Head
of the Church and the glorification of His entire person;
finaby, in general to His loving purpose, which desires to give
1 Matt, xviii. 20, xxviii, 20.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 313
HimseK with princely generosity unreservedly to His people.1
When we consider, further, that in the discourse at Caper
naum 2 " flesh and blood," because synonymous with " body
and blood," denotes His entire bving real personality,3 it is
clear that under the symbobc ved of the elements He desires
to give HimseK to them in the full and entire reality of His
person, and to invite them to partake of the same. Thus His
loving purpose, expressed in the words of institution, is seen
to be this : In true seK-surrender to them He desires to he
received by them and dweU in them as their potent principle
of bfe.4 The elements are symbols of the eating unto eternal
bfe. The Holy Supper is therefore the meal of Christ's
personal communion with believers, whom in the farewell
discourses He therefore cabs His "friends,"6 as simbarly the
figure of the bridegroom and bride or husband and wKe
denotes a mutual bfe of two in each other.6 The discourse in
Capernaum is a proof that Christ had this institution in mind
long before. It is true, according to that discourse, faith
is able to partake of Christ's flesh and blood, without the
presence of the outward elements ; r but this must not be em
ployed to depreciate the import of the Holy Supper, hut
rather to enhance the import of faith and of the Word of
God, which faith grasps. Faith is already " spiritual eating,"
bving communion with Christ, real participation in Him, the
Word also as a means of grace conducting us to Christ.
What value, again, belongs to the connection of sacramental
signs with the Word and the spiritual gift, was discussed
before.8 The elements employed in the Supper are used also
in other discourses to describe this complete bving commu
nion with Christ. The discourse at Capernaum joins on to the
multipbcation of loaves and the manna, and promises in His
person, which offers itseK to the participation of faith, a better
bread from heaven.9 And after the Supper, Jesus says the
1 These passages prove also that, according to the meaning of Christ, the
words of institution cannot signify giving a share in His body and blood apart
from His soul or person.
2 John vi. 3 Like the <ru/utnxus, Col. ii. 9.
* John xv. 4 ff., xiv. 20-23, xvii. 21. • John xv. 15.
« Cf. Matt. ix. 15, xxv. 1 ; Mark ii. IS ; Luke v. 34 ; Eph. v. 28-32.
7 John vi. 29, cf. ver. 63. 8 § 137.
8 John vi 47-51, cf. vi. 32.

314 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
same as regards the wine,1 when He promises the sap, the vital
forces of the vine, to the branches abiding in Him, in which
the symbols of the Holy Supper find their clear interpretation.
§ 144. — Continuation.
II. — Development of Ecclesiastical Doctrine?
1. Even in the Christendom of the first centuries there
were very different conceptions of the Holy Supper, without
any Church division being caused thereby, or uniformity of
view being reqiiired, — especiaby a symbolic conception (e.g. in
Origen, Tertulban, and Augustine), according to which the
elements are signs of the Church or of the nourishing and
sanctifying influence of the Logos, with whom bebevers are
united, and on the other hand a mystical one (e.g. in Ignatius,
Justin Martyr, Irenseus), which saw in the Supper a union
not merely with the Logos, but with Christ and His glorified
body. To Ignatius this meal was a tpdpuatcov adavacria<}.
No more precise definition was given as to the relation of the
elements to the Logos or to Christ. The above blessing for
those celebrating in faith was viewed as connected with the
sacred action, whether the elements were regarded merely as
symbols of the Logos, or as media of the union with the
actuaby present God-man
It was in keeping with the indefiniteness and looseness of
the relation of the elements to the thing, that the elements
played an independent part alongside the sacrament as a
communion, and were specially employed in divine worship.
Since sacrificial gifts were also joined with the Supper as
thankofferings for the benefits of Christ, the Holy Supper
became a " Eucharist," and a sacrifice, certainly not of Christ,
but of the earthly sacrificial gifts. The Supper was only
changed into the sacrificium of the Mass after the earthly
elements had vanished into a mere semblance through the
1 John xv. 1 ff., cf. vi. 53.
8 Conf. Aug. x. ; Apol. 157 ; Art. Sm. 330 ; Cat. 380, 402, 551 ; Epit.
597 ff.; Sol. Decl. 724; Heidelb. Cat. Qu. 75 ff. Other passages of the Re
formed Symbols in Augusti, pp. 73 ff., 99 ff., 105, 123, 137, 164, 193 ff., 244 ff.,
256 ff., 304 ff., 377, 401 ff., 430.

THE lord's supper. 315
transubstahtiation-doctrine of Paschasius Radbert and Lan-
franc. Christ's body and blood were put in their place, and
treated in just the same way as the elements had been before,
namely, as a sacrifice.
But. long before this time it had become customary to
recognize a miraculous mystery in the Holy Supper in the
Greek Church also, which was moreover fond of deriving the
highest blessings from the Logos. Even Cyril of Jerusalem
and the scholar of the moderate Antiochians, Chrysostom,
adhered to the view, that in the Holy Supper a mysterious
connection of the God-man with the elements, not merely
with the action, takes place, the relation of the elements to
Christ's body and blood being described as fieraBoXtf. In
itseK this might be regarded as a rhetorical expression to
exalt the elements after consecration in the eyes of faith ; but
in any case, such bturgical formulse promoted the magical
conception of a real transformation of the elements. Never
theless the Greek doctrine remains distinct from the Romish
transubstantiation. The latter makes the elements to be
annihbated as to substance, and merely the semblance — the
species, figura, of the same — to be left. The Greeks en
deavour so to interpret the miracle x as to suppose the elements
to continue, whbe holding a transference of them to the
substance of the body and blood (not by human power, e.g. of
the priest, but by the Holy Spirit), whereby they become
accidents of this other substance. The transformation is
therefore to be regarded as an implanting in another sub
stance, which reminds us most of Justin Martyr, who makes
the elements to be assumed by the God-man. The Greeks,
however, notwithstanding the analogy of the Incarnation
suggested here, reject the hypostatic union of Christ with the
elements. The obverse, then, of this implanting in Christ's
body and blood is, that Christ's body and blood sustain the
elements and are present under their veiL2
1 Conf. Orthod. ed. Kimmel, 169 ff.; Confess. Dosith. Deer. 17, p. 457 ff.;
Confess. Metrophanis Critopul. p. 100.
3 The Greek Church rejects a transformation in the sense of the identification
of the elements with Christ's body and blood ; it does not make the same
happen to Christ's body and blood as happens to the elements in the act of
partaking. This brings it near to the Lutheran doctrine. Only the latter
declines to make the substance of the elements an accident in another substance,

316 EXISTENCE OF" THE CHURCH.
2. In the sixteenth century the different conceptions of the
Holy Supper, opposed to the Romish one, became the cause
of church divisions. The farthest apart are the Romish and
the Socinian view, with which that of Zwingle x is in affinity.
They form extremes, but touch again in this respect, that
both see chiefly in the Holy Supper a human performance, a
work or a gKt to God. According to Romish teaching,2
through transubstantiation of the elements the consecrating
priest obtains the object, which is then on one side presented
to God in the sacrifice of the mass, and on the other par
taken of. The sacrifice of the mass, taking place most fre
quently in the form of the sUent mass, plays here a greater part
than communion, which is further curtabed by withdrawal
of the cup in opposition to the word, " Drink ye all of this."
In the sacrifice of Christ eternally vabd and potent without
repetition the Evangelical Church has, without the mass-
sacrifice of which the act of institution knows nothing, greater
wealth than the .Romish, and instead of the mystermm tre-
mendum makes Christ's communion of love to be imparted to
the believer. The magical character of the Romish doctrine
thus ends in a similarity with Socinianism, namely in an
Ergism [a doing], not indeed on the part of the individual,
but of the Church, which out of the plenitude of its authority
subordinates the receiving from God and Christ to a gKt to
God The Socinians3 of cour.se see in the Holy Supper
nothing sacramental, not even a strengthening of faith, but
simply a sacred rite, in which, in thankful remembrance of
Christ's death, faith is to be confessed and febowship ex
hibited. To them it is a signum professionis, tessera com-
munionis, able to minister admonition and encouragement to
the individual. Zwingle, to whom the Holy Supper was a
commemorative meal in connection with a sign of obbgation,
also regards it as a performance, keeping it therefore in the
subjective sphere, and making of it an ethical sacrament, so
but accepts a consubstantiatio instead of insubstantiatio. On the difference
indicated between the Greek /unwriimt and the Latin Transubstantiatio, the
treatises of Steitz mentioned above, and a work of Professor Rhossis of Athens
on the Holy Supper, should be compared.
1 In the form in which he maintained it in the controversy with Luther.
2 Trident, sess. 22.
8 Cat. Racov. Q. 334 ff. ; Socin. De Coena Domini.

THE lord's supper. 317
to speak, i.e. a sacrificial action. Nevertheless in his last
years Zwingle returned to his former standpoint, according to
which the Holy Supper is not merely a sign of a past thing
and commemoration thereof, but a means of grace and present
gift. The latter became the rubng type in the Reformed
Symbols, especiaby through Calvin, who is herein at one with
Luther. Calvin teaches that faith is raised by the Holy
Spirit to Christ, in order to be fed and nourished from His
divine-human substance, the result being the quickening of
the spiritual man, and a blessing in relation to the resurrec
tion. This reference in ancient Christendom to immortal life
joins on naturally to the quickening of the bebever's person
ality due to the Supper, and has been accepted by Lutheran
dogmatists, especially since Hobaz, and in recent days eagerly
defended as specificaby Lutheran, whereas Luther did not
emphasize this thought, perhaps because according to him
unbebevers also partake of Christ's body and blood, whilst in
reference to them Christ's body cannot have the resurrection-
body for its effect1 With Luther, the body of Christ in the
1 He could also dispense with it, because he ascribed an indirect influence
even on the body to believing fellowship with Christ, Cat. Maj. 565. Luther
indeed accepts already in 1523 the real presence of Christ's body and blood
through mediation of the Word (Erlang. ed. vol. 28, p. 388 ff.), without, how
ever, giving them an independent significance ; they are to him merely a
sealing or certifying of the real blessing of salvation. He regards them as a
potent pledge of the atonement, because forgiveness was procured by them in
their sacrificial character, and therefore depends on them, so to speak, as their
effect and fruit (Walch, Werke, xx. p. 364 f.). In the Treatise against the
Heavenly Prophets he says : We must get comfort for an evil conscience, not
in the bread and wine, not in the body and blood of Christ, but in the Word
which presents Christ's body and blood as given for us. Certainly Christ's
body and blood are caUed again a treasure given for the forgiveness of sins,
which is the other chief treasure (R. Schmidt, p. 403). But even then Christ's
body and blood are not regarded as a special priceless blessing, but only as the
secure media for conveying forgiveness to us. But that Luther does not annex
forgiveness exclusively to the sacrament is known well enough, following
necessarily from his doctrine of the Word. The distinctive feature of the
sacrament is the appropriation to the person, and to this the communicated
body and blood of Christ are subservient. Several times Luther has described
Christ's body and blood also as food, not merely as a sign (xx. 1046, 1055), by
means of which immortality is imparted to the body (the chief passages in
Schmidt, pp. 419-424 ; cf. Kostlin, LutJier's Theologie, ii. 159-163, 516, and
J. Muller, Dogm. Abh. 416 f.), but nothing is found of such an immediate
influence on the resurrection-body in the Lutheran Confessions ; and after the
controversy with the Swiss, he is silent on this point.

318, EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
Supper is not so much a blessing of independent significance 1
as rather a pledge of another — that of forgiveness (cf. F. C.
601, 744, 807). On the other hand, in the Reformed
Symbols the importance of the Supper in reference to immor-
tabty or the resurrection is early mentioned.2 The Zwinglian
doctrine is maintained in none of the more widespread Re
formed Symbols, although a moderateness averse to everything
mystical gained ground to some extent in portions of the
Reformed Church, which was also the case in various forms
in the Lutheran Church after 1750. The common Evan
gelical doctrine may therefore be stated as fobows : The
taking of this meal is to bebevers a participation in Christ's
living entire personality, which in any case is meant by the
body and blood of Christ, since no party speaks of a partaking
of the body and blood by themselves apart from the thean
thropic person.3 The difference between the two Evangebcal
Confessions relates to the way in which the elements and the
invisible grace are supposed to be connected, on which also
of course depends the relation of the sacrament to bebevers
and unbelievers. The Augsburg Confession teaches: Quod
corpus et sanguis Christi vere adsint et distribuantur vescenti-
hus in Coena Domini. On the other hand, the Variata has :
Quod cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis
Christi vescentibus in Coena Domini. The latter form wishes
to leave room also for those who abow no partaking of Christ's
body and blood on the part of unbebevers. The exhibeantur
instead of distribuantur goes back to the doctrinal type of the
Swabian Syngramma approved by Luther for a time, which
teaches an equal offering (offerre) to ab, even to unbebevers,
but without asserting a partaking by the latter. In the same
way the Variata wishes to leave room for difference of view
1 Cf. R. Schmidt, Stud. u. Krit. 1879, 2. p. 191, 3. p. 392 f .
* Gallic 36 ; Helv. 1566, c. 21 ; Scot. 21 ; Heidelb. Cat. Qu. 76. Cf. my
notice of J. Muller, "Union," Stud. u. Krit. 1855.
3 This is clear, e.g., from Form. Cone. 600, 11. 747, 75. 752, 94. 754, 101.
102. 760, 126. 783, 78. Although Luther, in the heat of the contest for the
real presence of the body and blood of Christ, puts the unity of His person and
fellowship therewith in the background, emphasizing especially the body and
blood, his meaning was not that Christ's person is absent, or the body and
blood separated from it. In any case, the Lutheran Church holds fast in its
Confession to their inseparableness from His person.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 319
in reference to the mode of Christ's presence also assumed in
the offering, and omits the improbant secus docentes, but does
not expressly exclude the partaking by unbelievers, which is
at least favoured in the Invariata by the expression, that
Christ's body and blood are given (distribuantur vescentibus)
on Christ's part to those who eat the elements. That unbe
bevers take and enjoy Christ's body and blood is consequently
not affirmed even by the Invariata. According to Luther,
Christ's body and blood are present in, sub et cum pane et
vino, by which it is affirmed that whoever receives the
elements not merely might have, but, as the Form. Cone, also
teaches, receives Christ's body and blood. But the Form.
Cone. itseK shows that the receiving is not a partaking. From
that formula of his it fobowed for Luther that the eating
(manducatio) is also oralis, so far as Christ's body and blood
are received with the elements. This inference is just, K the
union of the body and blood of Christ with the elements is
absolute; for then what happens to the former is identical
with what happens to the latter, and Luther incbned to this
view, when he charged Melanchthon, on the journey to the
Cassel Conference, to maintain that Christ's body dilaniatur
et dentibus laceratur in the Holy Supper. Christ would then
certainly be treated in the Supper as passive matter.1 Never
theless, Luther's true doctrine cannot be learned from this
winged word of his. In any case, the view taken by the
Lutheran Church of the connection of Christ with the
elements is n6t so rigid, that it approves the above expressions
(which are rather expressly rejected), or that it makes a
material imprisonment of Christ (impanatio) take place.2
Further, the unio sacramentalis with the elements is not
made so indissoluble as to take place also extra usum. The
presence of Christ is not to be conceived after the manner of
the presence of the elements (not locaby), but a modus super-
naturalis of the presence obtains ; and the view is earnestly
repudiated, that the manducatio oralis is a Capernaitica one,
for. only the elements, not Christ's body and blood, experience
a lacerari dentibus? Finaby, the same conclusion fobows
1 So, in fact, the Lutheran doctrine is understood by J. Muller.
2 F. C. 600, 14.
3 600. 15. 604, 42 : quasi doceamus, corpus Chr. dentibus laniari et— digeri.

320 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
from this consideration, that, according to the Form Cone, the
unio sacramentalis with the elements is not the same for
bebevers and unbebevers after the reception of the elements.
It is not to be conceived after the manner of the Incarna
tion ; for where the Formula of Concord gives a more precise
description, it does not make a real reception of the sacra
mental gift take place in the case of the unworthy in the
same sense as a reception of the elements. For not merely
does the universal Lutheran doctrine affirm that the unworthy
do not receive the spiritual blessing annexed to faith, although
the sacramental contents are objectively present to man along
with the elements, and are presented, i.e. offered, to every one,
but a difference is made between the spbitual and material
eating. The Form. Cone, in this respect says of the unworthy :
repellunt Christum ut Salvatorem, which impbes a dissolving
of the saving unio sacramentalis by unbebef, without for this
reason faith being the power by which the unio sacramentalis
is estabbshed. When, indeed, the Form. Cone, adds : admit-
tere eoguntur Christum ut judicem1 the unio sacramentalis
might seem to be viewed as continuing even for those who
receive in unbebef, at least under this aspect, which would
involve a partaking of Christ as Judge. But the notion of
partakmg of Christ, or at least of His body and blood, as a
punitive Judge, is incongruous, because partaking affirms a
union or assimbation, whereas the Judge stands outside and
above him who is punished. The unio sacramentalis of the
body and blood of Christ could only be appbed to the purpose
of judgment on the supposition of its being right to say that
Christ's body and blood, bke poison, work destruction or
death in the case of unbebevers. But the Stuttgart Synod
of 1559 rightly declared, with J. Brentz, that Christ's body
and blood are to be regarded as a health-giving substance,
not as poison. That Christ exercises His judicial office
through a power in His body and blood which destroys the
unworthy, has never been the doctrine of the Evangebcal
Church, nor is it contained in Holy Scripture. The Form.
Cone, also maintains that in the Supper non dimidiatus tantum
Christus prcesens est? The motive for Luther's doctrine of the
partaking by unbebevers was not an independent interest in
1 F. C. 601, 17. 783, 78. » F. C. 783, 78. See p. 318, n. 3.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 321
unbelievers receiving Christ's body and blood just as certainly
as believers, but interest in securing that the sacrament
should be certain and sure to the latter, especially that the
real presence of Christ should indubitably exist to faith.1
Calvin, indeed, for his part only accepts the formula cum
pane et vino in the sense that Christ's body and blood may be
partaken of along with the elements ; but stbl he holds fast
to the objective presence and real partaking of Christ on the
part of bebevers, so that the only question to be examined is,
whether the certainty and stability of the divine promise, i.e.
of the real presence of Christ, would be abolished by not
regarding the connection of the elements with Him as so close
as that unbebevers also receive Him. The Reformed doctrine
also maintains, with Calvin, that they who perform the sacred
act unworthily, and therefore desecrate it, are exppsed by their
unbelief to the divine judgment.
The fobowing points are to be speciaby mentioned as un
solved problems in the Calvinistic doctrine : the relation of the
elements to Christ's body and blood is conceived in too for
tuitous and external a manner ; and again, Calvin thinks of
Christ as confined to a special place in heaven, and is unable
to apply to the Holy Supper the exaltation of the God-man
to freedom from space in relation to His working. And this
defect, which concerns Christology, not the sacrament directly,
has the further consequence that, in order to assure to believers
the real presence and seK-communication of Christ, believers
must be raised by the Holy Spirit to Christ in heaven. Thus
the place of the space-free condescension of Christ is taken by
the space-free Holy Spirit, who gives the believing soul a
share in His power to rise for the moment above the bmits of
space, a notion savouring of an ecstatic spirit. On the other
hand, the following problems lie before the Lutheran type of
doctrine. It lays too little stress, in reference to the Holy
Supper, on the icoivcovla of the members of Christ one with
another. But this can be amended without further trouble.2
The Reformed theologians have always emphasized this
aspect, but have frequently laid too bttle stress on the com-
1 F. C. 602, 26. Cf. 603, 37.
2 Luther emphasizes this aspect, and not merely at first. Kostlin, i 293,
ii. 519. DOBNER. — CHEIST. DOCT. IV. X

322 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
munion with Christ. Hence they do not cordiaby favotfr the
practice of private communion in the case of the • dying.
Further, the Lutheran doctrine of the Reformation age looks
too exclusively to forgiveness as a gift. The body and blood
are supposed to be merely a pledge in reference to it, not
themselves a blessmg (as the symbols of the Calvinistic type
at first rightly teach, see p. 317). But this would render
the symbobsm indistinct and confused. The visible elements
are said to be a pledge or symbol of Christ's body and blood,
and the body and blood again a pledge of forgiveness. But
forgiveness is already secured by baptism, to which man
returns by repentance, confession, and absolution before the
Supper. In the Holy Supper, therefore, a second, further
aspect of the one Christian grace must be treated of. When
we consider, further, that a pledge must be visible, which
Christ's body and blood are not, and that, on the other hand,
the elements have the character of a pledge, as the Reformed
theologians remind us, the position assigned to Christ's body
and blood in the Lutheran doctrine is almost superfluous.1
Finally, the doctrine of the partaking of unbebevers is not
clearly worked out, and is not without inconsistencies.

§ 145. — Continuation.
III. — Dogmatic Development.
1. Although the new man is in existence, he has not on
this account come to maturity. Nay, death has still to be
expebed by the new principle of life, and to this end growing
strength is necessary. Life exists when it draws the first
1 See p. 330. If, in order to avoid this unfortunate result, we said : " The body
of Christ, of the presence of which the elements are the sign, carries in itself, so
to speak, that grace of forgiveness which He procured by His suffering," while
refusing to acknowledge a saving blessing in participation in Christ's body and
blood, this would approach in substance to the Zwinglian doctrine, according to
which the Holy Supper contains merely a reference to the fruits of the death of
Jesus. That, according to the Lutheran doctrine, Christ's body and blood have
merely the meaning of a pledge in reference to the blessing of forgiveness, not
that of a special saving blessing — on this point unprejudiced inquiry is coming
more and more to agreement. Cf. J. Muller, Dogm. Abh., p. 414 ff. ; R.
Schmidt, ut supra; Ktistlin, Lutlier's Theol. ii. 516, 517.

THE lord's supper. 323
breath ; but it only remains what it is by growth, by the life
becoming active. There is stib sin even in the believer ;
where sin is, death is also. Death indeed grows of itself; it
needs no sustenance, because it feeds on the bfe that exists,
unless the latter is put on its guard and gains strength in
order thereto ; life, however, needs sustenance. But faith and
new life are not nourished of themselves. The spiritual man,
unless he is to be stunted, needs appropriate sustenance.
Preservation comes about through the same means by which
the new bfe was initiated. The regenerate believer has
become an independent centre of bfe through Christ; in
communion with Him is bfe and happiness. If the indepen
dence passed into separation from Christ, the result would be
unhappiness and spiritual barrenness, not growth. In order
to the growth of the inner man, the renewal of this communion
is necessary. And with this view the Holy Supper was
instituted, that the new man may not merely be preserved
amid the temptations, the ebb and flow of the inner life,
but may also grow in strength. But such nourishing and
strengthening, based on the power of the exalted Lord, and
hence on His kingly office, is suppbed by the Holy Supper,
not only because it is a commemorative meal and sign of
obligation to confession and febowship, and therefore a symbol
and figure of something past and future, and consequently
absent, but also because it gives what it portrays 1 through
the power and communication of the exalted Lord. The
strengthening bes in the present febowship with Him — the
Head of His kingdom, not with the Logos merely (as the
older Greek Church to some extent held), not with the man
alone. But He is our Head as the glorified eternal King,
able and willing to cause the powers of His entire theanthropic
personabty to stream into His members2 — the powers of
eternal bfe, which, although primarily spiritual and therefore
only accessible to, faith, benefit the entire bebeving personabty,
and are meant to transform even this mortal body into the
likeness of His image.3 We need the one undivided Lord,4
in whom as the God-man all antitheses have their bving
1 § 143. 2 John xv. 1 ff.
3 Cf. Rom. viii. 11 (according to the Rec.) ; Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 49.
F. C. 600, 11. 783, 78.

324 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
bond of union. But in us the antitheses — highest of all,
nature and spirit — are stbl outside, nay, opposed to each
other, and will remain so, unless the uniting potency — that
is, the power of the perfected God-man — becomes the posses
sion of those who, born of God, are brethren of Christ and
sons of God. It is part, indeed, of the earthly state of the
Church to be always possessed of an unsatisfied, persistent
longing for her bridegroom ; but all the more in her temporal
separation from the visible manifestation of the Lord, she
needs so much at least as wbl not leave, her behind the first
body of disciples, who had a living, actually historic relation
to Christ's person. Now in the Holy Supper we find Him,
K we so wish, find Christ Himself according to His promise ;
and to those who take their stand on the intuition of faith
(i.e. on the truth), the bving administration of His eternal office
which encompasses us receives the crown of its constantly
renewed, ordained revelation and working in the Holy Supper.
It is certainly one and the same undivided Christ who desires
to give Himself to faith through the Word, as on the other
hand through Holy Baptism, and finally through the Holy
Supper. Hence the Apology 1 rightly defines the gKt in the
Sacrament to be the same as in the Word. In the present
dogma the solidaric unity and entirety of Christian grace
must be maintained in opposition to a splitting up or piecing
together of that grace, as though it had no unity in the divine
purpose of grace and in the unity of Christ's person. But
despite this fact, in the order of, administration one thing is
given to man in Holy Baptism, and another in the Holy
Supper ; for the stage of the spiritual bfe before Baptism and
before the Holy Supper is so different, that man may receive
from one and the same Christ one thing in Baptism and
another in the Holy Supper. Still, although it is the un
divided Christ who is always offered, not even in the Holy -
Supper is the same always received, but in this also there are
stages. Even the disciples could not receive in the first
Supper the same as afterwards, although His gift of Himself
was always complete according to the capacity of appropriation
present. 2. Relation between Baptism and the Supper. — Holy
1 Apol. 201. 267 : Idem effectus est verbi et ritus.

THE lord's supper. 325
Baptism is the sacrament of faith, or of the initiation of faith.
The Holy Supper is the sacrament of love, of mutual love
between the Head and the members, and between the members
among themselves. Baptism works true faith, which, how
ever, is not productivity, hut spontaneous, living receptivity
to Christ's substitution. Productivity exists first in love —
the specific grace of this meal, in which Christ treats His
people as friends, consequently assumes them to be realized
personalities,1 and ministers to the fellowship of active love
to Christ and the brethren. The power of sanctification pro
ceeds from the exalted Lord, and for this reason the Holy
Supper must be placed under the head of the kingly office,
whereas Holy Baptism fabs under the substitutionary love of
Christ. The point in question in the latter is the origination
of a new personality redeemed by Christ, whereas the Holy
Supper has in view communion in the kingdom, of which He
is the Head Through the Holy Supper the union of the
Head and the members becomes mutual, the new personabty
being treated by Christ as a relatively independent power
(Grbsse), and made such in an increasing degree. There is
but one birth into the new life as into the old, and hence but
one Baptism. But we must grow through every stage, hence
the Holy Supper is to be repeated. The Western Church,
therefore, rightly withholds the Holy Supper from the whoby
immature with just as great confidence (since the effect of
baptism — faith — is presupposed thereto) as baptism is ad
ministered to them. Further, on the above grounds it is
dogmatically justifiable to lay down, that only such can receive
a share in the rights of independent members of the Church
as are qualified for reception as mature by the Lord HimseK
in the Holy Supper. Only communicants must form the
active groundwork of the Christian Church, although of course
always in different stages, and also according to the degree of
physical independence and proficiency. In the same way, it
fobows from what has been said, that the Holy Supper is the
principle of ab ecclesiastical organization, and that the leaders
of ecclesiastical government must not be sought outside the
circle of communicants. Hofling and others show how the
1 Consequently Christ's substitution remains the continuously active basis.
Gal. ii 20.

326 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
principle of the Church-cultus also is to be found in the Holy
Supper. The sacred meal, along with what it effects, possesses
power to gather the living, mature members together under
Christ the Head, and to keep them by His side. The Spirit
of love, who proceeds from the Head, is also a Spirit of
wisdom, prudence, and strength, and suppbes, therefore, the
formative principle for the organization of the Church, so that
through the Holy Supper the Church becomes a reflex of
Christ's kingly office. But as Christian love nowhere exists
without faith, so the Holy Supper presupposes Baptism, and
that as continuously active. Hence, in order to ensure the
right and worthy administration of the Holy Supper, the
Church makes a return to Baptism (i.e. the renewal of the
baptismal grace and covenant by self-examination, penitence,
confession, and absolution) go first in the Supper.1
3. Unio Sacramentalis. — But now what is the relation of
the outward signs and the thing itself in the Holy Supper ?
On this depends the objectivity of the sacrament, and the
decision as to the partaking of believers.
According to the Catholic theory, the visible elements are
absorbed and become a mere semblance. In Calvin, with
whom Schleiermacher finds fault,2 they have a too outward,
mechanical relation to the thing; for we receive the body
and the blood of Christ on occasion of the signs in the eleva
tion of faith above them, without intrinsic connection between
the gift and the elements. According to Zwingle, the thing
as a gift is absent ; the only things present are the elements
and the faith, which immediately realizes Christ's meritorious
death. The Lutheran in, sub, cum, is not merely intended to
avoid the Docetic and Ebionitic extreme, but also to express a
most intimate connection between the untransformed elements
and the thing. It does not go to the point of asserting the
identity of the signs with Christ's body and blood ; but the
difference between the two is not made clear, the union of
the two being so represented that the impression might arise,
that Christ, with His body and blood, is passively fastened to
the elements. In order, at least, to make an attempt at
1 GaL ii 20 is an expression of Christ's substitutionary life in us, or of the
baptismal blessing ; John xvii. 21, of the Holy Supper.
" Chr. Glaube, ii § 140. 4.

THE lord's supper. 327
obviating the two defects, the Word of God in Holy Writ may
be referred to. It would be Docetic to overlook its dis
tinction from the eternal Word of God, or the real spiritual
contents, and to forget the frailty of the letter. But it would
be no less mistaken to see in Holy Scripture a mere sign of
an absent thing, as if the Divine Spirit were separated from
the Word. Rather, the eternal Word renders HimseK present
in all times and places through the written Word.1 Without
losing His freedom, the eternal Word has given Himself a
manifestation, a sort of world-realization, in the Word of Holy
Writ as a means of grace. The written Word is a continua
tion of the self-revelation of the eternal Word, through which
not merely the apostolic preaching, but Christ Himself, is
rendered present to us — chbdren of a later age. Little as
Scripture is the eternal Word Himself, just as little is it a
mere dark, enigmatic sign of that Word, but a means of His
revelation and actual presence, as web as a means by which
He carries on His activity in time. We apply this dynamic
relation between Word and Spirit2 also to the Holy Supper.
The first Supper of the disciples, under one aspect, could not
be the same to them as the Supper is to us; Christ was
not yet glorified, Pentecost had not yet come. But under
another aspect it had something of which Christ's departure
from visibihty has deprived us, namely, the element of the
state of sensible presence lying in the personal, sensible
contact of His person with theirs. But this element is of
decisive importance in relation to the objectivity of living
communion with Christ, because on this depends our being
raised above mere subjective thinking and feebng, and placed
on historically real ground, in the sphere of Christ's corporeal
presence. Now in the Holy Supper present to the senses we
have a bridge to the presence of the exalted living Christ.
In order that, notwithstanding His departure, His historicaby
real communion with us — individuals — may be brought into
the present, and we may rejoice in it, He has instituted the
Holy Supper ; and through the visible elements, employed in
the Supper in accordance with His wbl, that lost element of
1 § 135.
8 This points back to the inner connection and the co-ordination of matter
and force, spirit and body. See vol. i. § 38.

328 existence of the church.
visibility and of historically real contact with His institutory
wbl is restored to faith. Nay, the contact is with Christ
Himself, to whom the firmly bnked chain of the Christian
generations leads back the faith, which apprehends and ex
periences the past as Christ's act, at once present and self-
renewing. In these sensibly real elements, or more strictly in
the act continuing according- to His institutory wbl through
the Church as His organ, and using those elements — an act
bearing the unmistakeable traces of His historic work and
continued government — we have a ladder to the presence of
His real divine-human Person, such as the apostles had in the
visibility of His bodily manifestation, so that even in this
respect we are not behind them. As the disciples at the
Emmaus-board became conscious of His real presence after
the first Supper in the act of breaking bread, so under His
direction the same legacy has been faithfuby transmitted
from the primitive Church to the Church of after-ages. Thus
the objectivity of the sacrament enables us to become conscious
of and rejoice in that realized presence of His, which is the
ground of the trustworthiness and blessing of the sacrament.
This objectivity or certainty that Christ is present, where
His Supper is administered in harmony with His institution,
does not rest on faith, rather faith rests on it. It is not faith
which makes the sacrament a sacrament, not faith first, but His
will connects Christ with the act, and the elements subserving
the act. Just as little does the power or intention of the
administrator or consecrator do this. The consecration or
setting apart of the elements to sacred use, or their consecra
tion by prayer, is necessary indeed to the due administration ;
but the words exert no magic charm on Christ — He is and
remains master of Himself and the Church.1 According to
the doctrine of the Evangelical Church, Christ's presence is
only promised to the act as a whole, to the partaking, not
extra uswm. Nor does Christ's presence depend on any
change in the elements themselves. For example, it does not
depend on the elements — those local things— including or
retaining Christ's body and blood, in which case Christ would
be so bound to them, that what befabs the elements would
also befall His body and blood.2 No change in the elements
1 F. C. 747, 73 ff. 2 F. C. 600, 14.

THE LORD S SUPPER. 329
takes place, and Christ's glorified body can no longer be held
fast in a passive way, or by something outside Him. There
is no tangible security for His presence. Its certainty is
rather based on His fidelity to His kingly promise and
purpose, which is continued in the preservation of His institu
tion both of the Church and of the Holy Supper. If this
presence of His is so assured to Christendom, that it can only
be doubted by one who doubts the purpose of His institution
and promise, or the power of the kingly Head to be faithful
to His promise, then it is a point of dispute scarcely worth
naming, and of no rebgious importance, as to whether Christ
is connected " with the elements in and under them," or with
the act of the Supper. But since the reality of the Supper
can only be decided by the use of the elements, and the act
is inconceivable without them, whbe in any case the elements
are the pledge of present grace, it is not easy to see what
sort of reason there is on the Reformed side for excluding
Christ's presence from the elements and limiting it to the act,
supposing that the propositions concerning Christ's permanent
theanthropic working are admitted -1 and on the other hand,
the thought of a spatial inclusion of Christ in the elements is .
kept at a distance. Every theory must in the end go back
to the promise of Christ, to the effect that He desires to
be the present gift in the Supper. That promise implies,
therefore, that the present Christ reaby offers Himself, through
the entire act, to every one taking the outward elements,
consequently to unbelievers also. As Christ truly and ear
nestly, offers grace in the Word, and as far as He is
concerned not merely to believers, so is it in the Holy
Supper. The objective grace exists for all, and this is the
essential point ¦? but there is a difference in the taking, and
hence in the effect also. As unbelief only receives the
sensible word with the bodby ear, while the inner ear or
heart is closed to the meaning and truth of the Word, so too
may it be in the Holy Supper. The saving blessing (Christus
Ut Salvator) is rejected (repellunt) by the unbeliever,3 therefore
not accepted. And since the unbeliever takes the elements
bke the believer, and Christ offered HimseK in the act in
which the unbebever takes part under the guise of a believer,
1 §§ 126. 127. ' Cat. Maj. 558. 3 F. C. 601, 17.

330 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
unbelief renders void Christ's promise and purpose, which
held good also to him, by this wicked, hypocritical conduct ;
and whereas he receives nothing, but the elements, thus
making the sacrament a common eating or empty ceremony,
he sins against the Lord and draws down judgment on
himself.1 The opinion is now almost universaby given up,2
and rightly, that unbelievers also may really partake of
Christ's body and blood, not merely receive the objective
offer. Christ's promise and purpose by no means implies
that unbelievers also partake of Him. This would only be
conceivable by a separation of the body and blood from
Christ's person.3 Christ's body and blood must then be re
garded as something essentiaby injurious to unbelievers,* or
as something superfluous. Christ's wib is that His entire
undivided, theanthropic Person shab become ours in the Holy
Supper. Therefore His glorified body cannot be partaken of
apart from His rational nature. If ab the blessing of the
Supper can only be enjoyed through faith, — not by unbelief,
as Luther in the Large Catechism and the Form. Cone.
teach, — the object of partaking must certainly be thought of
as primarby spiritual, but not for this reason less real. The
God-man received by faith through the Holy Spirit is the
real power that reconciles all antitheses — the antithesis of
nationalities and individuals, in the last resort even the
antithesis between nature and spirit. In Him is given the
new and true humanity, in which likeness to God is realized
also in the world, appearing in His glorified corporeity. Hence
the Holy Supper is also a real bond of communion be
tween all the members. Every individuabty is destined to
be transfigured through Him, and made a reflex of His glory.
And for this very reason, through the instrumentality of the
faith that receives Christ, the Holy Supper operates also as
the principle of reconciliation between all antitheses in the in
dividual personality, and therefore as the principle of pneumatic
corporeity such as wib be exhibited in the resurrection-body.
1 Cat. Maj. 558, 35. Jam quicumque haec sibi dicta statuit creditque ita se
habere, ille certo consequutus est. Cceterum hisce verbis diffidens nihil habet,
utpote qui nequidquam hoc sibi offerrl patitur.
s E.g. even by Dieckhoff, AbendmaM, p. 631.
3 In opposition to F. C. 600. 787.
4 As Sartorius, e.g., supposes in his "Meditations,"

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 331
4. The Consecration and Distribution. — The elements
become the Holy Supper when connected with the words of
institution and promise by consecration, and with the act
of distribution and partaking. The consecration with Christ's
words is the continuation of the act of Christ founding the
Supper. If the church herein is simply the organ by which
Christ's wbl is continued and embodied in ever new mani
festation, it is most appropriate that the distributing should
be accompanied by the words of His lips, in order that He
may be realized as the true agent and speaker. Were the
church here to give its own, — were it, for example, to inter
pose here its distinctive doctrinal creed of Christ's Supper, — it
would arbitrarby supersede the continuation of Christ's word
and action by its own action merely reflective of His kingly
office, and obscure that important distinction between the
two, the retention of which in its purity is the strength and
mission of the Church of the Reformation. A further conse
quence of the doctrinal creed of the church (which has its place
elsewhere, but by no means here,) being given here instead
of the words of Christ, would be that the Lord's table would
be made the table of a particular Church-party, the Lord's
institution being employed, on the one hand, to express sym
pathetic union under the name of Luther, Calvin, or the Pope ;
and on the other, to erect a wab of partition from Christians
with other views, to whom, however, the possession of the
table of the Lord cannot be denied. But as the Jewish and
Gentbe Christians, or the parties in Corinth — and further,
the holders of very different theories of the Supper — main
tained perfect febowship at the communion in Christian
antiquity, because and in so far as they recognized each
other's Christian character, so must we act now, and that in
the interest of the objectivity of the sacrament. For as it is not
faith that makes it a sacrament, so also it is not good works,
whether of the wbl or of the intebigence and doctrinal
confession. Christ is the royal host. Unbelief and error as
bttle reduce the sacrament itself to nullity as in the case of
baptism, but can only mar or interfere with its blessing.
This also decides how the Church ought to act in the matter
of right administration, that no unworthy guests may be
consciously admitted. They ought not to be a priori desig-

332 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
nated unworthy who do not belong to our own visible
church-community or separate Church. This would be sec
tarian, and a renunciation of the oecumenical spirit which
ought to dwell in each of the separate churches. For this
very reason, also, the doctrinal creed or the interpretation of
the mystery of Christ's febowship with His own,, distin
guishing a, particular Confession, ought not to be required in
order to admission to the Holy Supper. This would be, again,
incompatible with the fundamental principle of the gospel
and the objectivity of the sacrament, making the reception of
the sacred meal dependent on subjective acts of the intellect
or of the confessing bps. But, according to Luther's Smab
Catechism, he is right worthy and fitted to partake who
hungers and thirsts for the heavenly food, who draws near to
the table of the Lord in poverty of spirit, with bowed
and broken heart and true longing for personal salvation.1
Therefore, to wish to exclude from the Holy Supper a soul
longing for salvation and feeling its need of strengthening
by the Lord, because it belongs to another Confession,
whbst its Christian baptism is acknowledged, is a crime
against the communion of the Lord; a supersession of
Christ and of His hospitable wib by arbitrary human wib,
be it even the will of a vast Church-community ; a denial
of Christ's love in the midst of the sanctuary of love.
Of course, Greek and Roman Christians, by the decisions
of their churches, cannot act on such principles; and the
latter church especiaby treats the meal of communion
with Christ in a one-sided way, as a meal of confession
to it. It aspires to be, not a mere reflex, but a continua
tion of Christ. But greater would be the gubt of the
Evangelical Church, were it, in the supposed interests of
ecclesiasticism, to put the hard -won diadem of its know
ledge under a bushel, or to surrender the doctrine, that here
also the first place is due to Christ and His objective gift,
and that on no pretence must His royal hospitabty be
narrowed by the Church, or that which in virtue of the
institution must be the first thing in the sacred act — namely,
the communion between Christ and bebevers — put in the
background, and sacrificed to the supposed interests of the
1 F. C. 745, 68.

CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 333
community.1 As Holy Baptism belongs to all churches still
Christian, so the blessing of the Holy Supper pertains not to
a specific Church-community, but to Christendom as a unity.
Baptism is reciprocally acknowledged on the Evangebcal as
on the specifically Cathobc side, without the Cathobc or
Evangelical type of doctrine being introduced into the bap
tismal act in the way of confession or controversy. So also
admission to the sacrament of the Holy Supper must not be
made dependent on the dogmaticaby concrete conception of
the Supper, and just as bttle the acknowledgment of its
validity, provided it is administered in harmony with the
institution. Observation. — It especiaby befits the Lutheran Confession
— which lays the chief emphasis, more than Zwingle and
Socinus, on the divine objectivity of the sacrament inde
pendently of the subject— to give effect to the inner cathobcity
inherent in the Lutheran Confession, and having its chief
point of support precisely in that objectivity, although
without detriment to ecclesiastical order. The requirement
of a definite doctrinal confession in order to admission would
be Zwinglian, not Lutheran, in principle. Add to this, that
the requirement of this particular human performance —
namely, of an idea correct in form — would not be the least
security for real worthiness and a spirit athirst for salvation.

B. — The Reflecting of the Kingly Office of Christ by the Church,
or the Power of the Keys.
§ 146.
As a Reflection of Christ 's kingly activity, the Church has the
right and duty of self-organization in and out of the
world. The foundation-stone of this is the work of
defining the circle of those who are empowered to act in
the Church. No less is the power of estabbshing
ecclesiastical institutions inherent in the Church — in
1 In Zwingle, along with the commemoration, the professio and the interests
of the community are the chief master. Thus the extreme pressing of the
Lutheran type passes over into the opposite on this point also.

334 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
reference to doctrine in creeds, to worship in bturgy
and order of divine service, to bfe in ecclesiastical
custom and constitution, — ab this, however, on the
understanding that the Church is always subject to
Christ's Word and institutions, and therefore does not,
by making Church-order a dogma, burden the conscience
and injure Evangelical freedom.

I. — Biblical Doctrine.
1. The Power of the Keys (potestas clavium) in refer
ence to the house of God, was committed first to Peter,
then to the apostles collectively, and in them to the
Church,1 but only on the basis of confessing Jesus to be the
Son of God. Power over the keys is the symbol of authority
or government in the house. This authority did not cease
with the departure of the apostles, but is necessary to the
earthly Church in all ages. No Church can dispense with
the function of direction or government. On the other hand,
no provision has been made by the Lord for supplementing
the apostolate, or for any primacy at all. On the contraiy,
so far as the primacy actually existed in the beginning, it
passed just as actuaby from Peter during his bfe to others, to
Paul on behalf of the Gentile-Christian world, partly to James
the Just on behalf of the Jewish Christians. From these two
considerations — the need of direction acknowledged by Christ,
and the omission of Christ to provide for a regular transfer of
such direction from the apostles to others — it fobows that it
is left by the Lord to the Church to appoint the holders of this
function, and that no special order was established by the
Lord, to which the right of official appointment was given.
The Lord did not intend the apostolate as the holder of
Church-government to be a permanent institution. By its
very idea as the primitive authentic body of witnesses the
apostolate is unrepeatable, because it rests on the uniqueness
of the relation of the first generation to Christ, and on their
immediate selection and education by Christ. Even the
1 Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18 ; John xx. 23.

CHURCH- AUTHORITY. 335
apostles shared with the churches the work of establishing
ecclesiastical order and Church discipbne.1
2. As relates, again, to the Contents of the Power of the
Keys, the passages bearing on the question imply, first of ab,
the right of admitting into the house of God, and therefore of
deciding on membership in or belonging to the Church.
Only in the second line does that power embrace the establish- .
ing of regulations and laws as to the bfe of the community.
Belonging to the Church depends on forgiveness of sins, for
giveness being the sign of entrance into the Church. And
since an accepted member may again become unworthy of
membership through unfaithfulness and apostasy, nay, since
they who abide faithful need the renewal of forgiveness, the
power of the keys has importance also in reference to those
already received, including remission of sin or absolution on
the one side, retention of sin as web as Church discipline on
the other. The Evangelical Church places the chief stress on
the remission or retention of sin.2 Notwithstanding, it is
beyond question that the Lord has also given the power to
estabbsh regulations, not indeed to a clergy, but to the
church.3 Kv/3epvr]o-(,<: likewise has a distinct charisma of its
own. We read of a commission to feed the flock,* and the
apostolic churches under the direction of the apostles set up
institutions bke the diaconate,5 as web as other offices.6
Especially were leaders appointed by the apostles under the
name of elders or bishops, or their appointment was ordered.7

II. — Ecclesiastical Doctrine.
After several centuries a clergy had grown up as a distinct
order. In the Greek Church its function was more that of an
authoritative body of teachers, in the Latin more that of
1 Acts vi. 5 ; 1 Cor. v. 4.
2 In Matt. xvi. and xviii. we read of "binding and loosing,'' which finds its
explanation in John xx. 23, where the remitting and retaining of sin are spoken
of. Hence the binding and loosing do not refer primarily to obligatory laws
and regulations and dispensations from the same.
3 Matt, xviii. 17 ;' Luke xii. 42, xx. 9 ff. (vineyard) ; 1 Cor. ix. 17.
* 1 Cor. xii 28 ; John xxi. 16, 17. 6 Acts vi. 1-6. 6 Eph. iv. 11, 12.
' Tit i. 5 ; 1 Tim. iii. 1-13, iv. 12 ff., v. 1 ff., 17-19.

336 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
government in regulating life. The clergy, in its entirety
principally represented in the bishops, ascribed to itself after
the Nicene Council, first of all, infallibility in dogma, and
soon also divine authority for legislation generally in moral
and disciplinary matters. Roman Catholicism more and
more made the Church the continuation of Christ's kingly
work, nay, represented Him as having deputed His kingly
authority to the hierarchy, instead of holding fast the im
perishable authority of Christ and His ordinances, and think
ing of the Church as designed in its character as a union
of cleugy and laity to be a reflection of Christ's kingly
activity. The Romish Church converted its polity into
dogma, imposing on the conscience laws which form no part
of the faith as divine and binding obligations. As concerns
especially absolution for sins after baptism, and the right of
citizenship in the Church, it made arbitrary regulations in
reference to penitential discipline, by which it tied the inner
bfe to the priestly order, elevating that order at the expense
of God's Word, of free grace as well as of freedom of
conscience, into the exclusive dispenser of the divine gifts,
and therefore also into a power above the Holy Spirit; The
Romish Church especiaby makes the priestly order exercise
kingly authority through absolution and excommunication,
which are supposed to have judicial force as an act of
judgment on the individual person, by which heaven is
opened and closed to him. For these reasons the Reforma
tion rejected the notion that the power of the keys is
authority to utter judgment on the worth of the individual
person with divine authority, and also that absolution is tied
to the priestly order. The gift of trying spirits does not
continue as a gift attached to ecclesiastical office. This is not
maintained even by the Romish Church. Hence, in order to
fib up the gap in the knowledge of the priest, in 1215 it
ordained Auricular Confession — certainly a very inadequate
substitute for knowledge of the heart, despite the further
unscriptural decree that only sin confessed to the priest shab
be forgiven. The necessary consequence is uncertainty
whether enough has reaby been confessed and sin is forgiven.
Most of all, the latter is made dependent on the fulfil
ment of human observances and on conditions beyond

CHURCH- AUTHORITY. 337
power of control. The Evangelical Church so administers
absolution as to make it the crown of the preaching of the
gospel generaby, and to offer forgiveness to the penitent.1 In
this offer on its part, in reference to which the Church only
desires to be Christ's organ, the grace of Christ Himself is
offered.2 In doing this, the Evangebcal Church arrogates to
itself no judgment on the real penitence of the individual.
A judicial act on the character of the man would always
be fabible ; but the offer, which is more than a mere teaching,
namely an exhibere, is possible, because the Church ought to
offer forgiveness even to non-bebevers, that they may believe.
Of course it must do this in such a way as not to omit to
awaken the consciousness of sin and guilt, because without
such consciousness it would be impossible even to have a
consciousness of what forgiveness means, and therefore to
receive forgiveness as such.3 This offer is the chief work of
the church. According to Evangelical teaching, again, the
retention of sin is no judicial act, pronouncing infabibly before
God on the merit or demerit of the person. No such judg
ment and final settlement of the state of the case is even
necessary for the Church. In order to avoid desecrating what
is holy,* it is enough to omit the offer of forgiveness where
it has reason to suppose that impenitence exists. The
consequence of this is, that the Church is not warranted in
granting to such the enjoyment of the fub right of citizenship,
especiaby the enjoyment of the Holy Supper, which has
absolution for its presupposition. It is quite consistent with
this position, that the Church, in the consciousness of
reflecting Christ's kingly authority but imperfectly, and mind
ful of its babbity to err, declines absolutely to identify its
judgment on individuals with the judgment of Christ, or to
put itself as judge in Christ's place, — a position to which it
is not cabed. '
1 Cat. Maj. 549, 74. 2 Cat. ut supra ; Apol. 164. 167.
3 § 1326, 4, 5. 4 Matt. vii. 6.

DOENEB. — CHEIST. DOCT. IV

338 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.

§ 146&. — Continuation.
III. — Dogmatic Investigation of the Power of the Keys
belonging to the Church as a Reflection of Christ's Kingly
Authority.
1. The Church has the right and duty of self-government.
Evraljia and evo-yr\[Loavvq are enjoined on it.1 But the chief
question for every commonwealth desirous of self-govern
ment is : Who are the persons to be reckoned members of the
commonwealth, especiaby members influencing the whole ?
And to decide such a question is certainly to reflect Christ's
kingly authority. From what has been said before, it follows
that entrance into the house of the Church takes place through
overthrow of the dominion of sin, and therefore above ab
through forgiveness, by which the redeemed are distinguished
from the world. The true administration of forgiveness leads
to baptism ; the right and duty (i.e. the office) to offer forgive
ness is first of ab the office to baptize ; to this joins on
naturaby the office to lead back lapsed members (e.g. already
baptized in childhood) to the baptismal covenant by penitence
and renewed faith (absolution). It is true, all who are
baptized, and have confessed before the community the faith
which accepts the offered grace, and have not clearly incurred
the guilt of apostasy or impenitence, are, to speak generally,
legal participators in the ecclesiastical commonwealth. But
still a difference of stages obtains among the individual
members as to age, gifts, etc. If the first is the stage of those
to whom participation in the heavenly kingdom is given by
baptism in order that they may bebeve, the second stage is
participation in the full enjoyment of the blessings of the
church, especiaby of the sacrament of the altar. The Church
cannot declare those ripe for the sacrament who profess
themselves unbebevers, nay, who do not profess themselves
believers.2 The right of participation is obtained by confes
sion of faith, and Confirmation is the Church-ordinance for
declaring those who are capable of self-examination qualified
for the Supper. Only the third stage, of which also physical
ripeness of age and understanding is a part, confers the right
1 1 Cor. xiv. 40. 2 § 145, 2.

CHURCH-AUTHORITY. 339
of productive activity in and for the Church, which right,
again, must be conveyed by a judgment of the Church. This
judgment may be mistaken ; it may grant the full right of
citizenship too early or too late. But the gift of trying spirits
is not so wanting to the Church that it needs a continuance
or renewal of the apostolate in order to the distribution of
offices.1 Rather, little as it is given to the Church to deter
mine the individual's relation to God and his total worth, this
being a matter of the heart, it is otherwise with the judgment
upon gifts and talents, which must needs reveal themselves in
outward acts. Hence, provided the Church desires to do
everything in the name of Jesus, and therefore to obtain
strength and wisdom through prayer in the name of Jesus,
— that source of the kingly spirit and power, — thus purify
ing its wib, that it may be one with the will of Christ, gross
mistakes wbl certainly not occur.
2. But the right to establish, preserve, and develop a
Christian economy refers not merely to the persons who are
to have rights of citizenship in it at different stages, but also
to the right of legislation and administration, of which also
the organizing of offices is a part. In this sense, too, the
power of the keys is not committed to an order or stbl less
to an individual person, as is clear from the apostolic practice,2
whbe the Church remains bound to Christ's Word and kingly
wib. It must not make secondary matters a yoke to all. It
must not invest with necessity to salvation things either in
doctrine or practice, to which such necessity does not belong.
And as relates to the form, it must not be tyrannical. Its
nature must not be that of a compulsory authority.3 This
distinguishes it from the State. Despite variety of regulations
in the Church, of cerimonice and constitutiones, to which also
regulations of practice belong, the unity of the Church may
exist, and despite the unity a variety. Christ wibs no
uniformity.4 Room must be left for Evangelical freedom.
1 As the Irvingites especially hold.
2 Acts vi. ; Art. Sm. 345. 352 ; Apol. 204.
3 Matt. xx. 25 f. ; Luke xxii. 25 f. ; 1 Cor. iv. 14 ; Apol. 49. 295. 187 ; Art.
Sm. 361.
4 Conf. Aug. vii., and pp. 19, 31. Apol. 151. 208 ; F. C. 616. Cf. the
parable of the different talents.

340: EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
SECOND SUBDIVISION.
THE CHURCH APPROPRIATING THE WORLD TO ITSELF, AND
ORGANIZED IN AND OUT OF THE WORLD.
§ 147. — Organization in respect of Christ's continuing Activity. _
The fundamental condition of the organizing of the Church in
and out of the world is, that it continuaby submits to be
a faithful organ of the threefold activity which Christ
desires to continue in and through it. Accordingly its
organization has above ab to take care that God's
Word, Baptism, and the Supper are preserved to it in
purity, and that through them Christ's gracious will
operates on humanity that has become, and on humanity
destined to become, the Church.
Cf. §§ 134. 135. 138-141. 145.
§ 147&. — Organization in respect of reflecting Christ's Activity.
All the functions of the organized Church that reflect Christ's
activity have for their norm and rule the immoveable
bases of the Church, for their soul the Holy Spirit, for
their end the edification (oikoSo/mij) of the Church,1 its
intensive and extensive growth. On that basis they are
discharged (§§ 134. 136. 142. 146) — negatively through
the purifying activity which includes discipbne in the
form of self-discipline in individuals, domestic discipline
and Church discipline;2 — positively first of all in a
receptive manner, the life of the Church being invigorated
by the regular use of the means of grace ; again, in a
productive and effective manner by its self-presentation,
the central point of which is worship, and by activity
1 Eph. ii. 21, iv. 12.
2 Civic and state discipline also have their place in the kingdom of God in dis
tinction from the Church. This does not come into consideration here, because
the Church is not the subject of such exercise of discipline, but in Christian
Ethics,

o

CHURCH-ORGANIZATION. 341
partly in extending itself among successive new
generations and stib unconverted nations (Psedagogy,
Catechesis, Missions), partly in behalf of its intensive
growth; — finaby, by directing the Church at different
stages and in ascending circles. It is necessary to the
due order of the Church that these functions be dis
tributed in different offices on the basis of charisms, the
variety of which is kept together by the unity of the
Spirit in mutual acknowledgment and helpfulness.1
Literature. — Nitzsch, ut supra. Petersen, Die Idee der
Kirche, 1839. The writings of Kliefoth, Delitzsch, Lohe, on
the Church. W. Preger, Die Geschichte der Lehre vom geist-
lichem Amt auf Grund der Geschichte der Rechtfertigungslehre,
1857. Ad. Schseffer, Observ. ad ministerii ecclesiast. notionem
rectius constituendam, 1855. Hosemann, Du Ministere evan-
gelique, 1855. On Church discipline : Otto, Versuch einer
Verstdndigung iiber Kirchenzucht in der evangelischen Denkschrift
des Seminars zu Herborn, Parts 1 and 2, 1854-55 (a rich and
extensive bterature is referred to by him). Fabri, Ueber
Kirchenzucht im Sinn und Geist des Evangeliums, 1854. Gottfr.
Gabi, Dr. Jur., Die lutherischen und die calvinischen Kirchen-
strafen gegen Laien im Reformations-Zeitalter, Breslau, 1879.
Beyschlag, Deutsch-evangelische Blatter, v. 2, 1880, Febr., Soil der
evangelische Geistliche auf eigene Hand vom heiligen AbendmaM
ausschliessen konnen ? Zezschwitz, Praktische Theologie.
Observation. — We only needed here to note the dogmatic
place for the chief subjects of Practical Theology, but add
something further.
1. All these functions, by which the church stands forth as
a free organism relatively independent in reference to Christ
and informed with His Spirit, reflect, although feebly, Christ's
official action. This reflection is successful in proportion as
the Church more and more loses itself in Christ's mind, and
therefore on the ground of prayer in the name of Jesus and
study of His Word. In harmony with what has been said,2
it has first of all to keep away everything disturbing from its
life, and secondly to further its positive prosperity. The
former, upon which we linger a little, is done by exercising
1 1 Cor. xii. 1-30, xiv. 1 ff. ; 1 Pet. ii. 5-9 ; Eph. iv. 8-16. s § 146.

342 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
the needful caution in receiving new members into the stages
described above, and by guarding against offences within
itseK, as web as against the hurtful influence of unsubdued
elements from the world upon its life of communion. Here
lies the ground of its purifyiny action in discipline, which has
for its end, not the outward glory of the Church as such, but
on one side the neutralizing of offences and the maintenance
of its inner glory, and on the other the heabng of spiritual
sickness. Both ends are most certainly attained by the
objects of ecclesiastical discipline being led to seK-discipline.
Only thus understood is Calvin's saying true, that " Church
discipline is the nervus ecclesice," but not in the sense that the
administration of justice is an end for its own sake in the
Church as in the State, for the Church must not forestall the
final judgment.1 The Donatist ambition to exhibit a Church
" pure " and holy in faith directly causes the Church to fab
in exhibiting love and patience, without which its " hobness "
passes into legabty of an indolent and yet magisterial and
arrogant spirit, which avoids the more tobsome path of over
coming what is hostile by spiritual means.2
Observation.— The negotiations respecting Church discipline
since the 15th century, which naturaby fobowed the strivings
of that age after ecclesiastical constitution (for which the
question of Church discipline is one of the most fundamental
and also most difficult points), have been instructive and
fruitful in a theoretical, and still more in a practical respect.
Among the best works on the subject are those of Fabri,
Otto, Nitzsch, and Beyschlag. In keeping with its idea,
church discipbne must be distinguished on one side from
care of souls, and on the other from punishment in the proper
sense, or expiation. It has an essential place alongside
care of souls; for where the latter is finally baffled by
obstinacy, something still remains for the church to do, in
1 Matt. xiii. 25 ff., 29. An excluding of baptised persons from the Holy
Supper may be justified, but not from the Church considered as the community
of hearers of God's Word. Matt, xviii 17 is not inconsistent with this view,
for even the heathens and publicans are to be objects of culture by the Word,
and man's unfaithfulness to the baptismal covenant does not violate God's
faithfulness and promise. See §§ 141. 140, 3.
2 J. Muller expresses himself with much wisdom in eloquent words only too
little laid to heart, in the often-mentioned treatises on The Visible and
Invisible Church, pp, 3.72-383.

CHURCH-ORGANIZATION. 343
case the sinner gives rise to offence by public uncensured
sins, i.e. threatens to exert a contagious influence inwardly,
and gives offence outwardly, inasmuch as he is a member of
the Church, thus bringing reproach on the Church and
crippbng its influence. But it must also be carefully dis
tinguished from punishment. The exercise of the right to
punish is an affair of the State, not of the Church. It is no
concern of the Church to see that the sinner suffers what is
justly due to him, or that it receives satisfaction for the
injury done to it or its honour by the sinner. Rather it com
mits judgment to God, who judges aright and sees the heart.
In distinction from these two things, Church discipline is
the Church's preserving or guarding itself by withdrawing
and severing itseK from the incorrigible, offence-giving
sinner. With this the love, that seeks and hopes for his
amendment, is quite compatible. The love of the Church is
shown first in gentleness and patience, which are quite con
sistent with earnestness, and are evinced in the stages of the
Church's procedure. Even ecclesiastical discipbne proper,
the withdrawal of the Church from the sinner, and the
gradual withholding of its communion and blessings, has
indeed for its intended effect to isolate the sinner and throw
him back upon himseK; but since this may and ought to
lead to sobriety and self-reflection on his part, it is quite
compatible with love, which hopes that this necessary action
of the Church may provoke the sinner to amendment, and
which gives expression to this hope in intercession. Since
the inmost nature of the Church is holy love, it cannot assert
itseK against the stiff-necked, offence-giving sinner without
also preserving love. On mere honour it ought not to insist;
and from this consideration alone Christian Church discipbne
cannot be derived. Rather, Luther's saying applies also to
the Church, " God's honour is His love." Without patience
and love it would be sapless, despite all pretension to purity,
and would degenerate into legabty. It is a misleading,
Donatist error to require, under pain of putting in force
Church discipbne, perfect purity even in but one sphere, e.g.
that of doctrine, or from but one class of febow-members —
the teaching order.1 Further, Fabri rightly demands the
1 Fabri, p. 83, says aptly on one hand : " Let the chief attention be directed
to keeping the ministerial order pure," and on the other : " Here above all let
the formal creed, provided it is not denied in an absolutely anti-evangelical
manner, be less taken into, account." He demands that in this matter we keep
in mind the Christian equity, which pays regard to the training of the person,
and requires us to take into view especially his moral character, and therefore
conscientiousness.

344 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
spirit of brotherly fellowship as a presupposition for the
exercise of Church discipbne (p. 75) and possession of the
power of the Holy Ghost for those who exercise it. Nor is
it by accident that in John xx. 23 Christ prefixes the words :
"Receive ye the Holy Ghost." The above principles are
based especially on Matt. xvbi. 17-20, the fundamental
passage on Church discipline ; and these principles are acted
on in 1 Cor. v. 1 f. (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 6 f.), and again in 1 Tim.
i. 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18, iv. 14.
2. The fundamental thought of the Lutheran Dogmatists,
in opposition both to the Romish Church and to anarchy even
in the form of a levelbng spirituabsm, is : The Church consists
of tres status hierarchici — first, the ecclesiastical office (status
ecclesiasticus) ; secondly, the Christian magistracy (magistratus
politieus) ; thirdly, the popular order (status ceconomicus).
This implies a friendly relation to national life (status
ceconomicus) and to the State (status politieus). But the pre
supposition of this organization was unity of faith in the
nation, which no longer exists. Nor does this arrangement
pay regard to the difference of principle in the organization of
the State and the Church. The State-organization was rather
to some extent directly transferred to the Church. Of
ecclesiastical offices and functions the teaching office alone
has an independent ecclesiastical position in this organization,
especiaby in reference to worship. The history of the
Lutheran Church hitherto has been, that the third order with
its rights and duties did not attain ecclesiastical development,
but became a mere ecclesia audiens (hearing and obeying).
Its rights were absorbed by the first two orders, whether
these were united, as in the age of the Reformation, or
whether they were separated, as was done in various forms in
the 17th and 18 th centuries (when the rights of Church
government were claimed both by the teaching order and by
the princes) ; and whether the latter was done by the princes
calling themselves temporary bishops (Nothbischbfe), perhaps
a treaty being also feigned for the transference of the arch-
episcopacy, or whether they professed to assume the Church
government on territorial grounds in virtue of the State-right
to make and keep peace, as was done from the 18th into the
19th century. It is only owing to the multiplicity of Con
fessions in the same State that the continuance of the

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 345
supremacy of the State over the Church in the old way became
an impossibility. The predominance of the State has also
become the practice in the sphere of the Zwingban Reforma
tion and Anglicanism. The Reformed Confession, however,
preserved more of ecclesiastical independence under Calvin's
influence, principally by including elders. The passivity
of the nation, more prevalent in Lutheran than in Reformed
spheres, usually had the effect of paralyzing Church life, and
especially Church discipline, which requires the co-operation
of the judgment of the Church (Matt, xviii. ; cf. 1 Cor. v.).
§ 148. — Invisibility and Visibility of the Church.
The distinction of the invisibibty and visibility of the earthly
Church, rightly defined, is indispensable to the purity of
the idea of the Church, which has to organize itself in
and out of the world (§146 ff).
Literature. — Joh. Musseus, Disp. de natura et definitione
ecclesice and his Tractatus de Ecclesia, 1671, P. I. II. Andersen,
Das prot. Dogma von der sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche,
Theol. Mitarbeiten, 1841, H. 3. J. Muller, Die unsichtbare
Kirche, in his Dogmatic Treatises, pp. 278-403. Ibid., Die
ndchsten Aufgaben fiir die Fortbildung der deutsch-protestant-
ischen Kirchenverfassung, Janus, 1845, H. 8. J. Kostbn,
Luther's Lehre von der Kirche, 1853. Miinchmeyer, Das Dogma
von der sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche, 1854. Ritschl, Ueber
die Begriffe der sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche, Stud. u.
Krit. 1859, 2, and Begrilndung des Kirchenrechts im evange-
lischen Begriff der Kirche, from the Zeitschr. fiir Kirchenrecht,
1869, p. 15 ff. Hackenschmidt, Des luth. Theologen Joh. Musceus
Lehre von der Sichtbarkeit der Kirche, Stud. u. Krit. 1880, 2.
Krauss, Das prot. Dogma von der unsichtbaren Kirche, 1876.
Harnack, Die Kirche, ihr Amt und ihr Regiment.
A. — The Biblical Doctrine.
The Church first came into existence with Pentecost, and
therefore through the Holy Spirit generating independent
faith, for previously the disciples of Christ were stib in a
state of nonage. Consequently there was as yet no proper
Church upon earth immediately after Christ's departure.
The whole of Christ's earthly action was directed to the

346 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
founding of faith in independent personalities, who were to be
bound together in love, not to the founding of an impersonal
institution or outward ordinances and ceremonies. Certainly
the entire body of disciples had already an outward centre in
His person, and His design was that the Church should grow
out of that body; but such a Church did not as yet exist
before the Holy Spirit had prepared and collected a mature
discipleship. The Church is cabed the temple of the Holy
Ghost, consisting of bving stones bearing Christ's life in them,
i.e. personalities.1 Its holiness inheres not in its institutions
or in things; it is not of a material, but personal nature.
But despite the variety of believing personalities it is One, —
Christ has but one body,2 — and this One is the pibar and
ground of the truth, a historical, imperishable power,8 through
its unchangeable characteristics — Word and Sacrament —
which are not the Church by themselves, but minister to its
preservation. But this one true Church, existing since
Pentecost, is not described in the N. T. as absolutely coin
ciding with the outward community of the baptized. Even
in apostobc days much exists in this outward community
which belongs not to the pure Church. Not merely
particular sins, even false brethren and teachers of error,
appear in it ; tares grow alongside the wheat. So in the case
of Ananias and Sapphira,4 and still worse things are predicted
by Paul and John.5 Even Christ spoke of adherents who
only say, "Lord, Lord," of a guest at the wedding-feast of
God's kingdom without a wedding-garment. He compared
the kingdom of God to a net, in which good and bad fish are
caught, the separation of which shall and ought to take place
only at the end of the world. Nay, He cabed His disciples
a little flock in comparison with mankind.6 It is not given
to the Church to know and present itself on earth as perfectly
pure and holy,7 either by attempting to weed out all the
1 1 Pet. ii 5 ff. ; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ; Eph. ii. 20 ; 1 Cor. vi. 19.
2 Eph. iv. 3-16, v. 23 ff. ; 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.
3 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Matt. xvi. 18. « Acts v. ; 2 Cor. xi. 13, 26 ; Gal. ii. 4.
5 2 Thess. ii. 1 ff. ; 1 Tim. i. 6 ff., iv. 1 ff. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 16-18 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 12 ; 1 John iv. 1 ff., cf. ii. 19 f. ; Rev. i.— iii.
* Matt. vii. 21, xiii. 47-50, xxii. 1-14 ; Luke xii. 32.
' Eph. iv. 13, The bride of Christ is not pure and without spot in the
present a-ou,

Visible and invisible church. 347
tares, where possibly bebevers form a majority and have the
power, or by requiring ab bebevers to separate themselves
and form a. separate community, where possibly they form a
minority. But it is said : " Let both grow together tib the
harvest." x Christians are rather to be in the world, while
not of the world,2 a light in the darkness, the salt of the
world, the leaven in the mass.8 Christianity desires to be a
power in the world appropriating the world, in such a way,
indeed, that the world also makes Christianity its own, the
Church thus growing out of the world. Since, then, the
Church is burdened with many who belong outwardly to it,
but inwardly to the world, and since it must stbl hold
febowship with the world, because many members are stbl
lacking to the completeness of . its body, — since, further,
its individual members, although believing, are still sinful,
whbe the Church itseK as a whole exists not in glory but in
weakness, in a lowliness that reflects the destiny of Christ, in
cross and passion, it is evident that, according to the N. T.,
the essence and manifestation, the inner and outer side of the
Church, are not yet co-equal.4 And since, according to what
has been said above on its origin, the stress of the principle
falls on the first side, which is invisible, the distinction
between the invisible and visible Church rests on biblical
grounds. On earth its form is to be that of a servant, not
triumphant ; but this ought not to weaken its zeal in self-
purification and growth, but to quicken such zeal because of
the yearning hope it has of its certain consummation.8
B. — The Ecclesiastical Doctrine.
1. The express distinction between the visible and invisible
Church is foreign to the first centuries of Christendom, how
ever definite its consciousness of the difference between the
inner and outer man and of the relative hiddenness and
incognizableness of the former. In the eyes of ancient
Christendom the divine idea of, the Church and its actuality
are chiefly disparate in reference merely to the lowly appear-
1 Matt. xiii. 29, 36 f. 2 John xvii. 15. 3 Matt. v. 13, 14, xiii. 33.
4 1 John iii. 2 ; Col. iii. 3, 4 : fi £«>, i/i£> xixpvxTxi rit rip Xpitrru l» rS tt£.
6 Eph. v. 27, iv. 16.

348 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
ance of the Church in its oppressed and still restricted actuality.
But both — idea and actuality — were kept together by Christian
hope, which, when it went astray in Ebionite and Judaistic
paths, only placed so little value on the salvation abeady
existing in the earthly Church as no sort of identity seemed
to exist between the earthly Church and that which is to be
expected. The reason why distinction was made in the first
ages between the visible and invisible Church lay undoubtedly
in the fact, that in those ages the Church enjoyed an essential
unity and purity, to which not the least contributor was the
sifting power of persecutions. The want of outward advantages
in the confession of Christianity, nay its dangers, exercised a
most effective Church discipbne. But when, after the 4th
century, the heathen masses suddenly streamed into the Church,
the contrast between the Church as it should be and its
actuabty, especiaby the character of its leaders, was so obvious
that men like Tichonius, Vigbantius, and Jovinian put the
true Church, Christ's unspotted bride — the object of their
faith, of their love and hope — in glaring contrast with the
empirical Church as a different Church. But the Catholic
Church withstood such a distinction with the utmost earnest
ness, permitted only the distinction between the mibtant and
triumphant Church, and found more and more a substitute for
that deficiency of holiness in all persons in the Church, which
it did not deny, in the holiness of its institutions, which were
supposed to give a guarantee for the unity and cathobcity, the
apostobcity and infalbbility of the Church. Then obedience
to the hierarchically-constituted Church was made de fide, and
the bmits of the Romish Church became the bmits of Chris
tianity, extra ecclesiam (Romanam) nulla salus. Attempts at
drawing a distinction between the visible and invisible Church
are seen in opposition to the outward, increasingly emphasized,
unity of the Cathobc Church, in the distinction between
prcedestinati or electi and the non-elect or prcesciti advanced in
different forms by Augustine, Wycbffe, Huss. But the nature
of the distinction is such that its application is postponed to
the final judgment, and the conception of the earthly Church
is not essentially affected thereby.
2. But the question assumed a different phase in the age of
the Reformation. The Evangelical idea of faith with its

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 349
inwardness contained, instead of mere communion with men
and equality in outward rites or ordinances, immediate,
personal communion with God, participation in justification
through the Atoner and by the Holy Spirit. Therewith was
connected the certainty, that this faith must also be the
principle and regulator of the community deserving the name
of a Christian Church. But in this way the Evangebcal
teachers came into profound opposition to the Cathobc idea of
the Church, which found the Church in unity of cultus and
ceremonies, but especiaby in a legal constitution of Christian
confessors on the model of the State, and in the subjection of
Christians to the hierarchy, to which obedience is due in God's
name. On the ground of its idea of the Church, Roman Catho
licism denied that the Evangelicals belonged to the Christian
Church, unless they submitted to the hierarchical decrees and
the Catholic cultus. But the same perception of the nature of
faith and its importance to the Church which had led to the
severance of the Evangelicals from Roman Catholicism, supplied
them with the means both for defending then? own standpoint
and criticising that of their, opponents. And the working out
of the apologetic and polemical significance of their positive con
ception of faith led to the distinction of the ecclesia as visibilis,
in relation to which they maintained their Evangelical freedom,
from the invisibilis. They refused to concede, that they did
not belong to the latter. On the contrary, they held them
selves the more justified in reckoning themselves a part of it,
the more they sought to keep themselves pure from the
corruptions of the reigning visible Church, and laid the chief
stress on the inwardness of the faith that united them with
Christ, and thus with their brethren. This distinction was
early advanced in various forms as to substance, although at
first without fixed expression ; and it was an essential part of
the common Evangebcal consciousness. But the expression
ecclesia visibilis et invisibilis graduaby became current among
ab Reformers. Although Zwingle was the first to use it (1531),
it forced itself on Luther as on Calvin and Melanchthon,
although they did not understand two separate churches
thereby.1 Their aim in taking such a bne is not to create
indifference to the visible Church, or to absolve from duties
1 See note at end of section. ,

350 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
towards it, but to secure the pure, spiritual character of Christ's
Church, its holiness through faith. The pure idea of the
Church gained was adapted to form a keen weapon of assault
on the secularizing as well as the spirituabzing of the Church,
and no less served also as a defence against the reproach brought
against the Evangebcals, that in separating from the Pope they
separated from the Church of Christ, and as a means of
strengthening the confidence, that the Church, although seem
ingly overwhelmed by hostile powers, stib exists and wbl not
perish.1 This doctrine of the Reformers was next fixed in
Symbols.2 3. The Evangelical Confessions teach : He is not a member
of the Church in the proper sense, who stands in the outward
communion of Church usages and ceremonies, or in the same
politia (under the same Church government), but only he who
has faith ; for the Church is principaliter a communion of
faith, and the Holy Spirit, the assembly of the saints scattered
over the entire circle of the earth.3 Since then faith, bke the
Holy Spirit, is not perceptible to sense, under this aspect
invisibility pertains to the Church. But on these terms, it
may be asked, is even the existence of the Church on earth
secured ? If it is invisible, can the name of a communion or
congregation apply to it? In reference to the Conf. Aug.,
what the fifth article had said comes into consideration here.
It treats of the connection of Word and Sacrament on one hand
with faith, on the other with the Holy Spirit. It is accordingly
laid down with logical strictness : " Where faith is, there also
are Word and Sacrament," and believers gathered around the
two are therewith gathered around Christ as their common
invisible Head, who is the bond of communion through the
Holy Spirit. And since Word and Sacrament are visible, we
1 Apol. 146.
2 Cf. Conf. Aug. v. vi. vii. ; Apol. iv. ; Art. Sm. 335. 342 ff. The Reformed
Confessions also have in part the formula, Ecclesia invisibilis et visibilis; cf. Helv.
1566. c. 17, Scot. c. 16 ; cf. Westmonast., ed. Niemeyer, c. 25, p. 36. The
Lutheran Confessions have not the phrase Ecclesia invisibilis, but have the
thing almost more than the Reformed Church, which insists more than the former
on the phenomenal side and the exhibition of the essence of the Church by organi
zation and Church discipline, nay, to some extent makes a dogma of the first.
. 3 "Ecclesia principaliter" or "proprie est societas fidei et Spiritus Sancti,
cbmmunio, congregatio sanctorum et credentium, sparsorum per totum orbem,"
Conf. Aug. v. viii. ; Apol. 144, 5. 146.

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 351
may go on to say : Although as to its essence the Church is
not perceptible to sense (for Word and Sacrament of themselves
are not the Church, and stbl less is the communion of Church-
government the Church, which is first given in faith and the
Holy Spirit), stib it has outward marks, by which its exist
ence is known,1 not however by sense, but only by faith, as
the apostobc symbol already says : " I believe in one holy
Cathobc Church."2 To faith the existence of the Church is
present where Word and Sacrament are, certainly because the
two are not without power and effect.3 Accordingly we must
say, where faith is, there too are Word and Sacrament as its
birthplace; but also conversely, where Word and Sacrament are,
there it must be assumed that the Holy Spirit works faith
through them and has His work-place, however little the eye
of man is able certainly to single out those who possess living
faith, and bttle as the outward communion in Word and Sacra
ment can be identified with the Church in the proper sense.
The outward communion, in which men are joined together
for the common hearing of God's Word and partaking of the
Sacraments, is merely the Church in the wider sense4 (ecclesia
large dicta). But even this Church has at least a connection
with the Church in the proper sense (hence it also bears the
name) ; for even communion in the use of the means of grace
would cease were faith altogether to cease on the earth.5 In
its outer circle, therefore, faith must always be assumed. It
is bebevers who perpetuate both means, and thus have real
communion with each other. In the same way, moreover, an
enduring connection between the Church in the wider and the
Church in the stricter sense obtains, because new believers are
always born of Word and Sacrament. Hence the Apology can
say on one hand : We dream of no Platonic state ;6 and on the
other : Unbebevers, profligates, and hypocrites are no members
of the Church proper (ecclesia proprie dicta), which is Christ's
body, but are membra regni diaboli? Although, accordingly,
that which decides the question of belonging to the Church in
the proper sense is not communion with men and community
of cultus and confession, but communion with the Head of
1 C. A. vii. ; Apol. 145, 5-7. s Apol. 145. 7. 3 Ibid. 148, 19. 20.
- Ibid. 146, 11. 28. i Ibid. 147, 16. 17. " Ibid. 148, 20.
' Ibid. 147, 16. 17. 148, 19.

352 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
the Church — Christ, still it is quite consistent therewith, that,
where true faith exists, establishing of communion with men is
not wanting, above all communion in Word and Sacrament as
web with actual believers as with those who wib believe, who
are both contained in the Church in the wider sense, without a
separation of the former from the latter being possible to human
eyes and permitted to human wbl.1 A place indeed is left
for Church discipbne in opposition to public offences ; but the
Donatist spirit, and the purism which would fain exhibit a
visible church of saints, are repudiated,2 whether it assume the
form of the separation of believers from the rest, or the form
of the excision of non-bebevers from the Church. The latter
would involve the denial that the Church upon earth has not
merely a visibihty (i.e. cognizableness), but no less also an
invisibdity, i.e. incognizableness in respect of what persons
belong to the church in the proper sense.
This doctrine is next carried forward by the Evangebcal
theologians. Even the expression ecclesia visibilis et invisi
bilis is retained in Hiitter, Gerhard, Baier, etc.3 But its
meaning is not, that these are two churches (gemince ecclesice),
but the one Church has both predicates. Were the invisible
side altogether wanting, either faith also would be altogether
wanting, and thus it would no longer be a Church, but illusion,
or it would be assumed that the Church has rendered itself
completely visible, -which is never true of the earthly, develop
ing Church. Conversely, were the visibility (i.e. cognizableness)
altogether wanting, there would no longer be a Church upon
earth, for then not merely would persons be wanting whose
faith makes itself known, although not certainly, but also the
continuance of the outward signs of the Church with its means
of grace. The relative incognizableness of the persons actually
belonging to the Church in the proper sense is, in the view of
the theologians, by no means incognizableness of the Church
itself. 4. In the most recent days the idea of the ecclesia invisibilis
has encountered evident dislike in many forms, especially with
those who lay preponderant stress on the legal side of the
church, or think themselves compelled specially to emphasize
1 Apol. 150, 28. 2 Ibid. 156, 49.
3 Gerhard, torn. xi. 82 ; Hollaz, ii. 798 ; Calov, viii 262.

VISIBLE AND IN VISIBLE CHURCH. 353
its manifested form.1 They object against it, that it endangers
the unity of the Church, easily leading to a duality of churches,
or to a Donatist and spiritualistic conception of the Church.
Stahl thinks with Mohler, that the visible Church is the first,
the invisible the second. Rothe, Delitzsch, and others, insist
that the invisible Church cannot even be thought by itself;
for if the Church is to be a community it is not invisible, if
it is to be invisible it cannot be a community. Community
presupposes an issuing forth of what is within, intercourse.
An invisible Church is therefore a contradictio in adjecto?
Thiersch thinks that the strong emphasizing of the invisible
Church has worked injuriously, having given rise to false con
tentment respecting the contradiction between the idea and
actuabty of the Church. On logical grounds it is objected to
the distinction, that in it both the visible and invisible Church
have the name of Church, whereas the visible is no Church in
that which distinguishes it from the invisible, namely unbe
bevers. The Church as a dogmatic idea, it is said, is an object
of faith, and there essentiaby belong to it Word and Sacrament,
from which faith arose and continuaby arises. But unbelievers
or the godless are no object of faith ; therefore, strictly speak
ing, they are non-existent to the dogmatic Church-idea. Rather,
in relation to the Church-idea they must be left out of sight,
and the right to do this is just based on the ground that faith
knows Christ as the Substitute, who covers ab imperfection in
the empirical Church by His holiness. In the dogmatic idea
of the Church, therefore, no attention need be paid to hypocrites
or impii. Accordingly, to distinguish between ecclesia proprie
dicta and ecclesia large dicta would be without justification.3
We connect the examination of these objections with the dog
matic investigation. Note (see p. 349).
Zwingbi, Expositio Christiance Fidei (composed shortly before
his death for Francis I.), ed. Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum in
rCf. J. Muller, p. 282 ff.
2 Cf. especially Hothe, Anfange der chr. Kirche, p. 99 ff, and Theol. Ethik.
3 So especially Ritschl in the Studien, ut supra, and in his treatise on the
Foundation of Church Rights, p. 15 ff. For the rest, he defends the Evangelical
doctrine that the Church is an object of faith, and in so far invisible.
Doenek.— Cheist. Doct. iv. Z

354 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
Ecclesia Reformata publicatarum, p. 53, 1840. Zwinglii Opera,
ed. Schuler et Schulthess, iv. 58 : Credimus et unam sanctam
esse Cathobcam, h.e. universalem ecclesiam. Earn autem esse aut
visibilem aut invisibilem. Invisibihs est, quae— Spiritu s. blus-
trante Deum cognoscit et amplectitur. To it belong ab believers
on the face of the earth. It is not cabed invisible, as _ though
believers were invisible, but because who really believes is
known only to God and himself, not to human eyes. Visibbis
autem ecclesia non est Pontifex Romanus, etc., sed quotquot per
universum orbem Christo nomen dederunt. Among them there
are some who are called Christians wrongly, because they believe
not; and in the visible Church there are some who are not
members of the elect, invisible Church. Accordingly the ecclesia
invisibilis is a narrower circle than the visible. On the other
hand, if the Romish Church is understood by the visible, there
are members of the true Church outside this visible one. He
does not say in the passage, that the elect form the ecclesia
invisibibs, to him the invisible Church is no civitas Platonica ;
he rather ascribes an organization (pastores, magistratus) to the
Church in general. Calvin (in the dedication of his Institutio to
Francis I., Corp. Ref. xxx. 22 f. Inst. Rel. Chr., ed. Tholuck, i. 15,
of the year 1536): In his cardinibus controversia nostra vertitur:
primum, quod ecclesiae formam semper apparere et spectdbilem
esse contendunt, deinde quod formam ipsam in sede Romanae
ecclesiae et praesulum suorum ordine constituunt. Nos contra
asserimus : et ecclesiam nulla apparente forma stare posse, nee
formam externo bid splendore — sed longe aba nota contineri,
nempe pura Verbi Dei praedicatione et legitima sacramentorum
administratione (iv. 12. 1, the disciplina is also described as
maxime necessaria to the Church), iv. 1. 7. Ed. Thol. ii. 193 :
De ecclesia visibili et quae sub cognitionem nostram cadit, quale
judicium facere conveniat, — bquere existimo. Diximus enim
bifariam de ecclesia sacros bbros loqui. Interdum — earn intelb-
gunt, quae revera est coram Deo, in quam nubi recipiuntur, nisi
qui et adoptionis gratia filii Dei sunt et Spiritus sanctificatione
vera Christi membra. In this case the Church embraces all the
elect from the beginning of the world. Saepe autem ecclesiae
nomine universam — multitudinem in orbe dispersam designat
(S. Ser.), quae unum se Deum et Christum colere profitetur,
Baptismo initiatur in ejus fidem, Ccenae participatione unitatem
in vera doctrina et caritatem testatur, consensionem habet in
Verbo Domini ad ejus prasdicationem, ministerium conservat a
Christo institutum. In hac autem plurimi sunt permixti hypo-
critae, sinners also of various classes, who are not reached by
church discipbne. Quemadmodum ergo nobis invisibilem, solius
Dei oculis conspicuam ecclesiam credere necesse est, ita hanc,

note. 355
quae respectu hominum ecclesia dicitur, observare ejusque com-
munionem colere jubemur. As relates to individuals, God
knows His own, and He alone (§ 8).' But He permits us by the
judicium caritatis to regard as brethren those who show by
confession of faith, exemplary walk, and partaking of the Sacra
ments, that they adhere to the same God and Christ with us.
On the other hand, God has provided for the body of the Church
being known by visible signs. These are Word and Sacraments.
For it must certainly be bebeved, that they are not fruitless
(§§ 9, 10). Luther in the (second) commentary on the Epistle
to the Galatians (Walch. vib. 2745, Erlang. ed. iii. 38) : Recti
igitur fatemur in symbolo, nos credere ecclesiam sanctam. Est
emminvisibilis, habitans in spiritu, in loco inaccessibib, ideo non
potest videri ejus sanctitas. Deus enim ita abscondit et obruit
earn infirmitatibus, peccatis et erroribus varus formis crucis et
scandabs ut secundum sensum nusquam appareat. Qui hoc
ignorant — -statim offenduntur. Others, on the contrary, in-
vertunt articulum fidei : credo ecclesiam sanctam, et pro credo
ponunt: video.
Against Jerome Emser (Walch, xvib. 1654): I therefore
conclude that the Christian Church is not tied to any one
place, person, or time (nor to the counterfeit Church of the
Roman Pope). Ab Christians in the world pray thus: I
believe in the Holy Ghost, one holy Christian Church, the
communion of saints. If the article is true, it fobows that
no one can see or feel the holy Christian Church, nor may it be
said : Lo, it is here or there. For what is believed is not seen
or felt. — Against Ambrose Catharinus (xvbi. 1792): But you
may perhaps say: If the Church is altogether in the spirit
and a purely spiritual thing, no one ean know where any part
of it is in the whole world. But (1793 f.):- There are not
wanting signs by which the Church is known — Baptism, the
Bread, and most of all the Gospel. P. 1796 : Of a truth the
Go,spel is the only surest and noblest sign of the Church, far
surer than Baptism or the Bread. I speak not of the written
Gospel, but of that proclaimed with bodby voice, nor of every
sermon debvered from the pulpit in the Church, but of the
Word of the right sort, which teaches the true faith of Christ.
— Simbariy (iv. 1813 on Ps. xxii. 25, xviii. 1221) against
Augustine von Alveld: No one says: "I believe in the Holy
Ghost, one holy Roman Church, a communion of Romanists."
We see, we do not bebeve in the Roman Church. Hence it is not
the Church of the Creed. The true Church, which is believed
in, is a Church of the sanctified by faith. And no one sees
who is bebeving or holy. — On the other hand, the signs, by
which we may know where that Church is in the world, are :

356 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
Baptism, the Sacrament, and" the Gospel. For where Baptism
and the Gospel are, there, no one can doubt, saints are found,
and should be like mere chbdren in the cradle. P. 1214 f. he
regrets that it has become customary to call the outward insti
tution of the Church, and especially the ministerial order, the
Church. Spiritual rights and human laws indeed call such a
matter the Church or Christendom. But there is not a letter in
Scripture to show that such a Church, if it exists apart, was
ordained by God. For the sake, therefore, of better under
standing and brevity, we would call the two Churches by
different names. The first, which is natural, fundamental,
essential, and real, we would cab the spiritual, internal Chris
tendom. The second, which is artificial and external, we
would call a material, external Christendom, not that we desire
to separate them from each other, but as the apostle usuaby
speaks of an inward and outward man. The former is not
without the latter. Simdarly in Walch, v. 450. Why he
wishes to know nothing of a division into two Churches, he
says with special energy (Walch, vii. 303, 304), where he
appbes the parable of the tares. The Lord's forbidding the
servants to tear up the tares is " a comfort against fanatical
spirits, Cathari, Anabaptists, who, because they see the Church
mixed with the godless, shriek all together : The Church is no
Church. This also troubles many people. But if we refused
to tolerate tares, there would be no Church. For, seeing that
the Church cannot exist without tares, to desire to root up the
tares would be to desire to root up the Church. The fanatics,
who refuse to harbour any tares among them, only succeed in
leaving no wheat among them ; i.e., in their desire to be wheat
pure and simple, they end in making themselves with their
great holiness, forsooth, no Church at ab, but a pure and simple
sect of the devb. For the arrogant and those puffed up with
vain conceit of hobness are at the farthest remove from the
Church, which spontaneously confesses that she is a sinner and
bears with the intermixed tares, i.e. heretics, sinners, godless."
Melanchthon also agrees therewith, as is shown by the Conf.
Aug. viii. and especially the Apology. From 1535 he began in
his Loci to strongly accentuate the visible side of the Church
in opposition to Anabaptism, and in order to give greater
security to the Church as a historic power, nevertheless not in
such a way as to identify the external mamfestation of the
Church with the ecclesia proprie dicta. To him the Church
still remains an object of faith. Cf, Herrlinger, ut supra, pp.
252-268.

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 357
C. — Dogmatic Investigation.
§ 149.
1. The distinction of the Church as Visibilis and Invisibilis
has decisive dogmatic value, but is capable of being wrongly
conceived in various ways. Hence, first of ab, the right
meaning must be fixed. As two churches are not to be
understood thereby, so also the distinction must not be con
founded with the antithesis of reality and idea. The invisible
aspect of the Church is real in an eminent sense, no figment
of thought nowhere existing, merely .something that ought to
exist. Christ, the Holy Spirit, faith, are thoroughly real
powers. Nor is the distinction the same as that between the
true and false ChurcL This would issue in two churches,
one of which would be altogether undeserving of the name
of Church. Further, the invisible ChurcH is not identical
with the triumphant Church ; for although the perfected
righteous belong to the ecclesia invisibilis, the seat of the
latter is not merely heaven. The ecclesia invisibilis is
found also on earth in the militant, visible Church, else the
earthly Church would be no longer a Church. Many em
phasize the invisible Church in a sense which shows only
too plainly that invisibility signifies to them at most an ideal
that ought to be and is essentially identical with the non
existence of an actual Church. Atomistic and separatist
thinkers often conceal their feeble sense of communion by
appealing to the invisible Church, of which they wish to be
regarded members, whbe utterly indifferent to the visible
Church. Many of the educated understand by the invisible
Church, in which they reckon themselves, a sort of aristocracy
of nobler, loftier natures, for whom the historic reabty of the
Church is too bad to allow them to share its responsibilities,
tobs, and sufferings. They seem to themselves to walk on
the heights of humanity, whereas they are entangled in an
egoism as lacking in humibty as in love. This is the
pseudo-Protestant error, that exaggerates the just critical
element, which impels to a distinction between visibibty and
invisibility in the Church, to such a degree as to mean that
reality and idea are divorced from each other.

358 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
But then certainly the opposition to the emphasis laid on
the invisibility of the Church must not be pushed so far as
with Stahl, Miinchmeyer, and others to lay the chief stress on
the visibility of the Church, from a fear lest the idea of
invisibility should beget a spiritualistic undervaluing of the
outward Church, or an indifference to the interval between
it and the divine idea of the Church. The priority of the
visible to the invisible Church is dogmaticaby untenable.
No doubt, faith might originate through the Word alone, and
therefore through a co-operating outward element. But the
Word, which of course comes first, is stib no Church. That
faith originates now through the ministry of the empirical
Church, and therefore now the Church in so far precedes the
faith of individuals, is not called in question by the present
distinction ; but it is quite consistent therewith that a Church
only exists when faith exists.1 Nay, even the outward
element, which ministers to the origination of faith — above all,
the Word — had, first of all an inner existence in the spirit of
the speaker. The visible and outward, whether Creed or
God's Word, is no certain proof of the existence of faith in
the individual speaker. On the other hand, faith only is the
end, to which everything external ministers, so that the chief
stress must stbl fab on that which is invisible in the Church.
Further, it is correct to say that a distinction must be drawn
between the dogmatic and ethical (and stbl further the legal)
idea of the Church. But it cannot be said, that because the
dogmatic idea has to do with that which is essential to the
idea of the Church, whilst unbelievers belong not to the
essential but to the accidental aspect, they must be ignored
in reference to the dogmatic idea, and especially that their
subsumption under the same idea of the Church, which
includes the divine work of gathering together saints, involves
a logical self-contradiction. Even the need of redemption,
and therefore sin, has a side related to Dogmatics, and is no
merely ethical idea. Sin is not to be regarded as a vanishing
quantity, a nonentity or defect, which for the sake of Christ's
advocacy does not come into consideration when contemplated
sub specie cetemitatis. Rather, time and development have a
meaning even for God.2 And as concerns the divine idea
1 Cf. § 128, p. 155. » See vol. i 244 f. 328 f.

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 359
of the Church, God has wibed no Church but one which
advances to its consummation through development, through
holding febowship with non-believers, nay, with such as are
unbebevers at least for the moment. But the idea of the
Church is of course modified by, the mingling which thus
arises ; not indeed in the sense that unbelievers belong just as
essentiaby to the idea of the Church in their own right, so to
speak, as believers, for they are only connected with the
Church as an element to be vanquished or to be cut off in
due time, but in the sense that the Church would not answer
to its divine idea K it desired to separate from all non-
bebevers and ceased to be a seminarium credentium. And
thus the idea of the Ecclesia large dicta is justified. How the
Church has to accomplish the vanquishing of unbelievers is
an ethical question. But it is part of its dogmatic idea, that
it is instituted by God in order more and more to reach its
completeness and perfection by development, by historical
progress and conflict with unbebef. It is indeed correct to
say, that through Christ, who pertains to the Church as its
Head, the Church may rightly be called holy, despite its
stains, despite the commingling of hypocrites or unbelievers
deforming its historic nianKestation ; and such a theory is in
keeping with faith. But this wbl not justify the Church in
being indifferent, in rebance on Christ's vicarious hobness, to
the duty of its own actual holiness, and to the unhobness
existing in its circle, and therefore in regarding its dogmatic
idea as always equaby reabzed. Rather, the object of the
expectant faith of the Church are stbl future acts of God, who
wib perfect His work in it and present it pure and spotless, a
state not as yet existing even to the eye of faith ; for it is by
no means a matter of divinely-wrought faith to. regard in a
docetic spirit development and history as something indifferent
and valueless in reference to the idea.
And now, after disposing of false conceptions, and repebing
attacks upon the distinction between the " visible and invisible
Church," we can settle and verify the right meaning of that
distinction. 2. The Church is cabed invisible first, because its spiritual
essence, as well as the work of the Holy Spirit generaby, is
not perceptible to sense ; secondly, because it is neither per-

360 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
ceivable by sense nor cognizable with certainty, who are among
the true believers and the sanctified by faith ; nay, those belong
to it who are no longer corporeaby upon earth. On the
other hand, the meaning is not that.the Church is incognizable;
for, on the contrary, it has been constantly repeated, that it has
marks" by which we may know that it is and where it is. But
these marks must of necessity be outward things — Word and
Sacrament — although1 faith is requisite to judge of their value
and recognize them as marks of the Church. Consequently
the Church is cabed visible, although by its nature incognizr
able to sense, first, so far as the invisible Church stbl has
outward signs belonging to the sensible world, which give to
faith, not to the senses, a guarantee for the existence of the
Church ; for faith is assured that, where Word and Sacrament
are observed, there is the Church, for the. means of grace are
not ineffectual. Secondly, the invisible Church is called
visible, because believers or the sanctified by the Holy Spirit,
its members upon earth, are visible persons perceivable by
sense. Thirdly and finally, visibdity is also ascribed to the
Church, which is holy by nature, and consists of saints, in the
sense that it is part of its idea to hold communion also with
those not yet believers in order to lead them to faith. Since
it receives such into its outward communion, or tolerates
them therein (especially because they are baptized), the
mamfestation of its community-life includes such as belong to
it simply as objects of its culture ; for without this it could
no longer be cabed a seed-plot of faith. In this way, without
being forced to deny its' inner holy essence, it condescends, in
keeping with its divine vocation, to become the Ecclesia large
dicta, which, whbe perceptible to sense as a community of
men, is again as a Church cognizable only to faith. For only
faith is aware, that a kernel of men sanctified by faith must
be sought in the outward ccetus vocatorum, nay, that a Church
must be sought only within that ccetus, not outside it, where
neither Word nor Sacraments are dispensed. On all these
grounds it is certain, that the Church as Ecclesia proprie dicta
is an object of credo, not of sensuous perception, although it
pertains to the idea of the Church to extend its influences
into the world of visibility, and also that we must distinguish
from sensible perceptibleness. the cognizableness (i.e. to faith),

VISIBLE AND DIVISIBLE CHURCH. 361
which of course pertains to the Church both in itself and in
its manifestation, or as the Ecclesia large dicta?
3. It thus remains to verify the right, nay the dogmatic
necessity of the distinction between the visible and invisible
Church, but in the sense now settled, that, strictly taken, we
can only speak of the invisibility and visibility of one and
the same Church, not of a visible and invisible Church, as if
there were two, which implies that visibbity must not be
taken as identical with absolute cognizableness, nor invisi->
bibty with absolute incognizableness.
The necessity of acknowledging both sides fobows from the
fobowing considerations. That no Church at all would exist, if
by this were understood merely a community cognizable by
sense, needs no further exposition after what has been said.
Even the Romish Church holds that no Church would, exist
without faith and real connection with the Triune God. But,
further, nothing outward, however holy and essential, such as
God's Word and Sacrament, would be a Church. Everything
visible in and by the Church must have for its end and aim
the supplementing and nourishing of faith, which is something
invisible, like God with whom faith is in communion, and
only with this invisible element is the bving foundation of an
existing Church given. But, conversely, the inner or invisible
side of the Church is inseparable from the outward or visible ;
for this its inner aspect existed already, continually springing
into existence through the medium of an outward instrument
— the Word of God and the Sacraments, which have to be
administered by the existing Church. But again, faith and
through faith communion with God in Christ being estabbshed,
it is impossible for the Church to remain mere invisible com
munion. Bebevers would not be a Church, unless they also
had communion with each other. Communion is the inner
element objectivized, and thus making itself cognizable.
Without love, faith would be dead, a bfeless potency. But
love shows itself in the intercourse of giving and taking, in
which process again the Word of God and the Sacraments
form the most important means of intercourse for the com
munion of believers.
So far the inner connection between the visible and invisible
1 Although not in reference to persons.

362 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
Church is evident. Both predicates are therewith demon
strated to be in mutual and friendly relation, and both
essential to the idea of the Church. But the visibility gains
a further significance through the entrance of non-believers
into the outer circle of the Church, a contradiction being thus
seemingly introduced into the idea of the Church, so far as
in some way it includes non-believers and yet is said to
remain one Church. In other words : The Ecclesia large dicta
involves difficulty, and yet this is the actual historic Church
of all ages, whereas it seems to aim at combining utterly con
tradictory elements. But the matter assumes another aspect,
when it is considered that the Ecclesia proprie dicta with its
invisible* essence has to organize and reabze itself in and out
of the world of the first creation, in which sin has gained the
mastery, and in pursuance of its vocation to enter into febow
ship of living intercourse with that world. The empirical
manifestation of the Church is thus clouded, the certain cog
nizableness of true bebevers is especially lacking, nay, even in
believers sin is still a power by which the good principle is
fettered and vebed, instead of attaining free and bright
revelation. And this gives occasion to the reproach, that the
complete Evangelical idea of the Church on one side as a
societas fidei et Spiritus Sancti, and on the other as Ecclesia
large dicta, in which the wicked and unbebevers also are
found, is self- contradictory, and in any case the empirical
Church, which carries such a contradiction in its bosom, must
renounce the claim to be reaby a Church by the Evangebcal
standard.1 The Evangebcal idea of the Church, say others, is
only tenable, provided it is permitted altogether to ignore non-
believers or impii even in reference to the empirical Church,
and to regard them as vanishing before the true point of view
or as non-existent, because the real Church is covered by
Christ its Head. The insufficiency of the latter expedient
has been shown. To the former reproach we reply :
Bebevers and unbebevers are certainly a contradiction, but
a Church community, containing a mixture of both, does not
1 Or the being sanctified by faith must be excluded from the idea of the
Church as an essential nota, and the Church must rather be defined as ecclesia
vocatormn, and therefore exclusively by objective signs, such as Baptism and
God's Word.

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 363
for that reason form a contradiction destroying its character
as a Church, just as little as a State must needs become a
non ens, K ab its members are not animated by the State-idea,
and if, on the contrary, a number of them are hostile to the
S bate-principle. Even in such a mixture the empirical Church
is stbl reaby a Church, so far as the difference between its
essence and those in contradiction thereto is not forgotten,
but remains in bving consciousness ; nay, this consciousness
influences the wib to testify and act against error and sin, — in
other words, so long as the Church, which is principaliter
societas fidei et Spiritus Sancti, in fulfilment of its calling (not
merely passively, still less decbning from itself), becomes the
Ecclesia large dicta. Certainly the reason why unbelievers
have a place in the Ecclesia large dicta, and in communion with
bebevers, is not that they are unbebevers. But because they
are able and bound to become believers, they have in them
another side, which brings them into febowship with believers ;
and it is precisely the strength and essence of the Ecclesia
proprie dicta which is cherished and fostered by communion
with them. They are capable of redemption and committed to
the Church as an object of its culture, especially where the regular
administration of baptism takes the form of infant-baptism.
Believers have no right to declare the season of grace of non-
believers expired, discontinue their culture, and anticipate
the Judgment. On the contrary, the Church must hold com
munion with them. Whbe notoriously antichristian elements
may be excluded by Church discipbne, and offences in walk
and doctrine expebed, this gives no sanction to a Donatist
course. The tares, so bke the wheat as to be undistinguish-
able from it before harvest, would not thereby be extirpated.
Nay, the effect of a premature excision must be to expel those
from the Church who ought to be won over by right treatment.
Not merely are the true believers, who properly constitute the
Church, not certainly recognizable because of hypocrites, but
also the knowledge is denied us in what persons the better
features suggestive of hope exist, despite appearances to the
contrary. For the same reason also Donatism fails in pre
senting a holy and pure Church in visibbity. It cannot
avoid including in the Church those who only seem to be
pure, and excluding those to whom it owes Christian fellow-

364 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
ship and culture, whbe it forgets also the sin still remaining
even in believers. Accordingly in the earthly world-period
neither is a separating judgment possible in reference to
everything impure in doctrine or in persons, nor a gather
ing together of the saints of the Church; nor is this even
enjoined. The eagerness for premature presentation is common
to the Donatist idea of the Church with Catholicism, save
that the latter places its confidence in the institutions of its
Church,1 and in its material hobness,soto speak; while Donatism,
on the other hand, seeks to bring about a Church composed of
thoroughly holy persons. By these means, on one side the
Church is narrowed in a separatist spirit, and on the other
divorced from its world-historical duty towards what is without,
in opposition to the fact that, according to Christ's Word, it is
itself the BatriXela t&v ovpav&v, the idea of which requires a
tolerating of the tares and a union of believers and unbelievers
during its earthly world-period. Thus the idea of the Ecclesia
large dicta is sanctioned by Christ HimseK.
But of course this mixed community, if it is to be rightly
called a Church, must have a cohesive bond in the common
blessing of God's Word, although in very different degrees of
appropriation, and in the use of the Sacraments ; for, were
these wanting, the essential signs of the Church, even in the
wider sense, would be wanting, and thus there would be no
Church. The reaction of the Church, where it exists, against
error and sin has its firm and invincible support in these its
immutable characteristics — Word and Sacrament. It cannot
be in that state of contradiction between essence and manifesta
tion wibingly, but only reluctantly. But just as little can it
solve the contradiction arbitrarily or violently. It can neither
palhate the contradiction and accelerate the harmony between
the two by pronouncing the world holy, by weakening the
antithesis between nature and grace, or by a superficial doctrine
of repentance, nor by laying stress upon outward forms, works,
and usages, apart from the life-giving Spirit ; finaby, neither by
violent excision of everything in it of a worldly nature, nor,
which would be essentiaby the same, by withdrawing from the
1 In a similar spirit the degenerate orthodoxy of the seventeenth century thinks
the fiorentissimus status ecclesia! has come, where there is purity and unity in
public teaching;

VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE CHURCH. 365
world, in order to present in the like-minded a community
of the pure and believing alone. Rather, what is enjoined on
it is spiritual conflict with the world within and without it.
The salt, the leaven, exists for the mass, and ought not to
remain isolated. The fulness of love seeks what is empty in
order to fill it. The Church must not avoid communication
and participation from fear of pollution. But in doing both,
it must reflect Christ in maintaining itself in righteousness.
Instead of losing itself in the world, and making itself like
it, it has to assimbate, and thus to conquer the world. It
thus remains the one true Church, even in the sullied
manifestation of its actuality. Invisible in essence, it is
constantly in process of becoming visible, by virtue of its
immortal inner nature. But it humbly submits to suffer
at the hands of the world within and without it, and to exist
in servant-form, not in holy, glorious manifestation, untb the
coming of the. Lord, to whom alone the final judgment pertains.
4. Finaby, the distinction of the Church as visible and
invisible has great value in its right confessional statement,
and its acknowledgment is a. test of the purity of Evangelical
teaching. The value is defensive, critico-polemical, and finally
eirenical. In reference to the defensive aspect, or as a bul
wark of pure Reformation doctrine, the distinction has value,
because for its sake it is important, in distinction from
Cathobcism, to maintain faith — that internal, not sensibly
cognizable, and therefore invisible element — and the union
with Christ estabbshed by faith, as the primitive factor
through which the Church is constituted. That union with
Christ is the principle and regulator of communion with men
(bebevers and non-believers). It is true, Word and Sacrament
precede faith, and at present also the Church which administers
them. But as those means of grace are not the Church,
because the Church first exists with believers, so also the
Church is not the faith-estabbshing power. Rather, faith is
generated by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament,
and the Church is not the power over both. No idea of the
Church is evangebcal, which no longer makes the faith of the
members an essential constituent factor of the Church, but,
in order to get rid of the predicate of the invisibility (i.e. of
the relative incognizableness) of its true members, makes

3o6 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
institutions of any kind the chief thing in the idea of the
Church, call it episcopacy or clergy, forms of Confession or1
the hare fact of being baptized. Especiaby, as Harnack truly
remarks,2 the Church must not be defined as the entire body
of the baptized.3 That would be, since he who advances not
to faith, or he who again fabs away, remains baptized, im-
pbcitly to treat faith as non-essential to the idea of the
Church. It would be an externalizing of the Church,
a retrogression to the Cathobc mode of view, an offence
against the material principle. The divinely-ordained con
nection between Word and Spirit, between baptism and faith,
would be dissolved. Baptized non-bebevers, because true
members of the Church, would also be members of Christ.
That a magical notion of baptism as an opus operatum would
at the same time follow, has been previously shown.
But the distinction has also its indispensable critical and
polemical importance, not merely with an external reference —
especially against Donatism and Romanism4 — but also with
internal reference. For it keeps the consciousness awake to
the difference or contradiction between the essence of the
Church and its empirical manifestation. And this summons to
the work of Church purification.
Finally, this distinction includes eirenical breadth of sym
pathy, a Christian oecumenical character. Where this dis
tinction is neglected, and the empirical Church made identical
with the essence of the Church, there haughty, stagnant self-
contentment appears in the Church in question, wliich in a
repebent and fault-finding spirit loves in its narrowness and
short-sightedness to sit in judgment on other Confessions,
whbe overlooking its own imperfection. But in virtue
of the fact that we Evangelicals do not make the question
of belonging to the true Church dependent on frail, professedly
infabible human institutions bable to corruption and on connec
tion with them, but on communion with Christ by faith, it is
possible for us to regard, as true partners in faith, ab those
1 As Munchmeyer would have. 2 Ut supra, p. 20.
3 Such a definition would not keep to that which makes the Church the
Church. * Donatism refuses to know anything of an Ecclesia large dicta ; Roman
Catholicism emphasizes the visibility in such a degree as to leave but an
incidental place to faith and personal holiness.

MILITANT CHURCH. 367
in other churches, beyond the outward limits of the Evangelical
Church, who are in communion with the living Head — Christ,
¦ who has His people in all of them. Christ is not so poor,
George Calixtus used to say, as to have His Church only in
Sardinia. THIRD SUBDIVISION.
THE MDLITANT CHURCH.
§150.
The Church, assimilating the world to itself, and organizing
itseK therein (§§ 147-149), on one side stands in con
trast with the non-Christian world as a historic spiritual
power, exerting influence on the world in a regular,
systematic way, and thus acquiring a potent manifested
aspect. But, on the other side, coming in contact
with the world, it experiences therefrom counter-
influences, which not merely limit or clog its mani
festation, but also disturb it internally. The unity and
holiness of the Church in its outward and inward reality
are injured by violation of the common spirit of love ;
the truth implanted in it is disturbed by errors. These
disturbances, when not mere momentary phenomena,
are schism and heresy. But stbl the Spirit of God
departs not from the Church, hut arouses in it, where it
stbl exists, purifying and cementing, reforming and con
forming activity by way of counteraction ; and thus as
a militant Church (Ecclesia militans) it stib remains
Christ's true Church.
1. Although in the earthly world-period the Church is not
an object of sight, but of faith (§ 140), it stib reaby exists
upon earth. There is always a seed of believers, although
they may at times be only sparsi per totum orbem, i.e. without
regular communion with each other, but exist for the most
part merely as a communion of individual members with each
other and with their Head. Did believers no longer exist,

368 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
and had all Christendom faben away, Word and Sacrament
would also no longer be preserved ; it would be as if Christ
had never come : He must appear once more to initiate His
historic work, for the purpose of taking up again its broken
threads. But as Word and Sacrament are never without effect,
so believers, where they exist, are animated with the impulse
to realize the communion of faith as widely as possible, to
preserve and extend Word and Sacrament. But a stbl un-
vanquished world remains in the Church, because sin and
error are still a power in every believer, and because the
Church — the salt of the world — must not or cannot outwardly
separate from the world.1 To do this, as has been shown,
would be contrary to its vocation and to love. It preserves
itself, however, as a true Church, because purifying forces are
at its command in the possession of Word and Sacrament.
The Holy Spirit is a spirit of discipline, and from Him pro
ceeds the Church discipline, for the sake of which, as formerly
shown, the Church has to organize itself. Now Church
discipline certainly nowhere seems able to attain a certain
and complete result, because the absolute excommunication
from its communion, which might secure such a result, is
interdicted to the Church by the educating and loving activity
which it owes to all who are baptized. But it can stib re
main a true Church, according to what was proved above
respecting the nature of Church discipline, and the stages of
belonging to the Church.2 The objects of Church discipbne
who have caused notorious scandal, necessarily lose the right
of influencing the Church by election or by official functions,
that the scandal may be weakened and deprived of its con
tagious power. They may also be debarred from the Holy
Supper, if they lack the capacity profitably to receive it. By
this means they are relegated to the first stages of belonging
to the Church, and are now to be treated as under instruction,
and as Christian minors. If they refuse to submit to this, they
exclude themselves from the Church. But the Church, although
compelled 3 for a time on its part to limit or suspend communion,
must never exclude from the hearing of God's Word, and must
always hold itself ready to receive the penitent again into
1 John xvii 15 ; § 149. 2 § 1475, 1. § 1466.
3 According to Matt. vii. 6 ff.

MILITANT CHURCH. 369
full communion. By purifying action, the chief force of which
consists in employment of God's Word, the Church can thus
maintain itself as a true Church, despite the sin and error in its
bosom. It is not in the world for a mere show, but to be in
spiritual intercourse therewith, in order that through its word
the world may come to believe ; but it is not of the world.1
It would destroy itself by conformity to the world. But it
would also destroy itself by absolute, and therefore unloving
separation from the world. Instead of this, it remains in the
world in the character of the salt of the world that loses not
its savour, or in its character of a militant Church contending
with the weapons of faith, of holy love and hope.
2. In its mbitant character the Church might have re
mained a unity even upon earth, and thus been all the more
successful in its struggle with the world. But, as we know,
in the course of its history it has suffered from various
divisions or schisms. Like ab disturbances, this also must be
derived from error and sin2 If error were only in an indivi
dual, without disturbing the community, it would be transient ;
and if there were no error, but primarily mere sin, deficiency
of love in an individual, a merely momentary weakening of
the common spirit might arise. But sin and error stand also
in intrinsic connection, they strengthen and fertilize each
other, and thus nothing is more natural than their seeking
and finding each other. Want of love and selfishness may
seek their legitimation in errors, thus acquiring contagious
force. Errors may beget strife, abenate the mutually friendly,
and cause love to wax cold. Where sin is, there also is the
seed of discord ; and since sin is everywhere, we may say,
discord is everywhere and always on the point of bursting
forth ; and peace is nowhere save where it is again and again
newly won by keeping down the elements of discord. Holy
Scripture exhorts : " Pursue peace," because peace is always
fleeing away. But sin also begets error, by preventing mutual
understanding and agreement. When the powers of error
and sin, the powers that mar love and truth, gather and accu
mulate in masses through the predominance of the world in
1 1 Cor. v. 10, 11, vii. 31.
2 Not from difference of national individualities, which on the contrary ought
to be moulded charismatically, and to form a bond of communion.
Doenbe. — Christ. Doct. iv. 2 A

370 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
the Church, a Church-division is the consequence, usually —
at least in great Church-divisions — attaching itself to different
national individuabties (effects, so to speak, of unmastered
earthly matter), binocent in themselves, but overlooking their
need of mutual supplement, or attaching itseK to difference of
degree in apprehending and appropriating Christianity.
Observation. — If the visible unity of the institutional
Church-organism constituted that in which the reality of the
Church resides, the man who breaks with that organism
and its authorities would always be gubty of schism, and
would secede from the true Church. But since obedience to
such authorities can only be conditional,1 because the out
ward organism of the Church does not represent the con
tinuation, but merely the reflection, of Christ's office, and
that possibly in a very distorted form, and since the organism
has not the promise of always being sustained by God's
word and faith, but may fall away from both, there may be
a disobedience to antichristian, Christ-denying ordinances,
which is obedience to Christ, as web as an obedience to such
ordinances, that would be a participation in the sin of
rebebion against Christ. Although in such a case obedience
to Christ seems to be the cause of the division, just because
the organism only remains what it was before the division,
in reality the organism, setting itself in opposition to the call
to obedience to Christ, is the cause of the schism, and excludes
itself from the true Church inasmuch as it sets itself in
opposition to the truth crossing its path.
3. Nothing but sin, and indeed accumulated sin, can spbt the
one Church in its manifestation into a multiplicity of churches,
which surrender positive communion with each other, Church
divisions being always a grievous judgment on the visible
Church. But still the unity can never be utterly abobshed.
Even the divided churches in their character as Christendom
stand in contrast with the world ; and the circle where the light
of Christianity stbl shines, be it ever so dimly, is never quite
identical with the circle where it is extinguished or does not
shine. Where the visible Christian Church stbl exists through.
preservation of Word and Sacrament, there also is something of
Christian spirit and life, and therefore something to counteract
the want of love, or discord and error. Ab particular churches
1 § 136, 4.

MILITANT CHURCH. 371
have a claim to be regarded as Christian so long as they have
not lost, but stib exercise, the essential characteristics or signs
of the Church — Word and Sacrament. For, so long as these
endure, even with many perversions, the presupposition of
faith must be maintained, namely, that despite heresy and
schism the true Church still contains members, and the
healing force of the higher nature is not yet extinct. In each
of the Church-parties deserving the name, the Holy Spirit is
at work as a Reforming spirit, and accomplishes His end by
setting in motion purifying and cementing forces. Moreover,
every particular Church needs such action at all times both
for its own sake and in relation to others. The conflict of the
militant Church must be directed against the principles that
would dissolve the true Church — sin and error, — above ab,
against impurity within itself.1 It must never so frame its
organization or government as to interdict or exclude effort to
purify its life or teaching. But as relates to conduct towards
other particular churches, it is wrong to fix the gaze on their
faults alone, and, forgetful of our own defects or faults, to
wrap ourselves up in self-admiration and security, and by want
of sympathy to lessen our influence upon them, instead of
righteously acknowledging the excebences or the good
bestowed also on them, and regarding that good as a common
blessing intended for the whole of the Church, and to be
sought by it. Just as blameworthy of course is an attempt
at union, whose only aim is to promote an external unity.
Such unity is no absolute good alone. The absolute good
even for the visible Church is, not indeed a particular form of
dogma, but the truth embodied in the dogma and contained
in Word and Sacrament. Ghrist is the true treasure of the
Church. Thus truth and unity, faith and love, seem to be
limited, but only in appearance, because love is not Christian,
unless it takes its law of bfe from Christ. It is the function
of Symbobcs to determine the nearness or distance of particu
lar Church-parties from each other, and thus to fix the limit
and direction of efforts after unity among them. Towards par
ties, with whom union is inadmissible as Church communities,
like the Roman Cathobc Church, ecclesiastical hospitality is
at least to be exercised, and, what is of greater import, the
1 1 Pet. iv. 17

372 EXISTENCE OF THE CHURCH.
consciousness of mutual relationship must be shown at least
by conflict in love, i.e. by rendering help to what is true among
them, in criticising what is false, for which a keener eye
always dwebs in others. And this is the dogmatic principle
of Confessional Polemics. Since each individual Church has
to do with the others at least in controversy, and each one
desires thus to render loving service to the others, nay, ac
knowledges the good presented by them in distinctive expres
sion, in this way also they are a unity, although divided, or
a Christian family ; and in this sense all churches, which are
stib parts of the one true Church, are a mibtant Church in the
spirit of truth and love within and without.
4. Although, therefore, error may be strong, and the bond
of communion within or without feeble from different causes,
so long as a particular Church is still really mbitant in out-
' ward respects, and stib more inwardly or with itself, it is a
Christian Church, not forsaken by the heabng forces of grace.
Both in the toil of conflict outwardly, and in the zeal for
constant inward purifying, the believing kernel in different
Church-parties forms the true Christendom, strong through faith
in the might of Him whom it knows to be with it, and who is
able to convert even the storm and tempest of the Church
into blessing.1 The believers in the Church are at all times
the preserving, quickening, hallowing salt in relation to those
destined and on their way to faith. Without being outwardly
separate, they form the inner circle and real centre of the
empirical Church. Without being outwardly cognizable, they
are also the upholders of particular churches, in whom and
for whose sake these churches form a part of the actual
Church. This invisible Church in the earthly Church has and
is aware of the promise even as to its earthly history, that the
gates of hell shab not prevab against it. It forms the Militant
Church contending in the certainty of victory.
1 Matt. xvi. 18 ff., xviii. 18 ff.

CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IN GENERAL. 373

THIED DIVISION.
THE DOCTEINE OF THE LAST THINGS, OR OF
THE CONSUMMATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD.
§ 151.
There is a consummation of individuals and of the whole,
especiaby of the Church, which, however, is realized not
through a purely immanent, uninterrupted process, but
through crises and Christ's Second Advent.
Literature.— Ph. Nicolai, Theoria Vitce AEternce, 1620. G.
Cabxtus, Dissert, de immortalitate, de purgatorio, de statu ani-
marum separatarum, de extremo judicio, de beatitudine ceterna.
Meyfart, Das himmlische Jerusalem, 1627 ; Das hollische Sodom,
1630 ; Das jilngste GericM, 1632, each 2 vols. J. Gesenius, Die
vier letzten Dinge. Fbigge, Geschichte des Glaubens an Unsterb-
lichkeit, Auferstehung, etc., 1794 to 1800. Heppe, Dogmatik
des deutschen Proiestantismus im 16 Jahrhundert, iii. 413 ff., 1857.
Cf. Halm, Dogmatik, ed. 1, 636 f. (especiaby gives the bterature
of Rationalism and Supernaturalism). Schleiermacher, Der chr.
Glaube, II. § 157 ff. Nitzsch, System, etc., ed. 6, p. 398 ff. Rothe,
Ethik, ed. 1, vol. 2, § 801 ff. Kern, Die christliche Eschatologie u.
Pradestinationslehre, 1840. Weisse, Philosophische Bedeutung
der christlichen Eschatologie, Stud. u. Kr. 1835, I., and Philos.
Dogmatik, § 952-972. Weitzel, Die christliche Unsterblichkeits-
lehre (exegetical treatise), Stud. u. Kr. 1836, IV. Miiber, J.,
Stud. u. Kr. 1835, II. Lange, ibid., 1836, see Positive Dogmatik,
1851, p. 1227 ff. His Vermisehte Schriften, II.: Beitrdge zur
Lehre von den letzten Dingen, 1841. Fr. Richter, Die Lehre von
den letzten Dingen, 1833. Luthardt, Die Lehre von den letzten
Dingen, 1861. Althaus, Die letzte Dinge, 1858. Hebart, Die
zweite sichtbare Zukunft Christi, Eine Darstellung der gesammten
biblischen Eschatologie in ihren Hauptmomenten, 1850. Karsten,
H., Die letzten Dinge, ed. 3, 1861. Kahle, Biblische Eschatologie.
Erste Abtheilung, A. T. 1870. Schmidt, Die eschatologischen
Lehrstiicke in ihrer Bedeutung fiir die gesammte Dogmatik und
das kirchliche Leben, Jdhrb. f. d. Theol. vols. 13 and 15. Schmid,
Die Frage von der Wiederbringung alter Dinge, ibid., vol. 13,
p. 102 ff. Schweizer, Chr. Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 377. Martensen,
§ 273 ff.
Apol. 217 ; Cat. 371 ; Cat. Maj. 501 ff. ; Form. Cone. 594, 4.
719, 7. 729, 18.

374 ESCHATOLOGY.
Observation. — Eschatology embraces :
Firstly, the future up to the decision, both the future of
individuals (death and the intermediate state) and the future
of God's kingdom on earth, where the doctrines of Chibasm
and of Antichrist come under review.
Secondly, the doctrine of Christ's Second Coming, of the
Resurrection of the Dead, and the Judgment.
1. Conscience already carries in it the fundamental features
of an Eschatology,1 for the good is not even believed in as the
existing and alone truly real, unless it is believed in as the
power to judge the world.2 God cannot, it is true, desire to
compel the wicked to goodness ; but were He to allow evb to
rule for ever, there would either be no zeal in Him for the
honour of the good, or no power to give effect to that zeal. ' It
would therefore not merely be contrary to God's outward glory
in face of the world, if He were not World-judge, but also
contrary to His inner glory, for He could not be indifferent
to the prevalence and dominion of good in the world without
indifference to good generaby. But the honour of good not
merely requires that it exist and show its superiority to evb
by a judgment, but also that it reveal its inner wealth, its
fulness of energy. In this way a goal of the world is posited
negatively and positively. Heathenism, indeed, has but little
of Eschatology. To it, questions as to Whence and Whither
are secondary to life in the present. It moves only in the
circle of physical life, and knows no absolute divine goal of
the world, and no such goal for individuals, but has merely
attempts at a cosmogony and at a doctrine of immortality and
end of the world. The majority in heathenism, to pass by
the dualistic rebgions, so far as their thoughts are at all
directed to the future, think of the world as remaining
eternaby as it is ; although a restless mutahbity is part of its
constitution, a mutability however subservient to no goal
lying in a straight bne, but at most to a cycle which consti
tutes no progress. There also the individual person is as bttle
considered as the future ; but where continuance is bestowed on
him, this mostly takes the form suited to the fundamental
notion of a cycle, i.e. the form of a transmigration of souls, a
recurrence measured by shorter or longer periods, but without
'Eom, ii. 12 ff.
2 Hence in Gen. xviii. 25 God is already conceived as Judge of the world.

CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IN GENERAL. 375
perceptible progress as the result. It is only where personal,
moral duties spring into consciousness under the influence of
a more powerfully awakened conscience, that not merely are
ideas of a future separation of the good and bad, of punish
ments and rewards, formed, but the future of the world as a
whole is also graduaby placed under an ethical point of view.
Most of the heathen religions (and the lower dualistic ones also)
do not reach the thought of a goal of the world, but remain
entangled in an alternation between periods of triumph now
on the part of the light, beneficent powers, and now on the
part of the dark, harmful powers, whether they stop at the
annual cycle or advance to the supposition of longer periods.
The former, for example, is the case in the Egyptian and
Syrian rebgions ; the latter, in Plato, the Stoa, and Buddhism.
But such simple alternation is the opposite of progress, is
anti-teleological. Only those dualistic rebgions, in which the
antithesis of moral good and evb emerges with more definite
predominance, occupy themselves more with Eschatology, and
this in such a form that, after eventful struggles in the earthly
world, a blessed world-goal, and an enduring triumph of the
good, form part of the prospect in the future. So in the
Persian and partiaby in the German religion.
2. But it is only in the sphere of revelation that such a
teleology finds a secure footing. Here first there is scope for
a development of eschatological doctrine, for here first the
ultimate aim rises to consciousness, for which the world was
created, and which must appear in reabzation at the end. The
end or the goal also rules the way to the goal. But here two
points are to be observed. First, that according to the 0. T.
eschatology is bttle more for a long time than a doctrine of
future developments to be looked for on earth, while the gaze
usuaby does not extend beyond the earthly world-period. It
is a future in this world, not in heaven, which the pious of
the 0. T. have before their eyes. For this very reason, again,
it is less the future of individual persons than of the nation and
theocracy. This is in keeping with the historical earthly
vocation of the nation, with the mission which Israel had to
discharge in reference to the history of rebgion. That mission
is represented by the law built upon Monotheism, and
especially by prophecy, which announces more definitely the

376 ESCHATOLOGY.
destinies of the nation, the judgments upon it, the great judg
ment-day of God, and also the glorious Messianic age fobowing
thereupon, which is to be a blessing to other nations. As
relates to individuals, the terrors of Hades (Sheol) are not
vanquished even by the faith of the pious in the O. T.
Beginnings of faith in immortality are present -1 even the
knowledge that death is not man's normal destiny, but con
trary to his idea, is of ancient date. Enoch and Elijah prove
that communion with God is a power above death, and resur
rection is already employed as a figure for the restoration of
the nation. But in the entire 0. T. the notion of Sheol
remains essentiaby similar.2 Just and unjust are gathered in
it. Even the former consider Hades a loss in comparison with
the earthly bfe. A doctrine of the separation of the two
according to the lot deserved is not yet found. In a word, the
0. T. gives no more precise information as to the ultimate fate
of individuals — of the pious and godless.3
3. Christianity alone is the absolutely teleological rebgion,
pointing to a definite decision in the future in reference to
individuals and the whole. In the 0. T, Christianity itself is
the essential contents of Eschatology. One might think that,
after Christianity has become historic fact, prophecy is at an
end, everything is fulfibed. And this was the expectation,
not only of the .prophets, but of the apostles of the Lord,
namely, that the end, the consummation of the world, wib
come with the Messiah — nay, that the Messiah wib first of ab
execute judgment, and that the revealing of His power wbl be
the first thing. But in opposition even to the Baptist,4 Christ
expressly describes judgment not as His first but as His last
work ; and since He had not to appear first in glory, but in
abasement, suffering, and dying, the o-vvreXeta aldvo? was
thereby deferred, and to the first presence (Parousia) of Christ
the expectation of a second was added, on the ground of the
most definite statements of Christ. The division of Christ's
Parousia into a first and second was not merely necessary on
1 Ps. xvi. 10, xvii 15, xlix. 15 ; Isa. xxvi 19, liii. 9 ; Hos. xiii. 14 ;
Dan. xii. 2 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 3-6.
2 Cf. Oehler, 0. T. Theology, I. 245 ff. (Clark). Schultz, A. T. Theologie, ed.
1. I. 360 ff., 396 ff., II. 136. 210-220 ; and Kahle, p. 305 ff.
3 Oehler, ut supra.
* Cf. Matt. iii. 10, 12, with John iii. 17.

CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IN GENERAL. 377
account of the atonement, because the work of redemption
required Christ's sacrifice of Himself in suffering and death,
but was also involved in the necessity of an ethical process in
those to be redeemed. The glory and the sight of Christ's
power could not be the first, because the sight would have
corrupted the motive of surrender to Christ, and have injured
the ethical character of faith. Nevertheless by this post
poning of the revelation of the glory of His person and kingdom,
which certainly appeared to Christian hope but a smab thing,
the certain occurrence of a decision to be expected from the
Messiah was not rendered in the least doubtful. On the
contrary, precisely because the supreme spiritual blessing has
already come in the gospel, Christian faith which trusts in
God knows that the power of consummation exists to bring
everything to decision for or against the good, and to cause the
worth or demerit of every individual definitely to appear, so
that now for the first time through the influence of the gospel
everything is ripe for judgment. A pregnant eschatological
element lies in Christian faith as such. Faith has experienced
so much of Christ's effectual working, that in presence of
what is stbl lacking, however much this may be, it possesses
not merely a hope, but the certainty that the divine idea of
the world wbl not remain simply a fair but impotent picture
of imagination, and that Christ, by the absolutely sufficient
power over sin, the world, the devil, and death dwebing in
Him, wbl not leave the work He has begun a ruin and frag
ment, but will complete it. Nay, the faith of the Church
already descries Christ coming again, as He advances un-
halting and undelaying to the end through His unbroken
activity in the world. And under this aspect faith recognizes
the beginning of the judgment and the end as already come ,
with Christ's manifestation.1 In reference to the future,
bebevers are not limited to opining or wishing. Christians are
a prophetic race,2 they know of the end and completion of the
divine work begun. And thus, under the influence of Chris
tian hope, which anticipates the end — the next fruit of faith —
Christian wisdom forms its ideas of purpose or ideals, and draws
from hope the valiant spirit of love, enabling it with true
stedfastness (inrofjtov^) to desire the right goal in the right way.
1 John iii. 19, xii. 47 ff. 2 1 Pet. i. 3, 4, cf. ii. 9.

378 ESCHATOLOGY.
4. The distinctive feature of Christian Eschatology is its
relation to Christ's person, a thought expressed with special
clearness in the doctrine of Christ's Second Advent. Christ's
person, conceived in the New Testament as ever actively at
work, and in due time again becoming visible, gives colour
and impress to every point in Christian Eschatology. Not
merely wib the ultimate destiny of every one be decided by
his relation to Christ, and communion with Him form the
centre of blessedness to the blessed — not merely will He be
Judge of the world, because He is the Son of man ; He will
also raise the dead, and bebevers will be made like His
glorified body in the Resurrection. The character also of the
intermediate state depends on the relation to Him, and its
duration on the occurrence of His Second Coming to judgment.
Finally, ab conflicts and advances of the Kingdom of God, of
which He is Head, are connected with His name and continued
activity. If theology relegated Him to a secondary position in
reference to the consummation, it would make Him a person
of transient importance, — a view which by reflex influence
must necessarily disorganize the whole of Christology and the
doctrine of God's self-revelation.
5. The presupposition of the consummation of the Church
and the Kingdom of God is the consummation of individual
bebevers. Again, since bebevers leave the earth with
out being saints,1 the perfecting of individuals is dependent
on their personal continuance or immortality, which, however,
needs to be distinguished from the resurrection. There is no
absolutely cogent proof of immortality. As the doctrine of
Man showed, its certainty rests on likeness to God, i.e. in the
last resort on God.2 The true idea of God places the worth
of man and personality so high, and makes God's gracious
purpose of communion with man so certain, that immortality
has its guarantee therein. On account of his essential
relation to God, man has an infinite destiny and the capacity
not to die, which through God issue in the full reabzation of
eternal life in reference to bebevers. Butj the relation of the
wicked also to God is a relation of infinite importance, such
1 According to Cat. Maj. 601. 502, we are only altogether pure and holy at the
Resurrection. Cf. F. C. 719, 7 : sin cleaves to the soul.
1 Matt. .xxii. 29-32. Cf. vol. i § 42.

CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IN GENERAL. 379
as nature has not. Some (and not merely Socinians) concede
immortabty to the regenerate only,1 whereas the unconverted
wicked will sooner or later be overtaken by annihbation.
Observation. — In the early Church many voices were lifted
up in favour of the view that man has no natural immor
tality, but that it is only a gift of Christ's grace, e.g. Arnobius,
and see the article " Tatian " by Moller in Herzog's Th.
Realencyc. This view has been still more commonly adopted
in modern days to avoid the idea of eternal punishment, and
to secure a harmonious conclusion of the history of the
world. So Weisse, Rothe, and others, and especiaby Edward
White.2 In behalf of this view it may certainly be asserted,
that no immortabty in the sense of the soul's incapability of
death in virtue of its own strength can be set up. That the
proof of the immortabty of the soul from the simplicity of
its essence is not conclusive,3 we have seen before. Accord
ing to Ps. civ. 29, the consequence of God withdrawing His
breath is that the creature perishes. As matter of fact, our
soul has not bfe in itself (i.e. the power of life) by nature,
for otherwise it would possess self-existence (aseitat), which
indeed Rothe ascribes to perfected spirits. But in the
proper absolute sense this belongs only to God (of whom,
therefore, it is said that He alone has immortabty), in a
relative sense indeed also to the creature, but only in such a
way that God causes His conserving will to co-operate every
instant. But whbe on these grounds it must be conceded
that both the formula : non potest mori and : non potest non
mori must be rejected in respect of the soul in itself as in
respect of the body, and consequently the formula: potest
mori is applicable to the soul considered by itself, it does not
follow from this, that a reaby human being falls a prey to
annihbation and only the regenerate are really immortal, for
the possibibty remains of a continuance of life having been
conferred on all men by God. In no case can the death of
the body be regarded, as is done by Materialism and Pan
theism, as the cause of the death of the soul in the case of
the non-regenerate. Rather must it remain certain that the
human soul is in itself superior to physical potencies and
1 Which is imparted, according to Dodwell, through the medium of the true
Church and its Sacraments, and therefore not to Dissenters.
2 In his work, Life in Christ. The French translation of the work by C.
Byse, under the title, L'immortaliU conditionnelle, 1880, gives in the preface a
long list of advocates of this view in Switzerland, England, and North America.
In Germany, Nitzsch is mentioned alongside Rothe, Gess, H. Sohultz with
doubtful authority. 3 Vol. ii. § 42.

380 ESCHATOLOGY.
beyond their reach, and therefore is able at ab events to
outbve the destruction of the body. It would be another
question whether the soul cannot be disorganized and led to
destruction by hostile powers within itseK, i.e. by evil, on
which point something wib be said later on. In the present
connection it is enough to see the possibbity established
of the harmonious consummation of the kingdom of God
through the fact that the prospect exists of its deliverance
from all hindering hostbe elements, i.e. unless they consent
to incorporation in the kingdom, the deliverance being
effected either by the elements fabing a prey to destruction,
or being excluded from God's consummated kingdom. Only
on the supposition that a being really human could pass
into a lower class of beings, so that bkeness to God became
utterly extinct in him, could the capacity for immortabty
become extinct in him.
6. But Christianity not merely proclaims immortabty;
according to it, there is also a consummation in reference to
individuals.1 A mere progress in infinitum in the diminution
of evil cannot suffice. Evb is no infinite power bke good. It
may, indeed, be said that consummation would be uniformity.
But rather the nature of evil is to tend to the monotony of
death. Vitality and wealth lie in the positive, the spirit and
the divinely good, which cannot lack the corresponding nature
for the exhibition of itself in the individual and the com
munity. Sin hinders the unfolding of the personality in
agreement with the rich variety of the faculties designed for
harmonious co-operation ; but the power of evb can never pre
clude the consummation of believers, for, while it is absolutely
culpable, it is not absolutely strong, but a finite force (Grosse),
the power of redemption, on the other hand, being infinite.
The latter is the power of indissoluble eternal bfe, never
exhausted, so that evil must be vanquished and excluded
simply by the continuous growth of the power of sanctification.
7. But as bebevers, instead of remaining a fragment, will
attain consummation, so the Church and the kingdom of God
wbl do the same.2 The isolated individual cannot be perfect.
This would be no true consummation, for he is also a member
and stands in need of the whole in order to his own blessed
1 Phil. i. 6 ; Eph. i 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22.
2 John x. 16, xvii. 13, 19, 23 ; Eph. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 28.

CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IN GENERAL. 381
consummation. The generic consciousness, perfected in love,
cannot attain to its absolute satisfaction and realization with
out communion. Again, without individuals, who have to
carry .the whole in themselves, and in whom the whole must
live, without their conservation and consummation, there would
be no consummation of the whole organism, members — whole
and part — reciprocaby requiring each other in order to per
fection. But, more precisely, the following features are
necessary to the consummation of the whole.
First. The completion of the members constituting the
organism. Therefore the succession of generations, and the
supply of living members from those generations, must con
tinue untb the organism has obtained all its essential
members. It must not be inferred herefrom, either that
ab men wib be incorporated as sanctified members in the
organism, or that on the falling away of one class the
organism must remain incomplete. For, apart from the
consideration that, supposing God had a foreknowledge of
what is free, He may have taken into account who will
exclude themselves from the organism in sketching its idea, in
virtue of His infinite creative power He may cause the suc
cession of generations to go on until the number necessary to
completeness is fibed up. Therefore, whoever are lost, a com
pensation through the divine creative power must be supposed.1
Secondly. To the actuabty of the Church's consummation
belongs also a cessation of reproduction, which continually
gives the Church a new world to subdue ; and this pre
supposes a transforming of earthly relations. To marry and
be given in marriage pertains to the present seon,2 which did
not exist always, as bttle as this earth of ours, and in the
same way wbl not exist always. Granting, it might be said
with some teachers, that the power of regeneration, seizing
the entire person, wbl sanctify also the offspring, a pure bfe
thus passing over to the children (a view, however, favoured
neither by Scripture nor experience), even this would be an
essential alteration in earthly relations, not to say that
regeneration can never become a matter of birth without
losing its ethical character.3 That body and spirit in the
1 Cf. Matt. xxv. 28. Talents for the work are not wanting.
2 Luke xx. 35. 3 John iii. 3.

382 ESCHATOLOGY.
present seon are asymptotes, is shown by the old age and
death of Christians. The bodby and the spiritual organism
are stbl in loose connection and external to each other, so
that both have their special centre and their own laws of life,
which is necessary on account of the moral cabing of man.1
Thirdly. None who is impure can have a place in God's
perfected kingdom. Moreover, the number actually carrying
the kingdom in themselves must also contain what belongs
to the perfect am/ia Xpto-rov, and those not to be received
into the kingdom must also stand outside the idea of God's
perfected kingdom.
Observation. — For obvious reasons the old Dogmatists paid
little attention to Eschatology. Compared with other dogmas,
this doctrine is wanting both in precision and certaintjr.
And even the New Testament, as we shall see, leaves many
enigmas and moot points. Hence the eschatoiogical points
of doctrine may, with Schleiermacher, be cabed prophetic.
But the statements of the New Testament on these points
are also prophetic in the sense that there are not wanting
great fixed lines, which permit an eschatoiogical doctrine to
be laid down. In the ecclesiastical Eschatology hitherto the
fobowing are the principal defects to be noted. First. As relates
to individuals, it supposes for them no such intermediate
state between this life and the consummation as to prevent
decision being come to upon all, upon their definitive worth
and destiny, with the conclusion of the present life. Secondly.
If death decides everything, this forestabs the final judgment
in reference to the lot both of the wicked and believers, for
even the importance of the resurrection is threatened, if
blessedness follows immediately on death without limitation.
Thirdly. It is suspicious that the interest for holiness is
secondary to the interest for blessedness, which is shown in
the fact that the old Dogmatists make complete freedom
from imperfection and sin ensue for the justified without
further ado with the laying aside of the body. As relates to
the whole, the old Dogmatists in the first place made no
unanimous choice between the twofold possibility, whether
the consummation will be a new creation or the crown of a
development ; further, whether the course of the latter wib
be purely immanent and gradual, or by means of crises,
and in such a way that the heaviest conflicts will fall at the
end ; finally, whether the victory of the heavenly forces wbl
ensue abruptly, or whether an interpenetration-process of
1 Cf. vol. ii § 39.

CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IN GENERAL. 383
what is earthly with heavenly forces, effected by moral
means, is to be supposed. Further, the uncertainty on the
point, what the Antichristian power is (whether a heathen,
universal empire, or Mohammedanism, or the Papacy, or
powers of lying and hate within the Church generally, which
enter into a league with the world-power for the persecution
of bebevers), has influence again on the question as to the
Millennium and its conception, as web as upon the notion of
the nature and period of Christ's Second Coming. Moreover,
down to our own days different views are held on the point,
whether the earthly bfe of humanity is meant merely to be a
probation and preparation for another life, in which alone the
real end of bfe lies, or whether morally precious ends and
works of eternal significance also form part of' the present life,
ends and works in which elements of the realization of the
world-goal are to be seen. This point is closely connected
with the question, whether, as the Old Testament and the
doctrine of a Mibennium suppose, the earthly arena and the
earthly world- period are capable and worthy of becoming
a representation of the Kingdom of God, or whether the
reabzation of God's Kingdom is to be conceived as absolutely
heavenly and super-earthly. Finally, the doctrine of the old
Dogmatists respecting the consummation of the world is too
spirituabstic in tone, and is unable to assign to nature enough
significance in relation to the spirit. To come to an approxi
mate decision on these questions ought not to be deemed
impossible. If in the ancient Church Eschatology assumed
a dominant position in reference to the entire faith, so that
even Christology was powerfully determined and furthered
thereby, the other dogmas in their present rich development
have now in turn to render service to Eschatology.

FIRST POINT : THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST, WITH ITS
PREPARATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
§152.
Individuals, like the Church and the Kingdom of Christ, await
their consummation from the Second Advent of Christ,
which forms the centre of the entire Eschatology of the
New Testament, and ministers not merely to the van
quishing of all hostile powers, but also to the realizing

384 ESCHATOLOGY.
of the idea of the individual and the whole. This Second
Advent is not made superfluous by any previous develop
ment of the individual and the whole in this world or the
next, since it alone brings the complete conquest of sin
and death — to the Individual in the Resurrection, to the
Whole by the transfiguration of the world, by the exclusion
of evil and the consummation of the Church of God
Symb. Apostolicum, Niccen. § 6. Athanas. §§ 37, 38. Conf.
Aug. hi. : Palam est rediturus. Apol. 147, 17. 18. Cat. min.
371. Literature. — Corrodi, Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus.
My Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Schmidt, Jdhrb. f. d. Theol.
vols. 13. 15. The Lutheran and Reformed orthodoxy were
against Chibasm, e.g. J. Gerhard and Maresius. On the other
hand, more favourable to it : Spener, Die Hoffhung besserer Zeiten;
Bengel's Weltalter. Modern advocates of the Millennium in Ger
many : the school of Bengel, v. Hofmann, Delitzsch, Beck, Baum-
garten, Lohe ; Auberlen, Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis,
1857 (For. Theol. Lib.), and Die Theosophie of F. C. Oetinger, 1859.
Luthardt, Die letzten Dinge, 1861, p. 71 f.1 Rinck, Splittgerber,
Koch, Disselhoff, Hebart ; more moderate, Karsten, Die letzten
Dinge, ed. 3, 1861, and Florcke, Die Lehre vom tausendjahrigen
Reich, 1859. Volk (in Dorpat), Der Chiliasmus der neuesten
Bekdmpfung gegeniiber, 1869. Holemann, Die Stellung St. Pauli
zu der Frage uber die Wiederkunft Christi, 1857. Dieterich (1857,
1858) has come forward in several writings as an opponent of
Chibasm. In substance, also, Hengstenberg must be regarded as
an opponent, Die Offenbarung des h. Johannes fiir solche, die in
der Schriftforschen, erldutert, ed. 2, 2 vols. 1861, 1862 (For. Theol.
Lib.). He supposes that the thousand years' reign lies behind
us, and is to be found in the German Empire of Charlemagne up
to 1806. Keil is in essential agreement with him in his Comm.
z. Ezechiel (For. Theol. Lib.), and Philippi, vi. 214 ff, although
such a doctrine of the Millennium is scarcely different from
denying it. The binding of Satan is said to be the existence
of Christianity as the State religion, and according to Keil and
Phbippi is to be dated from the fab of heathenism. In
1 Like v. Hoffmann, Luthardt teaches that the present course of the world
and the resurrection of the just will be followed by a rule of Jesus Christ and
His glorified Church of believing confessors over the rest of humanity, who will
be subject to the former, not a carnal, but a spiritual rule of peace and state of
blessing upon earth, p. 235. According to Luthardt, therefore, the risen just
will rule as kings upon earth with Christ over the rest of men still alive.

CHRIST'S SECOND ADVENT. 385
England and North America, Anderson, Cox, Begg, and especi
ally Cunningham (On the Second Coming of Christ in Glory,
1828), are Mdlenarians. On the other side : Briggs On Pre-
millenarianism (in opposition to the theory of Christ's visible
coming again before the thousand years' reign, a dogmatico-his-
torical investigation). Respecting the Antichrist must be named
in most recent days, Rinck, 1867; Phbippi, 1877. Further, Ed.
Bohmer, Zur Lehre vom Antichrist nach Schneckenburger, Jahrb.
f. d. Theol, vol. vi. pp. 405-467 ; Renan, V Antechrist, 1873.

I. — The Biblical Doctrine of Christ's Second Advent.
The expectation of Christ's personal reappearing, found in
the entire primitive Church even in the case of the apostles,
is not rooted merely in their personal wishes, or still less in
earthly Messianic hopes, but is based upon various discourses
of Christ Himself,1 which treat expressly of His Second
Advent at the o-vvreXeia alcovos. Attempts have been made
in various ways to explain away these statements of Christ.
Some assume that the disciples wrongly understood the dis
courses of Jesus. Others would limit the discourses on the
Second Advent to the announcement of Christ's resurrection.
Others think to succeed by explaining the two other Synop-
tists e.g. by Luke. Others, again, get rid of the problem by
assuming that Christ Himself erred in the discourses in
question, — a view which they think compatible with His
dignity. To the latter it has been rightly replied,2 that the
thought of the Parousia on the lips of Jesus cannot be regarded
as a conception accommodated to the times and lying merely
at the circumference, but that the centre of the spiritual
teaching of Jesus would be affected, if He could have erred
in reference to the announcement of His Parousia ; a for, as
1 Matt, xxiv., xxv. ; Mark xiii. ; Luke xxi. (cf. xvii. 20-27, xii. 39, 40,
42-46) ; Matt. xxv. 1-13, 14-30, 31-46. Cf. Luke xix. 11 ff. ; Mark viii. 38,
ix. 1, x. 28 ff., xiv. 25, 62 (with the parallel passages); Luke xii. 35-38;
Matt. x. 23, xiii. 24-30, xxiii. 20 ; Acts i. 11 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15,
v. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 23 ; Phil. iv. 5 ; 1 John ii. 18 ; 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; Jas. v. 8 ;
Rev. i 3, iii. 11, xix. 11, xx. 4, 11, xxii. 7, x. 12.
2 So by Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1873, pp. 31-67, who
would refer the discourses of Jesus on His Second Coming to the resurrection.
3 Also the many testimonies to Christ's announcement of His Second Coming
agree too well for them to rest on a misunderstanding of the disciples.
Doenee.— Cheist. Doct. iv. 2 B

386 ESCHATOLOGY.
Schleiermacher rightly saw, Christ's Second Advent forms the
real centre of the entire Christian eschatology,1 and we shab
recognize its dogmatic importance in reference to the Person,
office, and kingdom of Christ, however important it is to take
into account the figurative phraseology in the exposition of
this fundamental thought. A warning against ascribing a
subordinate importance to the Parousia-discourses should have
been found in the circumstance, that the eschatology of the
0. T. and the Jewish expectation of the Messiah generaby
contain no idea answering to the second Parousia, but regard
everything as given and decided at once with the appearance
of the Messiah, and that ab pre-Christian conceptions are
essentiaby modified by the announcement of a second Parousia
of Christ. The 0. T. prophets had spoken of the Day of the
Lord, the great judgment-day of God, as the first act of the
Messianic age deciding everything. Christ set forth a second
Parousia as the first, and the judgment only as the last.2
But the expression Parousia certainly has various meanings.
Christ promises that He will be present (irapav) in all events
and developments of His earthly Church, and will always do
what it needs, which presupposes not merely His continued
life and participation in His Church, but also His continuous
activity and power, which can and wib stand security for
the Church. He therefore thinks of this presence of His
(irapovald) as in part invisible, but always as real, — the
former, when he says : I am present in the midst of them;8
or : I am with you always to the end of the world ; or when
He promises: If any man love me, I will love him and
manifest myself unto him, and my Father will love him, and
we will come unto him and make our abode with him ; 4 or
when He says of faith in general, that it receives Him.6 The
entire doctrine of His Word and the Means of Grace is only
understood in its real divine-human import, when these means
1 Chr. Glaube, ii. 483, § 150. 3.
2 Cf. my Hist. ofDoctr. of Person of Christ. All that is known to the pre-
Ghristian Jewish Apocalyptics also is, that on His appearance the Messiah will
at once found a kingdom of material prosperity. A double Parousia it knows
not ; later seeming indications of the ideal vanish as a deception.
3 Matt, xviii. 20, xxviii. 20.
* John xiv. 18, 21, 23, 28 ; also xiv. 3 may be applied here?
5 John vi. 50-58.

CHRIST'S SECOND ADVENT. 387
of grace are regarded as the outward media, through which in
virtue of His heavenly, regal office, He actively continues His
presence with bebevers. But He also promised His visible
Second Advent. Here come in His reappearances after His
resurrection, which as a fulfilment of His prediction 1 on one
hand seal the certainty of His enduring invisible communion
with them, and on the other were to be a real foretype of His
visible, universaby cognizable Second Advent at the judgment
and consummation of the world. We have to bnger on this latter
return. His Parousia in the course of history has the signifi
cance of a preparation in reference thereto. Ab the apostles
and ancient Christendom maintain this with ab the energy of
love and hope as their dearest faith. Their longing antici
pated His Second Coming earber than the event showed.2 It
is in keeping with this fact, that so little is found in the N. T.
respecting the state of individuals between death and the
resurrection. But more intimations are given respecting the
phases of development through which the kingdom of Christ
on earth has to run in conformity with Christ's own lot.
These phases are so viewed that Christ's Second Coming is
not superseded by them, but appears stib more necessary.
Nor ought the Mibennium, according to the meaning of the
Revelation of John, to be conceived as forestabing Christ's
coming again to judgment.3 Else there would arise a collision
with the general type of N T. teaching. But the Bibbcal
doctrine of the antichristian powers is of importance for
apprehending the entire history of the kingdom of the future.
The N. T. does not countenance a theory which assumes
merely a quiet, steadily growing interpenetration or subjuga
tion of the whole world by Christianity in the course of
history. This is the optimistic view, which is unprepared
for eclipses of the sun in the firmament of the Church.
The N. T. foretebs catastrophes to the life of the Church, so
that in this respect also it is a copy of the bfe of Christ ; and
indeed catastrophes arise not merely through persecutions on
the part of Heathen and Jews in its beginning, but also out
1 John xvi. 16 ff.
2 Heb. x. 37 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9, 10 ; Jas. v. 8, 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 f. ; 2 Thess.
ii. 7f. ; 1 Johnii.'l8.
3 Cf. Briggs, ut supra. This is clear from what follows first after chap. xx.

388 ESCHATOLOGY.
of itself, i.e. from its outward circle, on the ground of intima
tions of Christ;1 according to John and Paul,2 when the
Christianizing of the nations has advanced, false prophets and
pseudo-Messiahs will arise, desiring to enter into confederacy
with Satan and to some extent with the world-power against
Christians, and to seduce to denial of Christ. These are the
powers of Antichrist, conceived indeed as operating and im
pelling' in the apostles' days and discerned by bebevers,8 but
tending towards more concentrated manifestation, and destined
in the end to reach stib greater influence. Besides Satan,
mention is made here of the iropvTj (whore)4 and of false
prophets* The " beast " of the Revelation is the world-power
hostbe to God.6 The antichristian power is a union of the
falsification of the truth and divine worship with the hostbe
world-power, the result of which is a pseudo-Messiahship.
Paul seems to regard the Man of Sin as an incarnation of the
wicked antichristian power, and as an individual.7 In Paul
he is cabed the " adversary " (avriKeiuevo*;), who raises himself
against everything that is called God and divine worship.
Self-deification and false worship are connected with his denial
of God and blasphemy.8 He is stbl hindered in his coming
forth by the Kare^mv (State and law). He himself is cabed
the Lawless (avo/j,o<s), not because he issues from the heathen,
but because he throws off ab bonds in false freedom and
caprice.9 The revelation of this evil power standing in
connection with Satan, and also an apostasy of Christendom
(dirooTao-la), are expected before the end.10 But directly on
the temporary predominance of the antichristian powers, as to
which there is agreement in the N. T, wbl fobow that mani
festation of the glory and power of Christianity which is
associated with Christ's Second Advent.11

1 Matt. vii. 21, xxiv. 11, 12, 24 ; Mark xiii 6, 22.
2 1 John ii 18, where Antichrists are spoken of in the plural ; 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.
ecltoptos. 3 2 Thess. ii. 7. * Rev. xvii 1, 5, 15 f., xix. 2.
s Rev. xvi. 13, xix. 20, xx. 10. Cf. 2 Pet ii.
6 Rev. xiii. 1 ft, xiii. 11 ff., xiv. 9, xv. 2, xvi. 10, xvii. 8 ff, xix. 19, xx. 10.
7 In John also &vrt%fi<ms occurs in the singular, 1 Johnii. 22, iv. 3f.; 2 John 7.
» 2 Thess. ii. 4. • Ibid. ii. 3-7.
10 Ibid. ii. 3. The Revelation speaks of a mark of the beast.
11 Ibid, ii 3 ; Rev. xix. and xx. 2-7.

CHRIST'S SECOND ADVENT. 389
Here a difference emerges between the Revelation and the
other N. T. writings. Whereas the latter join the judgment
and the consummation of the world to Christ's Second Advent,
the Revelation interposes another phase. It makes a thousand
years' reign of the rule of Christ fall into this earthly world-
period, and before the final decisive struggle and the victory
of Christ But the meaning of the passage is disputed.
According to one interpretation, the martyrs and saints wbl
be previously raised to bfe in a first resurrection with glorified
bodies. According to others, their resurrection only means
endowment with power in order to their reigning with Christ.1
It is further disputed, whether according to the Revelation
Christ wib be visible upon earth during the Mibennium, or
will come again at the Mibennium only in the sense of the
triumphant and glorious manifestation of the power of the
gospel, upon which depends the other question, whether the
joint-reigning of , the saints with Christ wbl take place
invisibly and therefore spirituaby in heaven, the earth remain
ing the old earth, or upon earth.2 After the Mibennium the
Revelation makes Satan to be loosed once more for a short
time, and Gog and Magog to march against the holy city, in
which representation the earthly relations in the Millennium
are viewed as essentiaby the same as the old ones. But this
being so, it is improbable that the author is thinking of a visible
government of Christ with saints raised in glorified bodies on
the old earth. Neither Christ's visible return, nor a glorifying
and transforming of the world, is promised in the Apocalypse
for the thousand years' kingdom. The only characteristic of
Christ's Second Advent mentioned with certainty is the joint-
reigning of the saints with Christ upon thrones and the
1 In Rev. xx. 6 it is merely said that they are raised to inner life, not that
they have already a resurrection-body. If the ¦xpurti mderairis signifies that a
second still follows for them, by the first resurrection might be understood their
rising again in a spiritual sense, as a second coming of Elias is seen in the
Baptist. Matt. xvii. 12 ; Mark ix. 11-13. But if they are raised in body, this
may contain a hint that the resurrection of the body does not take place at once
for all humanity, but according to the state of ripeness.
2 Bengel takes the first view. On the other hand, v. Hofmann and Florcke
think that during the Millennium a portion of the earth (Palestine) will be
glorified, the rest of the earth not, — a thought in agreement with the eminent
importance which they with others think themselves obliged to assign to the
Jewish nation in relation to the consummation of the world.

390 ESCHATOLOGY.
temporary binding of Satan's authority, which latter may just
as well take place on the outwardly unchanged earth as the
time of the unchaining of his power. Only after the last
conflict with the antichristian powers do the final judgment
and the manifestation of Christ in glory fobow,1 with the
account of the new heaven and new earth, with which cosmical
changes the general resurrection is connected.2
Paul has not this doctrine of the Millennium. But he
seems to have expected a flowering-time of Christianity in
the earthly world-period before the end of the world in con
sequence of the Christianizing of ab nations and also of the
Jews.3

II. — The Ecclesiastical Doctrine of the History of God's
Kingdom up to Christ 's Second Advent.
In the ancient Church up to Constantine, by the Antichrist
was understood chiefly the heathen state, and to some extent
unbelieving Judaism (which vied with the former in hatred
to Christianity) ; and the perfecting of God's kingdom was
expected from its overthrow, whereas the perfecting of indi
viduals was found in their resurrection. From Augustine's
days the Church usually saw the Civitas Dei in the world
realized as to substance in the State, especially where the State
was submissive to Church ordinances. In this way, down to
the Middle Ages, the basis was cut away from a doctrine of
a future Antichrist and a future thousand years' reign. The
eschatoiogical hope grew cold, nay, froze into self-contentment
on the part of the Church in its external splendour, save that
Mohammedanism, as long as it was dangerous, took the place
of Antichrist, but without exerting any important influence
on the shape of eschatology. The Reformation, impressed
by the profound corruption within the Church itself, and
struggling with that corruption, saw the Antichrist in its
centre — the Roman Papacy. The ardour of eschatoiogical
expectations revived in part in the 16 th century, and sketched
for itself fantastic and revolutionary pictures of the future
1 Rev. xx. 10 ff. 2 Rev. xx. 11-15, xxi. 1. Cf. 2 Pet. ii
3 Rom. xi. 15.

Christ's second advent. 391
in the Anabaptist commotions, in which carnal notions of a
Mblennium fermented. The Judaistic, theocratic confounding
of the civil and ecclesiastical in Anabaptism was rejected by
the Reformers, whose chief concern was about the certainty
of reconciliation and eternal life, not about the sensuous well-
being and satisfaction of the outward man. Thus it was not
a matter of policy to separate from the chibastic movements
of the 16 th century, but an inner necessity, and the Conf.
Aug. rejects such carnal chbiasm on this ground.1 On the
other hand, the Reformation, like ancient Christendom in its
way, had no consciousness at once of the world-historical
work in humanity, the State, and the entire world of culture
imposed on the Protestant principle, but was conscious of
inwardly sharing in the supreme good in faith and the
certainty of justification, without seeking, especially in the
Lutheran Confession, a more precise, positively influential
relation to the State which was left free on principle. If the
supreme good is already given, a further advance of history
may seem superfluous, and so in fact in the Evangelical
Church the approaching end of the world was expected. Not
that hope of the consummation of God's kingdom was given
up, but that consummation was thought as coming abruptly
with Christ's Second Coming apart from intervention of human
effort, a purely divine work in a new heaven and new earth
after the destruction of the earthly world. And the moral
process was abridged for the individual just as for the Church,
because everything seemed already given with the beginning
— faith — in such a way that death was regarded as leading
directly to inward consummation. Justification was so closely
connected in thought with blessedness, that the latter was
pictured as given of itself in a new glorified world by the
resurrection, and therefore by a physical process, without
reservation of a mediating moral shaping of the personabty.
The consequence of holding that, according as one departs
from the world believing or not believing, his happy or
unhappy fate is already decided, was necessarby an emptying
and therefore abolition of the intermediate kingdom, to which
indeed such great abuses had attached themselves. Essential
importance is scarcely left even to the judgment and the
1 Conf. Aug. xvii

392 ESCHATOLOGY.
resurrection to blessedness, if all believers enter at once into
the blessed bfe, and non-bebevers into damnation. But
Christ's Second Coming itseK, thought to be near, was so
represented, that the consummation of the world presupposed
its annihilation. Not a renewal of the old, but the creation
of a new world was expected, e.g. by Gerhard and Quenstedt,
which agrees with the dominance of a spiritualistic tone, and
of contempt for matter and nature. As there was no thought
of a new world-historical mission of the Evangebcal Church,
so especially there was no thought of the conversion of
heathens and Jews, despite the words of Christ and His
apostles. It is sufficient, the Dogmatists thought, if merely
a sample is saved from every nation. The Jews may be
judged because their fathers and to some extent they them
selves might have had the gospel, and the heathen because
they might come forsooth to Christendom and there obtain
Christianity. A different tone of thought has prevabed in
the Evangebcal Church only since Spener's days. In his case,
Evangelical faith, inspired with new bfe, advanced as in early
Christian days to hope ; and since hope sketches for itself ideals
of the period of consummation, this hope kindled the mind
for the world-historical mission of the Church, and, as in the
beginning, the Christian spirit turned from eschatology to the
Church's work of love in the earth, to Foreign and soon also
to Home Missions. The conversion of the heathen and of
Jews enters even in Spener into the circle of Christian hope
among Evangelicals, and is recognized as the preliminary
condition of Christ's Second Coming and the consummation.
Upon this naturally followed again an approximation to the
doctrine of the Mibennium in the form of" hope of better days."
Stib debght in work of this kind remained somewhat isolated,
untb in the present century Protestantism began to compre
hend its historical mission to its own people abroad and at
home. For this reason, ab questions touching Christ's Second
Coming, especially its preliminary conditions (the conversion of
Jews and heathens, the doctrine of Antichrist, the Mblennium),
have again in recent days come prominently to the front.
However different the theories on many points in this respect,
(e.g. whether a visible rule of Christ upon earth with risen
saints before the end of the world, whether a Millennium in

Christ's second advent. 393
any sense, is to be taught, whether it lies behind us, whether
the Antichrist is to be regarded as a principle revealing itself
in many persons in the entire course of history, or as a person
in whom evil is concentrated), on this point there is increasing
agreement, that the Judgment is impossible before all nations
have heard the gospel and had the possibility of believing ;
and the tendency is more and more to bebeve, that the process
of consummation in the case of individuals and of the whole
must be conceived not as merely physical, accomplished either
through death or the transformation of the world, or through
the external power of Christ, but as at the same time running
its course according to ethical laws.
Observation. — Chiliasm has taken very different forms. Its
crudest form looked for a happy kingdom of sensuous enjoy
ments and outward splendour. In one word, it is eudae
monistic. Such was the Chibasm of antiquity and the
Anabaptist Chbiasm of the age of the Reformation. In it
the rule of the saints over the heathen and unbelievers plays
a great part. The older Chiliasm is speciaby distinguished
from the Anabaptist by this feature, that it passiveiy awaits
Christ's Second Coming and the descent of the heavenly
Jerusalem, at most requires (in Montanism by direction of
its prophets) a moral preparation for the Mblennium, whereas
the fanatical and revolutionary Chiliasm of the Anabaptists
would accelerate the coming of the Millennium by its own
action, nay, finally introduce and estabbsh it by means of
force. In the older Chbiasm, as in the age of the' Reforma
tion, less stress fabs on the visible presence of Christ's person
and on the inner rule of the Christian spirit, than upon the
visible issuing forth of the power and glory of His kingdom
as a dominion of the saints, not merely their deliverance from
hostile oppression or from evbs, which the present state of
nature brings with it. The more abrupt the form in which
the opening of the Chibastic world-period is conceived, the
less the interest in an ethical mediation of the consumma
tion. The gross, carnal style of thought which was able, in
the two chief forms just mentioned, to unite itself with the
circle of ideas in the early Christian Millennium, usually in
our days lets drop the connection with Christianity and
its hopes. All the more common, on the other hand, in our
days are other Chbiasms of a more spiritual tone, whose
common character is that they despair of the possibility of
mankind being saved and the Church rescued from inner

394 • eschatology.
and outer dissolution with the means hitherto at the service
of Christianity, — Chibasms which look for a new glorious
flowering-time of the Church under the government of
Christ, visible or invisible, when the means of salvation
lacking shall have been bestowed on it by God. Here
comes in first, according to a widespread opinion, the con
version of the Jewish nation. Gentbe Christians, it is said,
have from the first (through Paul) a spiritualistic Chris
tianity. It is necessary to assert the realism of Scripture,
which designed the people of the 0. T. to be the centre of
the nations, to be the ruling organizing power for humanity,
as to which the predictions of the 0. T. respecting the
Holy Land, Jerusalem, Ezekiel's temple and sacrifice, are
not yet fulfilled, and therefore must yet be fulfilled. And
although in modern days less weight is placed on the 0. T.
characteristics, all the more it is frequently insisted, that
the right strength and the right success wbl be lacking to
heathen missions until Israel is converted. But according
to Paul, conversely, the unbelief of Israel as a nation will
continue until the fulness of the heathen has entered, and
Israel can grasp with the hands, so to speak, what the
Christian nations possess previously. As a second means of
salvation, a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit is expected in
different forms. The degree of His outpouring experienced
hitherto, it is said, no longer suffices for the needs of the
present, in face of which the gospel no longer proves or
can prove itself the quickening and preserving salt, with the
exception of individual souls in which it stbl shows its
energy. But the gospel is eternally young, and can never
grow old. Moreover, the sin of men, although different in
degree, is the same in essence, bke the character of the
human heart in need of redemption. Distrust of the sufficient
strength of the gospel for the mission which the Church has
upon earth, must cripple hope and zeal in labour for the king
dom of God, in any case alienate from all organized bfe of
Christian communion, and limit the activity of Christian
love to scattered individuals. Finally, others find the ground
of all the Church's evils conversely in the want, since the
death of the apostles, in the Church of an organizing divine
authority for ab its regulations, especiaby for the employ
ment of gifts in the right place, and therefore for the distri
bution of offices. Hence they find the means preparatory to
Christ's Parousia in the restoration of the primitive Christian
apostolate. But this is to lay such a stress in a Catholicizing
spirit on the outward form and institutions of the Church as
is out of harmony with the material principle of faith, and

Christ's second advent. 395
denies the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, in which we possess
the true continuance of the apostolate.
A common feature in all these grosser or more refined
Chibasms is that they regard that to which their principal
interest is directed as not secured or given in Christianity
hitherto, and consequently regard the gospel as inadequately
equipped for that which pertains to believers or the Church,
and that upon earth. Consequently in one way or another
they think too meanly of that which is abeady come and
given with Christ's first Parousia ; and this is an Ebionitic
or Judaistic trait. The Gnostic or Docetic Eschatology is
distinguished from such a view by this, that in an optimistic
idealizing spirit it prefers a conception of Christianity which
makes everything depend on the inwardness of faith, on the
presence in it of eternal life (and therefore for faith the
kingdom of God is already come), not on the position that
the kingdom of God is stib coming. In this case the power
of sin — the antichristian element — is undervalued, and this
mode of thought is especially shown in the fact that the
Gnostic Eschatology can find no place in its theory for the
passages of Holy Scripture respecting antichristian powers
This Docetic Eschatology, especiaby when it is based on the
ideabty of faith as the power which has overcome the world
certainly involves the truth, that the earthly world and histor j
is not merely a preparation or time of probation, or has the
essence of the supreme good only outside itself. This history
and world of ours must not be thought empty of the divine.
It is not too bad for eternal bfe to be alreadyjmplanted in it.
But the Docetic Eschatology overlooks the truth contained in
Christian hope, namely, that to the complete essence of
Christianity belongs also a manifestation-side, dominion over
the outward, not merely the vanquishing of everything hostile,
but also the positive triumphant unfolding of its import, and
the reabzing of the harmony between spirit and nature.

III. — Dogmatic Investigation.
1. In respect of the earthly history of Christianity (even if
we ignore the base secular doctrine [Diesseitigskeitslehre] of
Materiabsm) two opposite modes of thought present them
selves. The one thinks the chief thing still wanting even
after Christ's manifestation, salvation a matter only of the
other world, eternal life not a present reality. This under-

396 eschatology.
valuing of Christ's first manifestation, of the worth of the
atonement and the gift of the Holy Spirit, is a false doctrine
of the future world (Jenseitigkeitslehre), or Ebionitic Escha
tology. To it approximates the Romish doctrine in relation
to individuals, so far as it does not ordinarily admit an
assurance of salvation in the temporal life, but desires with
purgatory to interpose a state of punishment even for believers
before the consummation. In reference to the Church, Catho
licism certainly commits the opposite fault,1 because it ignores
the imperfections stbl cleaving to the earthly Church, and
acts as if the ecclesia militans stood instar triumphantis,
which of course is only possible because it also identifies
the Church and the kingdom of God.2 Conversely, faith and
the inner possession of eternal life in this world may be
emphasized in a spiritualistic tone, and with indifference to
the consummation of the whole as if nothing further were
needed, because in a spiritual sense " the resurrection is past
already,8 and the realization of Christianity in the phenomenal
world is a matter of indifference." This is false teaching as
to the present world of a spiritualistic kind. The Refor
mation, rejecting both opposite errors, in opposition to the
Catholic doctrine of the future in respect of the individual,
emphasizes this world and the worth of the earthly bfe, in
virtue of the saving faith and the experience of the power
of Christ's high-priestly office attainable upon earth, but stib
does this in such a way as to leave an essential place to the
hope of the consummation of the personality. On the other
hand, as concerns the Church and the kingdom of God, it
does not find their perfect form abeady given in the actuality
of earth. Although it believes the consummating principle
is incorporated in Christendom, bebeves in its veiled exist
ence already in the present, it stbl turns in this respect
chiefly to the future, and to the hope of the fub unveiling
of Christ's Kingship, for the consummation of individuals and
the whole, at the same time cherishing the consciousness of
1 Because of the professedly perfect constitution, the hierarchy, in which it
sees the virtual Church or its essence.
2 With one-sided doctrine as to the future world in respect of individuals, it
therefore unites a false doctrine of the present world in respect of the Church.
3 2 Tim. ii. 18.

CHRIST'S SECOND ADVENT. 397
the ethical labour to be performed in behalf of the kingdom
of God. Hence the Evangelical Eschatology maintains the pure
Christian character, since it keeps the mean between those
two extremes, and on the basis of God's kingdom having
come preserves the hope of a full coming in visible power in
behalf of individuals and the whole. Out of possession in
the very midst of non-possession, appropriate to faith, is
developed with eternal youth and freshness the Christian
confidence that what is still lacking wbl become a blessed
possession. 2. But how according to Scripture is the framework of the
earthly history of the Church and kingdom of God to be
filled up ? In relation to the dogmatic doctrine of the future
phases of development, the following points come into notice
— the announcement of the apostasy to the antichristian
side, the question of the Mibennium, and the relation of
Christ's Second Advent to both. The first question is : Can
the greater fierceness of the conflicts, nay, an apostasy before
the end, be reconcbed with the position that Christianity wbl
penetrate and influence the world both intensively and
extensively -with growing permanence and comprehensiveness ?
Of course the former does not follow from sin taken alone.
Sin is not a power, the chief strength of which must neces
sarily reveal itself only at last, and which could not be
abeady broken in principle by Christianity through faith.
The opposite is proved by bebevers, whose sin was originally
the same as that of ab others. If, then, Christianity has
abeady in its beginnings shown the strength to accomplish the
hardest task — the vanquishing of sin in principle, one might
think that the rest may and must be accomplished ab the
more easby. But since the process of Christian grace is and
remains ethical in character, i.e. since it is conditioned by
human freedom, it follows directly from the growing influence
of Christianity in the world, that those who nevertheless
persevere in resistance wib be impebed and hardened by the
stronger revelation of Christ to more and more malignant,
. especiaby to more spiritual forms of wickedness, in order to
hold their ground against it. In this way, then, the apostasy,
supported by lying and the semblance of spiritual being, is

398 ESCHATOLOGY.
the more seductive and contagious, and thereto even outward
apostasy in further extension may attach itself in further
development and revelation of the inner state. But the
transition to this is formed by the inner apostasy through
falsification of Christianity, which when it assumes a spiritual
garb is capable of the greatest diffusion. Other religions of
a higher class look for extension by simple growth, and at
least uniform victory in the main. Christianity shows such
confidence in its truth and victorious strength, that it predicts
a great apostasy in relation to the very time when its
influence on humanity has become greatest, while conscious
also of being a match for the apostasy. Certain of its
indestructibleness, from the first it reckoned on this fact.
Momentary overthrow it will convert into the foil of its all
the more glorious triumph. When the antichristian powers
of heb, with their veiled or open hate to Christianity, have
encroached deeply on the history of the Church and sup
pressed the action of its pure principle, it wbl display its
divine victorious strength as it never did before. But in this
case it can only be pronounced fitting, that after the apostasy
that counterpart also appear powerfully on earth in the
drama of history, of which Paul and the Apocalypse speak, so
that the heavenly consummation begins its prelude on earth.
Not that a new world-order must begin as concerns sin and
death and offspring. But a flowering-time of the Church is
perhaps then to be expected, especially through the Chris
tianizing of all nations,1 because then humanity has again
become a unity, acknowledging one Shepherd, because then
ab charisms bestowed on every nation by nature must tend
to the advantage of the whole Church, finaby because even
the love of old Christendom wbl be invigorated by the first
love of the newly converted nations. This Scriptural doctrine,
held fast by the Christian hope of all ages, commends itself
also dogmaticaby on the ground that by the two — the aggra
vated conflict and the flowering-time following thereupon —
the process is visibly marked out in accordance with the laws
of freedom. But with the Chbiasm of Judaism or of the
Anabaptists of the Reformation-age, their carnal tendency and
passionate, impatient eagerness for visible presentation, as well
1 Matt. xxiv. 14, 34 ff. ; Rom. xi 15, 25 ff.

Christ's second advent. 399
as with the doubt of the sufficiency for our actual salvation
of the gifts brought by Christ's first Parousia, the Church
has nothing to do. Nor is Christ's Second Advent forestalled
by this preliminary flowering-time.1
3. Only Christ's visible Second Advent wib be the signal
for the consummation. To it belongs without doubt a
dogmatic significance, although nothing more precise can be
settled respecting its^thne and form.
Its significance for individuals results from the following
consideration. We have seen already in several dogmatic
places how essential to Christian piety is personal living
communion with Christ. This is of decisive importance for
justification on the basis of Christ's intercession and substi
tution, for Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper. We need the
Head, and communion with Him, in order to growth and
consummation. Christ must stand already invisibly before
the eye of faith as the living Lord and Saviour, if faith is to
be bving. And in reference to our future blessedness, we
cannot dispense with seeing as He is Him whom we see
not and yet love.2 Just so, for the sake of His person itself
it is necessary that the time of His pubbc appearing in glory
fobow upon the time of His divine-human working, which
continues indeed, but is concealed because carried on through
the organ of the Church, as seeing Him as He is follows
upon the faith of His people ; for it is also His loving desire
to be thus seen, and by this means share His glory with
them.3 We cannot call it pure or spiritual Christianity where
men wish to adhere merely to the Holy Spirit or the divine
nature of Christ, whereas the Holy Spirit, as we saw, leads
to Christ. It is an essential trait, of Christian piety not to
imagine blessedness by itself outside communion with Christ.
And if Christ is not merely a portion of the supreme good
but its centre, whbe that good must be manifested in order
to the consummation of the world, He can on no account
remain invisible, but through Him and His revelation in
glory must the kingdom of God, which is also His king
dom, be manifested. The happy reunion with friends and
kindred in the body is an object of wish and hope to every
1 John x. 16. ' 1 Pet. i 8 ; 1 Pet. iii 2.
3 1 John iii. 2 ; John xvii. 24.

400 eschatology.
one, and yet this is but a secondary matter for the blessed
ness of bebevers, compared with the necessity of the beholding
of Christ. Nay, the fub communion with the Head must
contain the security, as also the rule and order, for all other
beholding and reunion ; for our mutual relations in the future
world wib be settled not by the laws and ordinances of
nature, but by those of the kingdom of grace and its majestic
Head. But the New Testament doctrine of Christ's Second Advent
has significance also for the Church and the Kingdom of God,
inasmuch as through it their earthly history receives a con
clusion. True, it may then be asked : Vftty is the fer
menting of humanity through the Holy Spirit in growing
measure not enough, although according to what has been
advanced with severe conflicts, nay, catastrophes ? Why is
a new creative act necessary, instead of a gradual inter-
penetration and illumination, the result of which would be
the visibihty of the kingdom of God and Christ in course of
nature, as it were ? The answer may perhaps lie in a twofold
reason. An altogether new attitude of matter and nature to
spirit is the condition of consummation, an attitude which the
spirit cannot produce out of itself, which can only be given to
it, and through which alone the advancement of the spirit to
the ruling central position becomes possible.1 Even as the
Church, humanity does not graduaby govern nature. But
whbe spirit and nature are external to each other, spbit has
not yet its perfect energy and efficiency. Conversely, nature
also needs to be liberated from ab chaotic and perishable
being,2 in order that it may find its goal, even as spirit only
has the means of revealing and realizing itself in the glorify
ing of nature. Therefore must the mutually external existence
of spbit and nature give way to a perfect mutual internal
existence. The former is the reason of the mortality of the
natural side, and of its being a means of temptation to the
spbitual side. For in the mutual external existence the
natural side has still too great independence, and exerts a
determining power on the personality. Christ now so
enhances the energy of the spirit, that nothing foreign can
longer rule it. He also unites glorified nature with the spirit,
1 Cf. also Schleiermacher, ii. 486. " Rom. viii. 21 ff.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. 401
without identifying them, by the resurrection in connection
with a cosmical process of world-transformation, for which
His Second Advent is the signal. But as in this way the
false mutual extemabty of nature and spirit is set aside by
Christ's Second Advent, so also through it the false mutual
internabty of good and evil in the earthly world-period is
separated. His Second Advent is a sign of the ripeness of
the world for judgment. The obverse of the separation of the
heterogeneous is the consummation of the communion of
everything homogeneous. On ab these grounds, Christ's
Second Advent is grounded in the necessity of the perfect
revelation of His Love, and Power, and Justice.

SECOND POINT : INTERMEDIATE STATE AND RESURRECTION.
§ 153.
There is a Resurrection of the dead, which is not superseded
by the Intermediate State, but is realized through the
Lord's Second Advent in order to the consummation of
the personabty.
Literature on the Intermediate State and the Resurrection.
— Meissner, Vom Zustand der abgeschiedenen Seelen (ed. E. B.
Loscher), 1735. Th. Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resurrec-
tione, London, 1726. Simonetti, Ueber die Lehre von der
Unsterblichkeit und dem Schlaf der Seelen, 1758. A sleep of the
soul is also accepted by Smalcius, Refutatio thesium Franzii,
Racov. 1614, and Anonymi Seria Disquisitio de Statu, Loco, et
Vita Animarum, 1725, and others. (Cf. S. J. Baumgarten,
Theol. Bedenken Samml. 6. Habe, 1748, p. 227 ff) Fries also,
Jdhrb. f. d. Theol. 1856, p. 301, assumes a vanishing of personal
consciousness with death. Fbigge, see above, § 151. Edm.
Spiess, Entwickelungs-gesch. d. Vorstellungen vom Zustand nach
dem Tode. Val. Weigel, Postille, ii. 95, Poiret, and others,
contended against the earthly terminus gratice. The majority
held it, in part with a continuous purifying of bebevers until
the judgment, for the most part without this, at most with
growth from one glory to another (so Bengel, Oetinger, Lange,
Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologic, p. 359 [Eng. Tr., Clark, p. 488],
Oertel, Karsten, Rinck). But others suppose a process of
Doenee.— Cheist. Doct. IV. 2 C

402 ESCHATOLOGY.
redemption even beyond the grave, on condition of repentance
and faith before the Judgment of the world. So Rieger, Jung-
Stilbng, J. Fr. v. Meyer, v. Gerlach, Steudel, Kliefoth, Liturg.
Abh. i. 195 (in the case of chbdren dying unbaptized and
heathen, the decision, it is held, can only occur in the other
world). Lessing, Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts, supposes a
transmigration of souls in order to their purifying ; Strobel
adopts it, in order that by newly appearing on the earth oppor
tunity may be given to all to hear the gospel, so that the earthly
bfe is decisive for all. Krabbe, Die Lehre von der Siinde und
dem Tode in ihrer Beziehung zu einander und zur Auferstehung
Christi, exegetisch-dogmatiseh entwickelt, 1836. Maywahlen, Der
Tod, das Todtenreich und der Zustand der abgeschiedenen Seelen,
dargestellt a. d. Wort Gottes, 1854. Boettcher, J. F., De Inferis
Rebusque post Mortem Futuris ex Hebrceorum et Grcecorum
opinionibus, 1846. Liitkemuber, Unser Zustand von dem Tode
bis zur Auferstehung, 1852 (a separated Lutheran, then a
Cathobc ; he makes a purgatory necessary). Schultz Herm.,
Veteris Test, de hominis Im/mortalitate Sententia illustrata, 1861 ;
ibid, Voraussetzungen der christi. Lehre von der Unsterblichkeit,
1861. Oehler, G. F, Veteris Test. Sententia de Rebus post
mortem Futuris illustrata, 1846. Hahn, L, De Spe Immortali-
tatis in V. T. gradatim exculta, 1855. Muller, Jul., Unster-
blichkeitsglaube und Auferstehungshoffnung, 1855. Lehre von
der Siinde, ed. 2, i. 469 [Eng. Tr., Clark, ii. 74]. v. Meyer, Fr.,
Blatter fur hohere Wahrheit, vi. 233 (a justification of the idea
of purgatory). Giider, Die Lehre von der Erscheinung Jesu
Christi unter den Todten in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der
Lehre von den letzten Dingen, 1853 ; and Althaus (see above,
p. 373), desire to fill up the intermediate state with a process
of cleansing from sin. Franz, Das Gebetfilr die Todten, Nordh.
1857. Leibbrand, Gebetfilr die Todten, 1864; also Hahn, Gen.
Sup., in an official letter, 1850 ; and Stirm, Jdhrb. f. d. Theol.
1861, ii. Oertel, Hades, exegetisch-dogmatische Abhandlung
iiber den Zustand der abgeschiedenen Seelen, 1863 (according to
him, there is still progress in the other world, but also a
terminus peremtorius gratice, not merely through subjective
incorrigibleness, but also through neglecting the end fixed by
God as a terminus, at which His kingdom will be completed).
Schmidt Wold., De Statu Animarum medio inter mortem et
resurrectionem, 1861. Rinck, Vom Zustand nach dem Tode,
1861. Spbttgerber, Schlaf und Tod nebst dem damit zusam-
menhdngenden Erscheinungen des Seelenlebens, 1865, ed. 2, 1879 ;
ibid., Tod, Fortleben und Auferstehung oder die letzten Dinge des
Menschen, ed. 3, 1879. Navble, Ernest, La vie iternelle, 1861.
Philippi, vi. pp. 1-148, 1879. Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, 1868,

intermediate state. 403
vol. 3. Rothe, Theol. Ethik, ed. 1, vol. 3, p. 151 ff. § 801 ff.
Martensen, Dogmatics. Lange, Positive Dogmatik, p. 1250;
ibid, Die Reise in das Land der Wdhl (Todtenreich), Verm.
Schriften, 1841, vol. 2. Hamberger, Physica Sacra and Jdhrb.
fiir d. Theol. 1858, vol. 3. Schoberlein, Geheimnisse des
Glaubens, and Princip. und System der Dogmatik, 1881. The
doctrine of immortabty is treated under a philosophical aspect
(partly on occasion of the work of Richter, see above, p. 373),
by Rosenkranz, Goschel : Zur Lehre von den letzten Dinge, 1850 ;
Die siebenfdltige Osterfrage, 1835 ; Von den Beweisen fur die
Unsterblichkeit der menschlichen Seele im Lichte der speeul.
Philosophic, 1835. Hubert Beckers, Ueber Goschel' s Versuch
eines Erweises der personlichen Unsterblichkeit vom Standpunkt
der Hegelschen Lehre aus, 1836 ; ibid., Ueber den Zustand der
Seelen nach dem Tod, in Fichte's Zeitschrift, 1835. 2. Fichte,
Im., Die Idee d'er Personlichkeit und der individuellen Fortdaner,
ed. 2, 1855, and Zur Seelenfrage, eine philosophische Confession,
1859 ; cf. also his Anthropologic und Psychologic Fischer, K.
Ph., and Weisse, Die Idee der Personlichkeit. Schebing, Clara
(he supposes an essentiabzing of man in death) ; v. Rudloff, C.
H., Die Lehre vom Menschen nach Geist, Seele und Leib, wahrend
des Erdenlebens und nach seinen Abscheiden, 1858, ed. 2, 1863,
Pt. 1. I. — Biblical Doctrine.
1. A series of passages of the New Testament can be quoted
to show that believers pass by death at once into a blessed
state, and into closer communion with the Lord. To the
robber on the cross Christ says : To-day shalt thou be with
me in Paradise.1 Lazarus is carried straight after death into
Abraham's bosom.2 I will come again, says Christ in His
fareweb discourses, and receive you to myself, that where I
am there ye may be also.3 Paul knows that a crown of
righteousness is laid up for him, and that he wib be saved
into His heavenly kingdom ; he longs to be at home with the
Lord.4 The Revelation pronounces the dead blessed, who die
in the Lord.5 Passages like these preclude the notion of a
sleep of the soul, and assert that believers pass by death into
a better than the earthly state.6 Nevertheless it would be a
mistake to infer from the passages quoted, that perfect,
1 Luke xxiii. 43. 2 Luke xvi. 22. 3 John xiv. 3,
4 Phil, i 23 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8, 18. 5 Rev. xiv. 13.
6 ETtfXAa/' yap ftaXXov xpiiaito* (a-hv Xpiffry s7v«e), uxoSctnTv fiat xiphs, Phil. i. 21, 23.

404 ESCHATOLOGY,
completed blessedness and spiritual consummation begin for
believers immediately after death. Paradise indeed is certainly
not Hades, but a fiovij for the blessed,1 and for this reason not
the heaven which denotes the place or state of the perfected
blessed. The good work begun is not completed on the day
of death, but on the day of Jesus Christ.2 On the contrary,
a series of passages imply that the chief comfort and dearest
hope of Christians refer not to what they attain directly after
death, but to what only becomes theirs at Christ's Second
Advent and Resurrection, to the deposit laid up and secure
for that day.3 Such great stress is laid on the hope of the
resurrection, that, in comparison with it, the advance to pre
liminary higher stages of life vanishes from sight,4 An
anxious longing for Christ's revelation in, glory is ascribed to
the departed souls of the martyrs under the altar.5 An
instantaneous vision of God is not promised.6 A spiritual
consummation in relation to volition, feebng, knowledge, leav
ing nothing to be added but the physical consummation,
immediately after death, cannot therefore be found in
Scripture.7 For this reason the advance, which death no
doubt brings with it for believers, by no means excludes a
middle or intermediate state. This state could only be denied
if no reunion with the body and judgment were to be
expected after the separation of the soul from the body, but
if, according to Scripture, a state, admitting of no change for
ever, began contemporaneously with death. But that there is
room for changes even in the next world, fobows in reference
to those who die in faith, from the doctrine of their resurrec
tion. Stib more important must be the changes possible in a
middle state in the next world in relation to those who in
this life have not become ripe for judgment. Holy Scripture
1 Cf. John xiv. 2 ff. ; 2 Cor. xii. 4. 2 Phil. i. 6.
3 1 Pet. v. 4 ; 2jnmi_iJL2Jjv;J ; 1 John iii. 2 ; Rom. viii. 19, 23 ; 1 Thess.
iv. 13, 14J^-.Col. iii. 4. Ys "-• - v t, '¦; . "W ¦ "¦ ' . £- r,-.j,/
4 1 Cor. xv. 29 ff. 5 Rev. vi. 9-11.
6 Neither in Matt. v. 8 nor in 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
' When it is said, the moral imperfection, which certainly still clings to
believers on their departure, will be obliterated in a moment by death, which
brings them the vision of God (Philippi, vi. 6-8), in opposition to this is the
fact that only they who are pure in heart, or holy, shall see God (Matt. v. 8 ;

INTERMEDIATE STATE. l405
says nothing expressly about them, with the exception of the
passages in the First Epistle of Peter considered before, and
indeed of all those passages, according to which the gospel
must be preached to all, and God's purpose of grace applies
to all. 2. The New Testament teaches not merely a spiritual resur
rection, which takes place at the new birth,1 but also a bodily
one, in opposition to Sadducseism and an idealistic philosophy.2
Certainly in by far the most numerous passages merely a
resurrection of the righteous is spoken of, but in some a
general resurrection, without the bodily constitution of the
ungodly being indicated.3 On the other hand, in the case
of the pious the resurrection is thought as a union of the
spirit with a glorified corporeity, an assimilation of believers
with the glorified body of Christ,4 the resurrection of which is
treated as a pattern and pledge of our resurrection.6 The
latter wbl take place in close association with cosmical
processes.6 The spirit which survives death and corruption,
and is in unity with God's Spirit, is conceived as co-operative
therein, putting on the mortal, in order to transform it into
an immortal mode of being, the dead body being also
compared to a seed-corn.T

II. — Ecclesiastical Doctrine.
Symb. Apost., Conf. Aug. xvii; Cat. Maj. 471. 501.
1. It has been shown previously (p. 131) that many of
the earliest Church teachers taught a preaching of the gospel,
as web as the possibihty of conversion, in Hades. But the
Catholic Church, especiaby after the days of Augustine and
1 Hymenaeus and Philetus, 2 Tim. ii. 18, perhaps also the deniers of the
resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 12.
2 Matt. xxii. 29-32 ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Luke xiv. 14, xx. 36 ; Acts xxiii. 6, xxiv.
15, 21 ; Heb. vi. 2 ; John v. 29, xi. 24, 25, vi. 44, 54.
3 John v. 28 f. ; Rev. xx. 12-15 ; Acts xxiv. 15 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Dan. xii. 2.
4 Rom. vi. 5 ; Phil. iii. 20, 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 43, 49, 53 ; 2 Cor. v. 3-10 ; John
vi. 39 ; 1 John iii. 2.
6 Rom. vi. 4, viii. 10, 11 ; Col. iii. 4.
6 Rom. viii. 21 ; 1 Thess. iv. 14-17 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51 ff. ; 2 Pet. iii. 3, 10, 13 ;
Rev. xxi. 1.
7 1 Cor. xv. 53, 36-38 ; Rom. viii. 10, 11.

406 ESCHATOLOGY.
Gregory the Great, not merely assumed in general a middle
period and middle state between death and the resurrection
at Christ's Second Advent, but more and more placed ab
stress on this life to such a degree, that the definitive fate of
every one was supposed to be decided with death, and those
dying without faith in Christ to be lost, although transferred
to different places of punishment. While all who die in
faith were supposed to be saved, only those already holy enter
at once into blessedness. On the other hand, Christians in
general must suffer in purgatory the temporal penalties for
their sins, and sin must be obliterated in them by the pain of
the ignis purgatorius, that they may be able to enter upon
blessedness. The Reformation utterly rejected the entire
doctrine of purgatory, discovering therein a perversion of the
gospel, nay, the seat of a crowd of the worst corruptions of the
Church. It expected the approaching end of the world, and
was therefore ab the less incbned to occupy itself much with
the state of the soul between death and the resurrection. Its
general doctrine at first was as fobows: "The end of bfe
brings a decision for all men, without a middle state. In the
next world there is only the antithesis of heaven and heb.
Hades is identical with Gehenna." But degrees of happiness
and misery were supposed among the saved and lost, nay, an
enhancement of the state on both sides by the resurrection
and judgment. According to some passages in Luther,1 sin
wib only he utterly obliterated in us by the resurrection,
whereas others, like Gerhard,2 think that original sin is
annbibated in the moment of death.
2. Many teachers of the ancient Church, bke Justin
Martyr, TertuUian, Jerome, suppose a complete identity of the
resurrection-body with the earthly one, inclusive of ab the
faults of the latter, which Christ will remedy at His Second
Advent. A more spiritual theory is maintained, especially by
Origen with his school, who even regards the present body as
an evb, and a hindrance to perfection. But since Augustine's
1 Cat. Maj. 500, 61 : Spiritus S. citra intermissionem nobis sanctificandis
opus suum perficit usque in extremum diem ; cf. 500, 59.
2 This is also held by moderns like Rinck, Splittgerber, Philippi, vi. 8. The
looking upon God is said to purify the soul at once. Philippi supposes in
addition a creative, miraculous act of God, always coinciding with the death of
believers.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. 407
days, an intermediate view between the materialistic and
spiritualistic has prevaded, and was taken over into the
Evangelical Church. According to it, the resurrection-body
has indeed an identity of substance with the earthly body, but
not with the form. The latter will rather be a glorified one.

III. — Dogmatic Investigation.
1. Death and Resurrection in general. — Death, as the
separation of the soul from the body, which falls a prey to
corruption, is represented in the whole of Scripture as some
thing forming no part of the idea of man, but something that
has intervened, a disturbance of the godlike personality
through sin, and in so far contrary to nature.1 Hence redemp
tion, as certainly as it is a restoration, nay, completion of
ab good, restores, nay, renders more intimate, the original
bond of unity between body and soul, and cannot be indif
ferent to the fact that the bond is broken. To Christians,
indeed, death is no longer death in the usual sense, no longer
a punitive evb. The Christian is without the sting — the fear
of death and Hades. Nay, to Christians death is no longer
mere passivity, but an entering into the divine wbl, and
therefore an act, only the " form of death " remaining. But
stib even to Christians it is no good in ItseK.2 The fear of it
only vanishes to Christians through the certainty that it is a
transition, although painful and violent, to a metamorphosis,
to a better life no longer capable of death.8 This existence is
therefore higher than that of man before the Fab. The N. T.
has no fondness for a bodbess immortality. It is opposed to
a naked Spbitualism, agreeing thoroughly with a profounder
phbosophy, which discerns in the body not merely the sheath
or garment of the soul, but an aspect of the personality
belonging to its complete idea, its mirror and organ, of the
greatest importance for its activity and history. Even the
human body has its pecubar dignity. In the earthly life it is
abeady raised through the Holy Spirit to a higher stage, into
1 Cf. above, §§ 87. 88.
2 2 Cor. v. 4 : "I desire to be clothed upon rather than unclothed."
3 John xi. 25, 26.

408 ESCHATOLOGY.
a temple of God.1 But something still higher can be made
of matter than is made of it in the earthly body.2 For even
the body is to be renewed after the image of God, which is
implied in the statement that it is to be made like Christ's
glorified body. Therefore not merely wbl death inflict no
permanent loss, the Soga of the divine bfe is to shine forth
from it. Here also the N. T. favours Realism, in such a form
indeed that stress is not laid on gross matter, but on the ele
ment of substantial reality, which wbl be in harmony with
the spirit in its consummation. For this reason it speaks of
a new world, a new heaven and new earth, and only finds the
crowning of restorative redemption in the pneumatic body of
the resurrection, which not merely vanquishes everything
deadly, but also glorifies earthly matter. But in the N. T.
the resurrection is only placed along with Christ's Second
Advent. And thus, before we enter more closely into the
dogmatic doctrine of the resurrection, the question cannot be
avoided, How is the intermediate period up to the Second
Advent to be viewed in relation to the departed ?
2. There is an intermediate state before the decision by the
Judgment. The Reformation, occupied chiefly with opposition
to the Romish purgatory, leaped over as it were the middle
state, i.e. left at rest the questions presenting themselves here,
gazing with unblenched eye only at the antithesis between
saved and damned on the understanding, retained without
inquiry (in opposition to more ancient teachers), that every
one's eternal lot is definitively decided with his departure from
the present bfe. This is in keeping with the high estimation
put on the moral worth of the earthly life. Nevertheless this
view is impracticable, and that even on moral grounds. Not
merely would nothing of essential importance remain for the
Judgment, if every one entered the place of his eternal
destiny directly after death, but in that case also no space
would be left for a progress of believers, who stbl are not
sinless at the moment of death. If they are conceived as
holy directly after death, sanctification would be effected by
the separation from the body ; the seat therefore of evb must
be found in the body, and sanctification would be reabzed
through a mere suffering, namely, of death in a physical pro-
1 1 Cor. vi. 15, 19. 2 1 Cor. xv.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. 409
cess, instead of through the wib.1 Add to this, the absolute
ness of Christianity demands that no one be judged before
Christianity has been made accessible and brought home to
him. But this is not the case in this life with millions of
human beings. Nay, even within the Church there are
periods and circles, where the gospel does not really approach
men as that which it is. Moreover, those dying in chbdhood
have not been able to decide personally for Christianity. Nor
is the former supposition tenable exegeticaby. As to the
0. T., it does not teach that all men enter directly after death
into blessedness or damnation. They rather pass into Sheol,
which is described as an abode of the departed who are with
out power and true bfe.2 The pious and godless are not
thought of as separated therein. This agrees with the state
ment that Christ first prepared the place of blessedness, to
which His person and work belong.3 Further, what was said
above respecting the Descent into Hades4 applies here, implying
that a salvation through knowledge of the gospel is possible
also to the departed. Christian grace is designed for human
beings, not for inhabitants of earth.5 It is not said : He that
hears not shab be damned ; but : He that believes not.6 Jesus
seeks the lost ; lost are to be sought also in the kingdom of
the dead. The opposite view leads to an absolute decree of
rejection in reference to ab who have died' and die as heathen,
whereas Christian grace is universal. A proof that, according
to the N. T., the time of grace does not expire with death by
a universal law, is found in Christ's raisings of the dead, e.g.
the youth at Nain received through resurrection from the
1 To suppose, with Delitzsch, that after the body is laid aside, the sanctifying
power of faith will spontaneously burst forth, and the sight of the reality of
what is believed will suddenly wipe out all sin, is to reduce the matter to a mere
physical process. Philippi sees that all solutions of this nature proceed on the
supposition that sin has not its seat in the spirit, and therefore requires a divine
creative act in behalf of every one dying in faith. But he cannot quote Holy
Scripture in favour of such a view. It would imply an abridging of the ethical
sphere and its laws, a violation of the fundamental law obtaining in the relation
between divine and human agency, namely, that God's action is initiatory of
action. Hence Kahnis and Martensen rightly hold a continuance of the ethical
process in the next world (Martensen, § 276 ; Kahnis, iii. 554. 576).
2 See p. 376. Job xxxviii. 17 ; Gen. xxxvii. 35, xiii. 38, xliv. 29, 31 ; Num.
xvi. 30-33 ; Ps. xvi 9, 10, xviii. 5, xlix. 14 ff., lxxxviii. 11, lxxxix. 48.
3 John xiv. 3. i § 124.
' 1 Tim. ii. 4-6 ; Luke xix. 10 ; 1 John ii. 2. • Mark xvi. 16;

410 ESCHATOLOGY.
dead a prolongation of the time of grace, through which
Christ's love first became known to him.1 And if Tyre and
Sidon, had they seen what the Jews saw, would have repented
in sackcloth and ashes,2 they would have been saved, which
therefore implies that if the time of grace expbed for them
with death, they would be damned for not seeing and knowing
Christ, which was not theb fault. When, further, Christ says
of a sin,3 that it is forgiven neither in this nor in the next
life, whereas other sins are forgiven in this world without
limitation, this contains a testimony that other sins save the
sin against the Holy Ghost may be forgiven in the next world.
How, moreover, can the place alone decide as to moral worth
or capacity of redemption ? When the Epistle to the Hebrews
says : It is appointed to man once to die, and after this the
/e/jt<rt?,4 we must not, with the old Dogmatists, take this to
mean that the eternal salvation or woe of every one is decided
immediately after death. As to the time of the final judg
ment after death, the passage says nothing. Add to this, that
not merely is the last judgment a crisis,5 but death also brings
one in its own way. The importance of the bodily life, and the
account to be given of it, are certainly taught in the N. T.6
The above-quoted passages, which make the pious enter at
once a better place, exclude a purgatory as a state of
punishment or penance, but by no. means exclude a
growth in perfection and blessedness. Even the departed
righteous are not quite perfected before the resurrection.
Their souls must stbl long for the dominion of Christ
and the consummation of God's kingdom.7 There is there
fore a status intermedins even for believers, not an instan
taneous passage into perfect blessedness. The latter would
depreciate the resurrection, which only occurs at Christ's
Second Advent.
3. But in what form is this middle state to be thought of ?
All departed souls before the resurrection are in a bodiless,
unclothed state,8 at least without the resurrection-body as
1 Luke vii 11-15. 2 Matt, xi 21-24.
3 Matt. xii. 32. 4 Heb. ix. 27. It is not called i xpint.
5 The last Judgment usually has the definite article.
6 E.g. 2 Cor. v. 10. ' Heb. xii. 22-24 ; Rev. vi. 9-11.
• Cf. 2 Cor. v. 2 ff.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. 411
without the earthly. In so far they are ab in a state not
completely answering to the idea of man, to which corporeity
also belongs. But they are not ab for this reason in the same
state or realm, a view which must fobow from a sleep of the
soul. As to the pious, the earthly mixture with the ungodly
ceases after death ; they no longer suffer through them, not
even temptation.1 The connection of bebevers with Christ is
so intimate that death has no power over it.2 On the con
trary, death brings them an advance in freedom from tempta
tions and disturbances, as web as in happiness. For believers
there is no longer any punishment, but growth, a further
laying aside of defects, an invigoration through the greater
nearness of the Lord which they experience, and through the
more bvely hope of their consummation. But those not as
yet bebevers, so far as they are not incorrigible, remain at
first under training which has decision for Christ as its aim.3
But here a difficulty arises. The necessity of the resurrection
is grounded in a relation of corporeity to the person not
accidental but essential Without body, the person cannot be
thought seK-conscious and active externaby. But in this way
a corporeity seems necessarily demanded for the middle state,
if the souls of the pious are not to be placed in an inferior
state, or to fab a prey to unconsciousness. But, on the other
hand, to assume a spiritual body for the soul directly after
death seems a forestalling of the resurrection. And no less
to conceive man after death without corporeity, and yet in
higher blessedness, would leave it obscure how far the resur
rection is a necessity to him. We must refrain from laying
down anything definite on this point. At most, the conjecture
may be allowed, that with at all events a relatively bodbess
state a stbl bfe begins, a sinking of the soul within itself and
into the ground of its bfe — what Steffens cabs Involution, and
Martensen SeK-brooding.4 There life is predominantly a bfe
in spirituality. The essential, substantial union of the soul
with Christ continues, nay, is more uninterrupted and con
stant. They are able through God to know about the world,
and learn now to behold everything in connection with Christ.
In this life the sensuous world-reality is the object of sight,
1 Luke xvi 26. 2 Rom. viii. 35-39.
3 1 Pet. iv. 6. ' Martensen, § 275 f.

412 ESCHATOLOGY.
the spiritual world is the object of faith. Now that the
physical side is wanting to the spirit, these poles are reversed.1
To departed spirits the spiritual world both in good and evil
wbl appear as the real, as that which rests on immediate
evidence.2 Now, in such living of the soul within itself its
ground lies open and unveiled, and thus the withdrawal into
self has for the pious a purifying and educative effect. It
serves to obliterate all stains, to harmonize the whole inner
being, in conformity with the fundamental good tendency
either brought from a former state or acquired later, and thus
in the middle state there wib not be for the pious a mere
waiting for the judgment, but a progression in knowledge,
blessedness, and holiness, in communion with Christ and the
heavenly Church.
But, as relates to those who die unbelievers or not yet
believers, to them also the ground of their souls is laid bare,
and therefore their impurity, their discord with and aliena
tion from God. This must become conscious discord in them
selves. If they were subject to evb inclinations and passions,
they wbl busy themselves with the corresponding objects, and
yet find no appeasement of their longing, and wbl be given
over, so to speak, to their thoughts and desires as tormentors.
If, instead of repentance and conversion, instead of growth in
knowledge of self and knowledge of a holy and yet gracious
God in Christ, they prefer to remain in evb, the form of their
sin becomes more spiritual, more demonic in accordance with
theb state, which recedes farther and farther from the present
life, and thus ripens for judgment. But by no means will
the divine government of the world bear the fault of this
result. The gospel wbl be brought decisively home to all
who did not in this world come to definitive decision, and all
who do not shut themselves thereto wbl be saved. If, there
fore, in this life the sensuous only was the object of sight,
and in so far the physical life preponderated ; if next in the
middle state bfe in spirituabty, either in good or evb, prepon-
1 Cf. Kern, Tub. Zeitschr., Die. christi. Eschatologie, 1840.
2 By this it is not meant that all the departed immediately after death behold
or can behold everything spiritual, e.g. God. If all the departed had perfect
knowledge or intuition at once, it would be inconsistent with the fact that even
in the next world there is place for a free process not determined a priori by
perfect knowledge.

INTERMEDIATE STATE. 413
derated, and in both cases, therefore, the equilibrium and
blessed interpenetration of both sides was wanting, although a
progression finds place in the intermediate state in reference
to believers, on the other hand the resurrection consummates
the personality of believers. Even their manifestation becomes
spbitual, pneumatic, and the spiritual becomes manifested, so
that it is no longer possible to say which of the two is
actual, since rather both sides interpenetrate perfectly and
indissolubly.1 Observation. — Certainly the possibility is conceivable, that
in the middle state the soul has the power, at least in
reference to particular acts, to appropriate to itself elements
out of nature for purposes of self-revelation, but the forming
of a permanent new body and its indissoluble union with
the soul are reserved, according to the N. T, for the resur
rection.8 4. The character of the physical consummation, or of the
resurrection-body, its absolute identity in matter and form
with the earthly frame, is not included in the idea of the
restoration of the entire person to corporeity. Even the
seed-corn, which dies, does not ab rise again in the wheat.
Certain parts are lost in the elements, and enter new com
binations, and other new ones are assimilated. Even our
body changes its material substance during its bfe, as Origen
early perceived. Without prejudice to its identity, it under
goes daily changes of matter. The identity will rather refer
first to the plastic form, which in reference to the earthly
form had its formative principle in the soul. That principle
1 Cf. Kern, ut supra.
2 The passage 2 Cor. v. 3, ilyi — »« yupvot ivpifwripitfa, says : We long to bo
clothed upon with the heavenly body (vers. 1, 2), although after putting off the
earthly body (ixivrA/tsra) we shall not be found naked. If we may so read
and understand the passage (which certainly is disputed), then some sort of an
intermediate corporeity, having secondary importance in comparison with the
divinely-given resurrection-body, may be thought of. For, with Philippi
(vi. 35) after Calvin, to refer the covering of the nakedness to the garment of
Christ's righteousness is out of place, because the context requires, not a moral,
but physical covering. Por the rest, Holy Scripture says nothing of a body,
the product of the ethical process in this life or the germ of the resurrection-
body. This theory may easily lead to the notion that only the regenerate rise
again. Were we to say, with Rothe, that even the abnormal moral process
produces such a body, at least those who die in childhood, in whose case there
can be no question of a moral process, have not acquired such a body.

414 ESCHATOLOGY.
could effect nothing permanent in the middle state, but with
the spiritual consummation of the soul attains the full
strength, which is able to appropriate to itself the heavenly
body. To the building of an immortal body there needs a
different power from that which the soul has immediately
after death, and also a different constitution of the elements
from the earthly. According to Holy Scripture, the resurrec
tion takes place in association with vast cosmical processes,
with a transformation of the world,1 which wib be God's
work. As to form, the resurrection-body wbl correspond to
the fact of humanity having been created for Christ, and
therefore in its consummation will be made bke the image of
Him who is our elder brother.2 As relates secondly to matter,
the elements, in which everything of earthly corporeity is
again dissolved, are an essentially uniform mass, bke an
ocean, of which it is indifferent what parts are assigned to
each individual man. The entbe world of matter, which
makes the constant interchange possible, is made over to
humanity as a common good. Thus, it may be said, not
indeed of the individual, but of humanity, that it wbl
appropriate or put on that which corresponds to its resurrec
tion-life in glorified form out of the same world of elements
which served it in the present bfe, because the perishable-
ness of matter will be abolished by its glorification.
Appropriated by the spirit that has attained its permanent
state, even matter shares in this permanence.
Observation. — The passage, John v. '29, speaks not merely
of a resurrection of life in glorified bght -form, but also
expressly of a "resurrection of condemnation." Although
then an equalizing of the inward and outward of some kind
must be supposed in reference to the wicked, stib the N. T.
gives no more definite information on this point, speaking
almost entirely of the resurrection of the just (see p. 405).
The other is not so much a matter of dogmatic knowledge as
of perverted curiosity.
1 Rom. viii 18 ff. ; 2 Pet. iii. 10 ; Rev. xx. 11 f. Then, in Rothe's phrase
ology, chemistiy will through God celebrate its triumph.
2 Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 John iii. 2 ; cf. p. 405.

THE LAST JUDGMENT. 415
THIRD POINT : THE LAST JUDGMENT, AND END OF THE WORLD.
§154.
There is a final judgment by the returning Lord, the
negative side of which is the excision of everything
evb from the kingdom of Christ and its blessedness,
and the positive the revelation of the full power of
redemption by consummation of individuals and of the
world.
Literature respecting tlie Doctrine of the Judgment. — Ph.
Schaff, Die Siinde wider den H Geist und die daraus gezogenen
dogmatischen und ethischen Folgerungen, 1841. Alex, ab
Oettingen, De peccato in Spiritum sanctum, 1856. Schulze,
Die Siinde wider den heiligen Geist, Evang. K. Z. 1860, N.
78-83. Erbkam, Die Lehre vom Verdammniss, Stud. u. Krit.
1838, iL (according to Erbkam, the damned wbl be without
eternal misery the scars on the body of Christ).
Respecting Apokatastasis. — Schmid, Die Frage von der Wieder-
bringung alter Dinge, Jdhrb. f. d. Theol. xv. 102 ff. After
Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, W. Petersen about 1700 has
especiaby defended the restoration of ab things. Other
friends of this theory are : Oetinger, Th. Burnet, ut supra, p. 309
ff. G. Steinheb, Gott Alles in Allem. Briefwechsel Ueber den
Umfang der Erlosung, 1860 (a Baptist defender of universal
restoration). Ern. Navibe, see § 153. Stroh, Christus der
Erstling derer, die da scMafen, 1861. Schumacher, C. Th.,
Das Reich Gottes, oder wiefilhrt Gott die Menschen zur Selig-
keit ? 1 wdhrend des Erdenlebens, 2 nach dem Tode bis zum
jilngsten Tage, 1862. Under the same head comes Schleier
macher, Abhandlung uber die Erwdhlungslehre, 1819. On the
other hand, the Socinian doctrine of an annihilation of the
wicked, and of an immortabty bmited to the regenerate, has
recently found more common acceptance, see p. 379 ; cf. Rothe,
Theol. Ethik, ed. 2, ii. 483, § 458. In England and North
America the question of the continuance of hell-punishments
has been much ventilated for some years. The most prominent
advocate of the theory, that only life in Christ makes im
mortal, is Edw. White, Life in Christ, ed. 3, 1878. Farrar
also denies the eternity of heb-punishments, which, on the
other hand, is defended by Hodge, Shedd, Pusey, and Goul-
burn.

416 eschatology.
The expositions of J. P. Lange in reference to heaven and
blessedness (Positive Dogmatik, p. 1281 ff; Das Land derHerrlich-
keit, 1838) are excellent, and directed by consecrated imagina
tion. Martensen, Dogmatics, §§ 278 and 283. Nitzsch, System,
§ 219. On Schoberlein and Hamberger, see p. 403.
Symb.Apost. Conf. Aug. xvii. Apol. 217. 96. 137. Cat. Maj.
539. Form. Cone. 724. John v. 26 ff. ; Matt, xxiv., xxv. 31 f.
1. All judgments in the world's history and by its means
are merely partial, ambiguous, and definitively decisive of
nothing. Were the final issue an eternal alternation between
the triumph and defeat of good, not merely would the sub
jective, aesthetic, and rebgious sense be violated ; even the
ultimate aim would be in peril. The result would be a
Dualism representing good and evb as equal in power and
worth, and therefore threatening to co-ordinate the two, a view
inconsistent with the teleological character of Christianity and
the decisive significance of Christ's person. Christianity cannot
always remain merely a historic principle alongside the
absolutely opposite principle, sharing the power with it, as
though the two were of equal authority. The kingdom of
God must survive ab, must show everything hostile to be
absolutely bad, or to be hollow, untrue and impotent. We are
impebed to demand this not merely by an aesthetic interest,
which even of itself requires a harmonious conclusion of the
world-drama, but by a religious and moral interest in harmony
with the connection subsisting between the moral and the
physical, or power. Christianity lajrs claim to being the reality
of realities, which alone has true eternal power. But what it
is in itself or internally, it must also manifest. As spiritual,
it cannot remain a mere quiescent power. It is the inner
most ground-thought of the world, so that without its victory
the aim of the world also would remain unaccomplished.
2. Hence the N. T. teaches a last Judgment, and through
it a a-vvTeXeta tov al&vo$, an end of the present world-
course, which is not an annihbation of the world,1 but a
1 The older theologians from Gerhard to Hollaz would find an abolitio sub
stantia et forma mundi in Matt. xxiv. 35 ; Heb. i. 11 ; Rev. xx. 11. But
other passages oppose this, like 1 Cor. vii. 31 (to c^nfia. *m xir/uu — ¦xafi.yu) ;
Rom. viii. 19-21. Nor does it agree therewith, that the substance of the
world is good and plastic. Cf. Philippi, vi. 143-148.

THE LAST JUDGMENT. 417
reaching of its final goal.1 The pictures of the final judg
ment include figurative elements.2 But this is simply the
form of the thought, that at the end of the present world-
course the point emerges, when a permanent division is
effected by divine intervention, when the powers hostile to
the kingdom of God are stripped of their imaginary strength,
revealed in their falsehood and impotence and consigned to
the past, when evb is utterly cut off, given over to its nothing
ness, or made a harmless subordinate element. God executes
the judgment through Christ. The absolute revelation
must also be the one that judges. As the truth of humanity,
the Son of man is also its absolute norm and standard,
according to which the righteous judgment concerning men
takes place.3 Whoever remains in opposition to Him is self-
condemned.4 According to the N. T., there can be no doubt
that every one whom the judgment finds unbelieving is
condemned to punishment and pain, while believers enter
into eternal bfe. But whether in relation to the total number
of men many or few wbl be transferred to perfect blessedness
by this judgment, and whether many or few wbl fall victims
to punishment, we receive no certain disclosure. Accordingly,
when Christ is questioned on this point,6 He treats the
inquiry as one which we ought not to entertain. We
should ask instead, whether we have done our part that we
may enter by the narrow way. It is thus described as a
premature question of curiosity. But another question is,
whether, if any fall under a condemnatory judgment, they
wib be damned eternaby. In this respect we have a two
fold series of Scripture passages.
On one side it is said,6 the sin against the Holy Ghost will
not be forgiven even in the next world, which seems to imply
that when committed by any one, it deprives of blessedness
for ever, and wbl introduce either destruction and annihba
tion, or eternal damnation. For the sin against the Holy
Ghost is definitive unbebef, which absolutely chabenges
1 The auvri7.ua alSws is called hpurpis. Matt. xiii. 39, 40 ff, 49, xxiv. 3.
2 E.g. Matt. xxv. 31 ff. 3 John v. 27.
* John iii. 19. In the same sense also believers are to be co-judges (1 Cor.
vi. 2 ; Luke xxii. 30) in the degree in which they are like the Son of man.
s Luke xiii. 23. e Matt. xii. 32.
DOENEE.— CHBIST. DOCT. IV. 2D'

418 ESCHATOLOGY.
punishment, and for which no further sacrifice exists and no
intercession must be made.1 The unsaved fall a prey to
inextinguishable eternal fire, to the worm which dies not.2
According to the Revelation, the smoke of the torment of
those cast into the burning lake ascends from aeons to aeons.3
But the strongest passage on this side is the saying respecting
the betrayer : " It were better for that man K he had never
been born." 4
On the other hand, there is unquestionably much that is
figurative in passages of this kind, and thus the question
arises, how far the interpretation should be bteral. Again, a
destruction of death and Hades is spoken of.5 Paul cabs
death the last foe who is overcome, therefore sin has been
overcome before. Since, further, with him death denotes
also spiritual death, the cause of which is sin, it seems as K
the destruction of death implied the ceasing of sin, either
through conversion of the wicked or through their destruc
tion. Revelation makes death and Hades, nay, even the
devb, to be cast into the burning lake,6 which denotes the
second death. The meaning of the " second death " has in
any case something mysterious about it. If the first death
is the dissolution of the body, the second might signKy a
dissolution of the soul, or at least the hardening and dying
of the soul to the divine through entire separation from the
holy God, and therefore a state of spiritual ruin. Further,
the passages concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost say
nothing of definite persons who have committed this sin.
Of themselves, therefore, they leave the question unanswered,
what men, and whether any men, reach this final goal of
criminabty, which is set before the eyes as a warning. Just
so the Revelation of John does not say who, or that a man
will be cast into the lake of fire ; the hypothetical form is
rather chosen : " If one is not inscribed in the book of life,"
" if one worships the beast,7 he shall drink the cup of wrath,"
1 Heb. vi. 4, x. 26, 27 ; 1 John v. 16 ; John xvii. 9.
2 Mark ix. 42-48 ; Matt, xviii. 8, xxv. 41-46, iii. 10, vii. 19.
3 Rev. xix. 3, xiv. 11, xx. 10.
4 Matt, xxvi 24. The supposition of an annihilation by punishment would
be more compatible with this passage than that of universal restoration.
s Hos. xiii. 14 ; Isa. xxv. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 26, cf. vers. 54, 55 ; Rev. xx. 14.
6 Rev. xx. 14, cf. ver. 10. 7 Lev. xx. 15, xiv. 9, i* ns.

THE LAST JUDGMENT. 419
all which affirms nothing of persons, but of the principle. Add
to this, that in the strongest passages the word ald>v, almvtot
is often used, which signifies in the nature of the case eternal
duration in reference to the blessedness or eternal life of
bebevers, but by no means denotes everywhere an endless
period, for an end of the aeons is spoken of. iEons and
aeons of aeons also often denote the world-period.1 Were
this meaning to be assumed in reference to the punishments,
the result would be indeed a duration of immeasurable length,
but not an eternity of duration, — a view which may also be
favoured by the passage which makes the punishment endure
untb the last farthing is paid2
To this add several passages which commend the univer-
sabty of grace and its ad-comprehensive power.8 Paul looks
on to a time when everything shad be subject to the Son,
that God may be ad -in ab.4 According to him, Christ
reconcdes everything to Himself, whether on earth or in
heaven. He makes all things to be gathered together in
Christ, both what is in heaven and on earth.5 And although,
according to the chief passage respecting the sin against the
Holy Ghost, there is no forgiveness for it,6 this implies, it is
true, the necessity of punishment for those gubty of the
sin, but does not preclude deliverance being mediated by the
punishment and its just execution.7
3. On the ground of the second series of statements, the
doctrine of universal restoration (airo/caTcuTTaa-v! nrdvrav) has
again and again found its friends, from Origen and Gregory
of Nyssa, John Scotus Erigena, down to Petersen (about
1 Heb. ix. 26. Cf. Burnet, ut supra, p. 318 ff. Circumcision is to be an
eternal usage, Gen. xvii. 13 ; Canaan an eternal possession of Israel,
Gen. xiii. 15, xlviii. 4. The Mosaic laws in reference to the Passover, and
many commands of a transient nature, are called an ordinance for eternity
(DMjJ$>) e-9- Ex- *&• 14» xxvii- 21> x^7"1- is '> Lev> x- 15> xvi- 3* ' Num'
xviii 11. The temple at Jerusalem is to be God's dwelling for ever, 2 Chron.
vi. 2. Just so the kingdom of David is to be for ever, 2 Sam. vii. 13. A
slave, who spontaneously binds himself by a symbolical act to his lord, is said,
according to Ex. xxi. 6, to serve him for ever. That a)m corresponds to Qpi#
is shown by the Septuagint and the TS.T.
2 Matt. v. 26. Punitive sufferings may be requisite to deliverance.
8 Rom. v. 18, xi 26, 32 ; Eph. i. 10 ; Col. i 16, 20.
4 1 Cor. xv. 25-28. 5 Col. i. 20 ; Eph. i. 10. Cf. John x. 16.
6 Matt, xii, 31 ff. » Matt. v. 26.

420 ESCHATOLOGY.
1700), Michael Hahn, Oetinger, also according to some hints
Bengel, but especiaby Schleiermacher ; whereas others,1 instead
of a universal conversion, although by a process of long-con
tinuing punishments, suppose the annihilation of the wicked,
either through punishment, or by assuming that only the
regenerate are immortal. Certainly in the above passages
Paul presupposes that no hostile power, therefore neither
death nor sin, wbl maintain itseK against Christ. But ab
that is certainly affirmed is the impotence of evb, and even
tbe saying that God wib be ab in all, which must not be
understood pantheisticaby, does not necessarby assert uni
versal salvation and glorification, but may mean that God wbl
be the sole governing power in all according to their cha
racter, either as the Just One in opposition to the wicked who
shab have lost their freedom, or as the Gracious One. In
any case, they can ab merely serve the kingdom of God, not
assert a power against it. On the other hand, it must be
conceded, there is no dogmatic interest demanding that these
are of a certainty eternaby damned and lost ; for this would
imply, not merely that the possibibty of eternal sin is in
cluded in God's ethical idea of the world, but, what is alto
gether objectionable, that a real eternal Duabsm pertains to
the Christian goal of the world. But the friends of Apoka-
tastasis are not satisfied with this, but maintain the dogmatic
necessity of theb view.
4. Criticism of the Dogmatic Reasons for a Restora
tion of all Things. — In the first place, the sameness of man's
sin and need of redemption may be abeged in favour of this
doctrine. " If ab men by nature are involved ba essentiaby
the same sinfulness, from which only redemption can deliver,
if it were not overcome in alL the cause would be in the
fact, that Christian grace did not operate with equal effect in
ab. But since it is meant to apply equaby to ab, so opposite
an effect could not have its reason in God ; and consequently,
if ab are not redeemed, sin could not be by nature an equal
power in ab, but to God would be conquerable in some, un
conquerable in others, which is against the hypothesis." But
this reason loses its force, if the final destiny is made, as
by us, dependent not on natural sinfulness, but on the use of
1 See pp. 379, 415.

THE LAST JUDGMENT. 421
the freedom for decision for or against Christ restored in alL
With the universal outward and inward call is given the
universal possibibty of faith; but the estabbshing of the.
impossibility of unbebef by God's power would directly
contradict the ethical character of the world-goal.
" The divine justice" it may be further said, " is not satisfied
by a number of human beings suffering eternal punishment
involuntardy. Its fuU triumph is only secured, when the
guilty consciousness of the sinner himself is compebed to
acknowledge the justice of the punishment, which itself paves
the way for a turning to the truth and to amendment."
Nevertheless justice is not made more just • by the fact of
its acknowledgment, and non-acknowledgment ought not to
delay its mamfestation, but makes it ab the more necessary.
We have no right to say that punishment is only just when
it is a means of amendment. Justice, taken alone, does not
need the salvation or amendment of ab.1
Universal salvation might rather be derived from the divine
love. But divine love maintains its sacred, inviolable character
through the fact of its being guarded by justice against abuse.
Love must not throw itself away. The despisers of the love of
Christ, who desecrate His sacrifice, cannot with such conduct be
objects of the divine love. This love cannot force itself on
any one, and undervalue its own work. Could the despisers
of Christ's love be well-pleasing to God, love would declare
its own work superfluous. For those who have committed
the sin against the Holy Ghost (and only such, as must be
conceded, can be objects of eternal damnation), there can be
no love in God, because and in so far as they have identified
themselves indissolubly with evil
But are not the redeeming power and the victory of Christ
incomplete, K enemies exist for ever who are only outwardly,
not also inwardly, vanquished, i.e. who are merely impotent,
but stbl evb in disposition ? " Christ's redemptive purpose
indisputably embraces ab, therefore His wish would be un-
fulfibed, unless ab became partakers of salvation." Christ's
intercession cannot imply that redemption is imparted to
those who are unwibing to accept it by personal free de
cision. The gospel can only vanquish by spiritual means. If
1 Vol. iii. § 88, p. 125.

422 ESCHATOLOGY.
the free wbl decides to reject the gospel, Christ cannot hinder
it, or desire to supersede the spiritual process by mere
power.1 But if, starting from the idea of the Church, we say : " None
can be wanting to it in the consummation, who belong to its
idea; but according to the N. T. everything is created for
Christ, therefore ab belong to the divine idea of the Church,
and thus a universal apokatastasis is required from its stand
point; or, supposing that any one had never belonged to
the idea of the Church, he would be thought by God as not
belonging to our class of beings, but to another, and this
would be Manichaean," the answer thereto is contained in
what precedes. It has been shown there that the idea of
the Church and kingdom of God wbl not remain unreabzed ;
God's unexhausted, undiminished creative power and, wisdom
wbl know how to provide for this end in the progress of
generations, either by means of new individuals, or by the
talent of the unfaithful for the work being given to the
faithful. Power, therefore, is not conferred on sin to frustrate
the thought of the consummation of the kingdom. That
unbebevers are not naturaby of a different nature from be
bevers, that they did not belong originally to another class
of beings having no reference to Christ, is evident from the
fact that definitive unbebef is only possible in their case
' through an abuse of freedom of which they need not have
been gubty. The gospel had a positive relation to them
also, but by their abuse of freedom they reduced theb rela
tion to it to a negative one. Bebevers also are not saved by
a particular predestination, but they did not abuse the freedom
which the others also had ; not that this is a merit to them,
but it furnished to grace the possibdity of influence and
self-communication.2 1 It is more difficult to refute the objection, how it consists with the love of
the God who eternally foresees also free actions to create these, of whom He
knows beforehand that they are created for eternal damnation. But whether
the divine foreknowledge should be so viewed that it could become a motive
for non-creation, is more than questionable. The foreknowledge of definitive
unbelief presupposes the creation of those who become unbelieving. ' Cf. voL ii.
p. 61, and M'Cabe, The Foreknowledge of God, 1878. But the question
remains : Is conservation for eternal torment conceivable ?
2 §151, p. 410.

THE LAST JUDGMENT. 423
Observation. — But of course it must be conceded that the
human race is a genus of beings, the members of which
are able through their freedom to separate into antitheses
of absolute significance, deeper than any antithesis possible
among the different genera of beings in nature. But such
depth of separation is only possible on the basis of freedom
and original equabty. Freedom is the power to sunder
spirits into the absolute antithesis of chbdren of light and
chbdren of darkness, and to convert the latter into a class
of beings absolutely opposed indeed to the other. But God
did not create men on a duabstic basis.
But do not the certitude and power of Baptism suffer,
unless ab are saved ? In Baptism, indeed, God assigns to
man election and His faithful covenant, which does not apply
merely to the moment. If, then, a baptized one is lost, the
certainty of the election testified by Baptism is gone. — But,
certain as it is that election to the offer of grace by outward
and inward calling is universal and absolute, stbl the election
to bfe embraces only bebevers and the regenerate, and withal
has regard to the use of freedom.
Most of ab it may seem estabbshed, that the happiness of
believers must necessarily be disturbed by the misery of the
one class, especiaby since the former have the consciousness
of not being better or more worthy, but on the contrary of
even having contributed to the sin of others by joint respon
sibility. Thus a sting seems necessarby left in the happi
ness of the good, unless all are saved. In reply to this, it
might indeed be said : If the damnation of some is God's
holy and righteous wib, a resignation is fitting, in which no
other wish is felt than one in harmony with God's wib, whose
love is not surpassed forsooth by our loving sympathy. But
this answer is insufficient, because mere resignation would
not comport with the perfecting of personality. On the other
hand, in respect to the sting lying in the consciousness of
joint-authorship of sin, it must be considered that the sin
which leads to damnation can never be the sin resulting
from innate sinfulness alone, or to speak generally from the
influence of the race, the common spbit, example or tempta
tion by error. Rather the sin rendering the individual
absolutely bad can only be the personal gubt of rejecting
Christ, in which, of course, rejection of good itself is included,
and therefore acquiescence in all other possible sin. And
when further it is remembered, that only blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost can be the final ground of damnation, and
therefore the sin that tramples under foot the blood of the
new covenant and counts it unholy, sympathy with such

424 ESCHATOLOGY.
sinners must be essentiaby different from natural sympathy
with members of the race ; for they of course belong to an
absolutely different class of beings, for whom intercession
can no longer be made, because it is ethicaby as web as
logicaby impossible to desire forgiveness for those who
despise it. Certainly provision must be made somehow
against a Duabsm being perpetuated for ever by powers
hostbe to God, instead of the consummation of our sphere of
creation. 5. Clear as is the debverance given by the N. T. on the
principle that unbelief damns, as little clear is the answer it
gives in reference to the question as to the persons who are
judged and treated in accordance with that principle. That
there are damned beings, preponderant exegetical reasons
prove (but we have therewith no dogmatic proposition, he-
cause the latter must also be derived from the principle of
faith) ; nor have we been able to find the dogmatic reasons
for Apokatastasis decisive. Hence the latter also cannot be
dogmatically taught. The objective reason, why no categorical
affirmation can be made on dogmatic grounds, lies in human
freedom. It does not admit the assertion of a universal
process leading necessarily to salvation, because such process
is and remains conditioned by non-rejection and free accept
ance. But such ' human freedom, so ldng as it lasts, of course
excludes also a categorical dogmatic affirmation, that there
certainly are damned beings ; for so long as freedom of any
kind exists, so long the possibibty of conversion is not
absolutely excluded, be it even through judgment and damna
tion to deeper and longer misery. But wherever this possi
bibty issued in reabty, there self-evidently the damnation
could no longer continue. The necessary, eternal duration
of the rejection and damnation of the one class could only
be maintained with fub precision, provided also the complete
loss of freedom for conversion — absolute hardening — was
taught, as is usually done by the advocates of eternal damna
tion, whereupon the_ new question arises, whether such are
stib men, and not rather persons that have been men, but
have reaby degenerated into a lower class of beings.
6. But a third theory seems now to meet with growing

THE LAST JUDGMENT. 425
assent in opposition both to the Church-doctrine and espe
ciaby to the doctrine of Apokatastasis, the hypothesis of the
annihbation of the wicked, which bkewise thinks itself able
to make categorical assertions respecting the question of
persons. We therefore dweb awhile upon it.
If regard for freedom does not permit the affirmation of
the doctrine, that a harmonious conclusion of history and
universal restoration are secured by means of conversion
being certainly universal without exception, — for if the
ethical process turned into a physical one, the result attained
would only he of ethical value in appearance, — this har
monious conclusion might seem to be better secured by the
supposition, that, because the power of immortal life resides
only in Christ and bving communion with Him, those who
obstinately and definitively withdraw from such communion
perish and are annihbated. This theory may even pay regard
to human freedom and the divme justice by leaving room for
a punishment of the wicked, and making the very annihbation
itseK to be effected by the consuming divine penalties, which
begin from the final judgment.1 In favour of the supposition
of the final annihbation of the wicked, it is abeged2 that
numerous expressions are used in reference to those falling
under sentence of condemnation which suggest annihbation.3
The word " death " indeed has, it is said, various meanings,
but it always denotes the dissolution of a bving power.
" Thus physical death so called," it is said, " is a dissolution
of the bving unity, which embraces the body and the soul.
Further, the sinful state of the soul is called a spbitual
death, because through it the bond between the soul and
God is dissolved When, then, a ' second death ' is spoken of,
this may signify merely the dissolving of the soul itseK into
1 The latter is taught by the Socinians and Rothe, whereas according to
Weisse (Stud. u. Krit. 1835 : Ueber die philos. Bedeutung der chr. Eschatologie,
Philos. Dogmatik, § 965) annihilation enters as matter of course for all, who
are not rendered immortal by regeneration. White, on the other hand, makes
indeed a retributive punishment and pain fall on the godless before their
annihiiation, whileseeming^ta'regard this as the act of God Himself, p. 499 ff.
2 E.g. by White/pT359ff.
3 E.g. &xu\ua, ixtipt, Matt. vii. 13 ; Rom. ix. 22 ; 1 Thess. v. 3 ; 2 Thess.
i. 9 ; 1 Tim. vi. 9 : &9t\*.iwi, a-xiwattai, Matt. x. 28 ; Luke xvii. 33 ; John
iii. 16, xii. 25 ; 1 Cor. i. 18.

426 ESCHATOLOGY.
nothing.1 This view may WeU be reconcbed with the Scrip
ture passages, which teach an eternal duration of heb-punish-
ments, if alwvtos can denote an immeasurable, indefinitely
long duration of punishment." — " Although," it is continued,
" the notion may less commend itself, that Gbd Himself
directly destroys the souls of the ungodly, we may stbl re
member that an ohtological significance belongs also to the
ethical, whence it would follow, that just as the appropriation
of the Holy Spirit and the divine life has a significance in
relation to the enhancement and invigoration of the entire
human bfe, so, conversely, estrangement from God separates
from the source of bfe, and the growing dominion of sin is
by no means a matter of indifference to the stabibty of the
spiritual faculties. Sin, moreover, has ontological significance,
namely of a negative kind. This also seems to be held by
ab the Church teachers, who, in order to maintain the eternity
of heb-punishments, and to cut off the continuance of a
possibbity of conversion, assert the complete loss of freedom
in the case of the lost to be a natural consequence and
punishment of sin, which again would involve, in vbtue of
the connection between volition and knowledge, a complete
darkening of the spirit, an extinction of all remnant of higher
bght and knowledge of God. But again, however it may be
open to dispute whether a being so disorganized, in whom
that which makes man man — reason and freedom — is ex
tinguished, ought to be cabed a man, so much seems clear,
that the Church teachers mentioned acquiesce as to the chief
matter in the annihbation of the ungodly. The latter are
then to be viewed essentially in the light of people who have
become insane, perhaps raging in impotent fury for ever, which
would be a sort of annihilation of theb human character."
It cannot in fact be denied that both views — that of those
Church teachers, who make freedom and reason, and especially
consciousness of God, to be extinguished for ever in the
damned, and that of the advocates of the annbibation of the
ungodly — approach very near to each other, save that the
latter have in their favour, that they at least do away with
the crying dissonance that would he left for the unity of the
world, if alongside the world of the perfected and saved,
lCf. Nitzsch, p. 413 ff.

THE LAST JUDGMENT. 427
that other world of insanity and blind enmity to God con
tinued eternaby. But it does not fobow from this, that we
can set up the annihilation of the wicked as a dogmatic pro
position, but only that, if we hold fast to the immortality of
the wicked, the entbe extinction of freedom and reason as
the effect of sin must not be supposed. The doctrine of the
annihbation of the ungodly on its part is likewise mere
hypothesis, for to assert at present dogmaticaby that there
are certainly those doomed to annihdation would be incom
patible with freedom. But exegeticaby this hypothesis has
against it, that Holy Scripture treats as possible a debverance
from imprisonment, although through heavy punishment.1
Again, it tebs against it, that, whereas Holy Scripture teaches
differences of degree in gudt and punishment even after the
judgment, and therefore not an infinite gubt in ab whom
the judgment condemns, this hypothesis,, on the contrary,
assumes one and the same highest degree of punishment for
all sinners, namely annihbation (so far, namely, as the fact
is left out of sight, that annihbation is also an end of ab
punishment).2 Although, further, this hypothesis seems ex
ceedingly favourable to the unity and harmonious consumma
tion of the world, it stbl includes the disturbing element,
that such glorious capacities of a godbke kind, having an
essential relation to infinite excebence, and thus themselves
having a share, although small, in the infinite, are supposed
to perish, and be annihbated after the fashion of mere finite
natural faculties.8 Accordingly, this hypothesis also cannot
lay claim to unreserved acknowledgment and dogmatic
authority, and we must be content with saying, that the
ultimate fate of individuals remains veded in mystery, as
web as whether ab wbl attain the blessed goal or not.
Enough that we have the certainty of eternal bfe and of
the perfecting of God's kingdom, however this may be brought
1 Matt. v. 26. (Cf. xii. 31 f., since punishment is not forgiveness.)
2 With annihilation, indeed, all punishment is at an end. But if the ungodly
are not annihilated by God, but consumed by the punishments, such a view
does not exhibit a just distribution of the degrees of punishment; for the sin
of the worst transgressors must do its consuming work most rapidly, and thus
the punishment for them would be most quickly ended, whereas it would
continue so much the longer, the less the power of evil in the sinner.
3 Evil is never the substance of the soul ; this remains metaphysically good.

428 ESCHATOLOGY.
about. But although knowledge on many matters in them
selves ' worthy to be known is denied to us as regards
Eschatology generaby, and especially as regards the present
point, — knowledge which is impossible to us because of
human freedom, — it yet remains for us to lay down the
fobowing dogmatic propositions : —
(1.) There is a judgment, which maintains the divine
justice, and also, by excluding everything hostde, subserves
the consummation of the kingdom of God.
(2.) There is no predestination to damnation; only con
tinued impenitence can be the cause of that ; hence no one who
has or can have the wbl to he converted is damned for ever.
(3.) The process of grace can never fab into the physical
sphere. Therefore, rejection of grace remains possible, and
every hope of Apokatastasis that passes into the physical
sphere is to be rejected, as web as the hope of universal
salvation apart from Christ.
(4.) There may be those eternaUy damned, so far as the
abuse of freedom continues eternaby ; but without the possi
bility of the restoration of freedom, man has passed into
another class of beings, and — regarded from the standpoint
of the idea of man — is a mere ruin.
(5.) Blessedness can only exist where hobness exists. As
there is no condemned penitence,1 so there is no unholy
blessedness. § 155. — The Consummation of the World and Eternal

There is an eternal blessedness through the transfiguring
consummation of Nature, of Individuals, and of the
Kingdom of God
1. The N. T. foretells, like the Old,2 a Consummation
(avvreXeia? airo/cardo-raoi,?*), when Christ shab have accom-
1 Nitzsch : the thought of an eternal damnation and punishment is necessary,
inasmuch as there can be no enforced holiness of a personal being, and no saved
nnholiness in eternity, System, ed. 6, § 219, p. 411.
2 Isa. lxvi. 3 Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20.
J Acts iii 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24-28 ; Rev. xxi. 1.

' FINAL CONSUMMATION. 429
plished His mediatorial work and led ab God's children to
the Father, that God may be ab in all, i.e. that His glory
may be revealed, and the authority of His will universal,
— not merely the wbl of His love, but also, of His
power and justice. As to details, the Consummation of
Nature, of Individuals, and of the Kingdom of God is to be
considered. 2. The Consummation of the natural world presupposes
an end1 of the present world-period and order, which, how
ever, must not be conceived as an annihbation of the world,
although it is described as a conflagration of the world.2
Matter is not evb. Thus the destruction can only refer to
the form of the world.8 The conflagration may precede as a
means for transfiguring the world into heightened beauty,
into a new heaven and new earth.4 The material of the
world may be ennobled thereby. This transfiguring of nature
includes not merely the erasing of ab traces of sin in the
form and material of the world, but also so intimate a union
of nature with spbit, that no place wbl any longer exist
for decay.5 Without loss of substantiality, matter wbl have
exchanged its darkness, hardness, heaviness, immobility,
and impenetrableness for clearness, radiance, elasticity, and
transparency.6 Although with the consummation of the
earthly creation its task wbl be discharged, from this con
summated cbcle of creation as a basis, an altogether new
stadium may again begin, an advance to new creations with
the co-operation of perfected humanity, in which God will
have His being, and through which He wbl continue His
work 3. As concerns the Consummation of Individuals, the
promise is that the righteous shall shine as the sun in the
kingdom of the Father.7 As our earthly body bore the image
of the earthly Adam, so our pneumatic spiritual body shab
1 1 John ii 17. * 2 Pet. iii. 7-10.
3 1 Cor. vii. 31. See p. 382. 4 Rev. xxi. 1 ; Ps. cii. 26 ; Isa. lxvi.
B According to Rothe's Theol. Ethik, liability to decay is only possible through
the dissolution of the ideal and real through the expiring of the former.
« Rothe, Ethik, ed. 2, ii. 481 ff. Schoberlein, Jahrb.f. d. Theol. 1861, vi. 1 ;
Ueber das Wesen der geistigen Natur und LeibUchkeit. Hamberger, Die
himmlische LeibUchkeit, ibid. 1862, 1. Lange, ut supra.
? Matt. xiii. 43.

430 ESCHATOLOGY.
bear Christ's image.1 We shab stand in a state of unfettered
vitabty. The somatic-psychical organism will be the absolutely
adequate means for the action of the spirit, all mortality and
passivity of the body wib have vanished. Space and time,
although bfe wib stbl run in these forms, wbl no longer form
restrictive bmits. The perfected, through the eternal bfe in
them, have, bke God, a fount of bfe in themselves.2 " Union
with all world-spheres, and especiaby the persons in them,
stands open to the perfected, and therefore fellowship with
them. From theb inner nature a bght wib stream forth,
forming an atmosphere around them, and binding together
the perfected." When we are entbely sanctified in body,
soul, and spirit, the earthly distinction of sex also wib exist
no longer,8 nor the earthly distinction of ages, each of which
has its imperfection; rather the power of eternal bfe in
cludes both eternal youth and the vigour of maturity. The
new spiritual body also is raised into the fulness of spiritual
energy. It wbl share in superiority to space, and be able
to emulate the fleetness of thought. Since it wbl no longer
form an independent centre of bfe outside the spbit and its
sphere of energy, but the spbit wib have become the sole,
ab-ruling centre of personabty, with the passivity and mor
tality of the body ab babbity of the spirit to be tempted by
it has disappeared. As relates to the spiritual side, it wbl
be remote from the possibibty of sin, not through loss of
freedom, but through the indestructible energy of love spring
ing from union with God, from the presence of God and
Christ, and from habitual debght in and through them.
Consequently the consummated spirit wib, in conformity with
God and Christ, possess true freedom in the fact that it can
no longer become unfree. On the side of knowledge and
vobtion, the soul will enjoy blessed contentment. Then wbl
Christ keep the supper anew with us, and the highest
solemnities of the present are but a weak foretaste of the
powers of the world to come.4 Then fragmentariness in
knowledge wib cease, for we shall see face to face.5 To
those who love Him, God wdl give what no eye has seen or
1 1 Cor. xv. 49. Cf. 1 John iii. 2 ; Phil, iii 21 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18.
2 John iv. 14. 3 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Luke xx. 34-36. * Heb. vi. 4, 5.
5 1 Cor. xiii. 10-12 ; 1 John iii. 2 ; John xvii. 24 ; Rev. xxii. 4.

FINAL CONSUMMATION. 431
ear heard or heart conceived.1 The pure in heart shall see
God,2 i.e. hot merely possess Him by faith, or possess know
ledge through inferences from His works, but they shab
know Him as He is. They will have the power to love
Him perfectly, for, as Baxter says, we shall only then rightly
know His loveliness and beauty when " the heavenly faculty
of perception is winged, sharpened, the highest clearness of
vision." Since the heavenly body has then become a perfect
organ of knowledge, God wbl be beheld by the beatified in His
cosmical beingyand the world wib be beheld as fibed with God,
and they will be grasped in theb immediate presence. The
individual wbl be known in the light of great intuitions of
the whole, and in accordance with the mutual connection
between it and the whole. So far as the universe is in
eternal progression, and new circles of creation are ever
arising, knowledge is never concluded and yet. never a frag
ment; but it can survey the whole existing at the time,
and the new treasures of divine wisdom and love ever
pouring forth therein. But this whole itself is like a circle
extending itself farther and farther, yet always a whole, a
harmonious organism. The beatified also stand to each other
in the relation of mutual understanding. Not merely will
there be a reunion and mutual recognition,3 but we shall
behold (in which even a Socrates rejoiced) all the great
spirits in the history of humanity, a Paul, John, the Pro
phets, and have the noblest enjoyment in infinitely diversified
febowship and love. But the centre of the blessed enjoy
ment wbl be God HimseK and Christ. The highest activity
of the will wbl be in perfected worship,4 consisting in adora
tion, thanks, and praise, and also in joyous obedience which
makes itself in godlike love an organ for God's continuous
activity. This suggests the relation of blessedness to rest
and enjoyment on one hand, and to action on the other. The
poetic figures, which depict the enjoyment of the heavenly
harmony, are especiaby borrowed from the sphere of art.
Art — the beautiful — receives here at last its special place, for
the nature of art is to delight in visible presentation (Darstell-
ung), to achieve the classical and perfect with unfettered play
1 1 Cor. ii. 9. 2 Matt. v. 8.
3 Matt, viii 11, xvii. 3 ; Luke xiii. 28. * Rev. vii. 12, xxii. 3.

432 ESCHATOLOGY.
of its powers.1 Every one, morally perfect, wib thus wed the
good to the beautiful. It fobows herefrom, that in the rest
pictured as the goal, as an eternal Sabbath,2 there wib be no
inactivity, and also no unrest in the activity. Labour and
effort have faben away, because the organ serves the spirit with
absolute wfbingness while godlike work continues.3 There
remains nothing to do indeed in reference to personal sin, but
for this reason presentative activity stbl remains, nay, even
production and the contemplating of what is produced, both
with undisturbed sense of blessedness. The talents of indi
viduals wib not be lost, nay, wbl be raised to higher potency,
and spring from out the fount of eternal bfe without hin
drance.4 The aspect of activity in blessedness is emphasized
in the figure of the faithful being set over many things, the
commission to rale cities and the sitting and judging, i.e.
ruling the tribes of Israel.5 Further, the creations of God
wbl stbl advance, and since, according to the analogy of the
relation of angels to the growth of God's kingdom upon
earth, the law prevails that the perfected at the time forms
the fixed starting-point for further productions, the blessed
wib never want an arena of satisfying activity. Since nature
has acqubed perfect plasticity for the spirit, it wbl be no
longer a mere place or abode of the spirit, but its property,
nay, enabled to become the pure mirror of the spirit, and the
wilbng adequate organ for its formations and visible presenta
tions. If inquiry is made as to the contents of this working
and presenting, they are the exhaustless contents of eternal bfe
streaming into every individual bfe, the Triune God Himself.
The Deity, infinitely rich and glorious, is apprehended and
reflected back by each individuality in pecubar fashion, — a
thought expressed in the gleaming jewels of many colours
in the bubding of the city of God.6 Every individuality,
therefore, exhibits the divine in a way no other can do, but
is also receptive to each of the rest, and theb presentations.
Thus, each one in loving contemplation moulds the others
and their presentations in the past and present after or
into itself, and the saying becomes truth, " All is yours."
1 Rev. v. 8-14, xxi. 2 Heb. iv. 11 ; Rev. vii. 16, 17, xxi. 4.
3 Schleiermacher, Christ. Glaube, ii. 500. * Luke xix. 13.
5 Luke xix. 13-17 ; Matt. xxv. 15 ff, xix. 28. 6 Rev. xxi. 11-23.

FINAL CONSUMMATION. 433
A difference of degree finds place in reference to blessedness
and glory, but without envy and disorder ; for every one has
" the measure, which he is able to receive," and every one in
his own way shares in that which is another's, through the
absolute communion in love binding together the perfected.
This enhances the sense of life and the force of individuality.
But ab — the entire, duly organized circle of countless blessed
spirits — grow, without growth implying any defect in blessed
ness ; for their ground of life is the unsullied, faultless
blessedness, nay, the eternal life, which is God Himself —
Triune as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
4. But the city of God in the glorified universe, the
temple therein which is the medium of God's presence to
ab, is the Church of God. If the universe has become the
holy place, it does not lack its Hobest of all. The Church
is certainly a narrower idea than that of the kingdom of
God ; its consummation alone would not be the consummation
of the latter. But the Church is not merely humanity
united with God, it embraces also the higher spirit-world
having the same Head with it — Christ. Again, the Church
is the animating, habowing, glorifying centre of all moral com
munities, which embrace also nature in its fashion, and which
only found imperfect typical manifestations of their reality
or idea upon earth. The valuable, true elements of ab com
munities are not merely preserved, but visibly exhibited in
harmonious interpenetation without losing their distinctions.
Thus is the ttoXottoikiXo'; deov a-o&ia,1 the wealth of God's
creative power, revealed through the Church of God and to it,
for the Church is the innermost power of consummation to ab
spheres through the eternal bfe having its seat in it. The
deepest ground thereof lies in the Incarnation or Godman-
hood of Christ which took place primarily for it ; for in the
Incarnation not merely . are God and man united, but the
beginning of the consummation of nature is typically given
in His resurrection. The power of His resurrection continues
in the consummated new Creation of His Church, and effects
also the transfiguring of the world.2 As in this Consumma
tion all false interblending of evb and good, of mortal and
eternal, must become separated, so also must the mutual
1 Eph. iii. 10. 2 Phil. iii. 10.
Doeneb. —Che ist. Doct. iv. 2 E

434 ESCHATOLOGY.
externality of spirit and nature, which is the cause of mor
tality and babbity to temptation, of fickleness and instability,
yield to the powers proceeding from the Risen One, in whom
spirit and nature are absolutely blended. Thus Paul repre
sents the matter.1 As a unity the Church is called the
Bride "of Christ,2 but it is a unity in variety and multiplicity ;
it is the city of God, the new Jerusalem.3 God Himself is
its light and sun and everlasting day ; but the divine bght
is also reflected back in varied forms from the web-ordered,
firm, and glorious structure of the city. The multitude of
the beatified, adoring, perfected righteous, is also united by
the Holy Spirit with the Bridegroom,4 as well as united with
each other by love and mutual helpfulness. After the con
flicts and tribulations, especially of the last age before Christ's
Second Advent, wib come the marriage-feast of the Lamb ;
the Bridegroom will bring home the Bride at the new Supper,5
at that blessed and indissoluble union of the members with
their Head, by which the dearest and holiest relations of
earthly communions all attain their reality.
1 Rom. viii. 11-19 ; Col. i. 18 ff. ; Eph. i. 10.
2 Rev. xxii. 17. Cf. Matt. ix. 15, xxv. 1 ; Luke v. 34 ; Mark ii. 19 ; Eph.
v. 24-32.
3 Heb. xii. 22 ; Rev. iii. 12, xxi. 2, 10. * Rev. xxii. 17 ; Eph. iv. 13, 16.
5 Rev. xix. 7, 9 ; Matt. xxii. 2 ff.

INDEX TO THE FOUR VOLUMES.

Abelaed, i. 392, ii. 343, iv. 19, 71.
Absolute, primary possibility of thought,
etc., i. 228, 442 ; the ground of our
thinking the, 230 ; universal ground
of possibility, 232, 441, ii. 108.
Absolute religion, ii. 215, 221, 232,
234.
Absoluteness of God, i. 190, 204, 209,
283 ; relation to personality, 339,
341, 438, 442, ii. 36, 238, 252.
Absolution, iv. 326, 336, 338.
Acosmism, i 237 f., 332, 340 f., ii. 45 ;
ethical, 73, 248, 253.
Activity of the spirit in cognition, i.
62 ; of God in knowledge, 326 f.,
cf. 464, ii. 112, 116, 121, 136 ; in
inspiration, 185, 187 f., 201.
Actus eliciti, iv. 169, cf. 290.
Actus forensis, iv. 210, 214, 218, 222,
224, 228, 233, cf. 196, 201 f., 208.
Adam, ii. 43, 78, 213, 331, 339, 345,
350, 354.
Adoptianism, iii. 213, 221.
Advent, second, iv. 142, 159, 311, 373,
383 ff., 399.
Aepin, iv. 128.
Alcuin, iii. 221.
Althaus, iv. 402.
Ambrosius, ii. 340, iv. 8, 13.
Anabaptists, iii. 267, iv. 204, 267, 275,
280, 356, 391, 393, 398.
Anamartesia of Christ, iii. 343, 351,
360, 366.
Angels, ii. 196, 200, iii. 325.
Anger of God, iii. 121, 127, 128, iv. 10,
30, 43, 73, 80, 84, 99, 104, 114, 116,
122, 166, 209, 212, 230.
Anselm, ii. 339, iv. 9, 14, 21, 34, 57,
76, 103, 109.
Anthropocentric Christology, iii. 258,
308, 311, 313, 318, 326.
Anthropomorphism, i. 198, 461, ii.
248.
Antichrist, iv. 374, 383, 388, 390, 392,
397 f.
Antinomianism, i. 418, 446, iii. 389,
iv. 26, 77, 207, 216, 233.

435

Antiocheians, iv. 168, 315.
Apokatastasis, iv. 173, 419, 428.
Apollinaris, i. 404, iii. 206, 211, 215,
219, 264, 267, 308, 313.
Apologetics, i. 177 f., 338.
A priori, i. 63, 309, 311 ; no a- priori
given ideas, 67 ; a priori right, 288.
Aquinas, Th., i. 196, 231, 330, 382,
430, ii. 27, 99, 153, 178, 339, iii. 29,
221, iv. 18, 293.
Aristotle, i. 69, 289, 385, 449, iii. 368,
iv. 73, 155.
Arius, Arians, i. 211, 258, 350, 367,
371, 421.
Arminians, i. 398, 411, 430, ii. 352,
iii. 52, iv. 38, 82, 206.
Arnobius, i. 207, 241, iv. 379.
Ascension of Christ, iv. 136, 138.
Aseity, i. 203, 205, 256, 258, 398, 409;.
trinitarian, 411, 420, 426, 442, 444,..
452, 458, ii. 363.
Athanasius, i. 258, 374, 382, 452, ii..
336, 340, iii. 209, 214, 220, iv. 8,.
10, 168.
Atheism, i. 39, 89, 122 f., ii. 107, 119.
Atonement, i. 140 f., 146, 462, ii. 202,
219, 261, 264, iii. 70, 121, 385; and
law, 403 ; and justification, iv. 193,.
202, 222, 377 ; possible theories of,.
6, 75, 119 ; God's purpose of, 81,.
86, 98, 116, 150, 183, 218, cf. 280r
291 ; and Baptism, 286, 291.
Attributa absoluta, etc., i. 204.
Attributes of God, i. 187, 192; nature,
194 ; divisions, 192, 203 ; objective
or subjective, 197 ; derivation, 202,
324, 453 f. ; and Trinity, 361 f., 380,
393, 412, 447, 453; share of the
world in, ii. 27, 252, 410.
Augustine, i. 195, 241, 246, 270, 330,
381, 387, 391 f., 452, ii. 29, 42, 94,
152, 156, 178, 337, 340, iii. 30, 45,
298, iv. 8, 10, 24, 76, 168 f., 198,
271, 314, 348, 390, 406.
Authority of the community, i. 77 ;
ecclesiastical, 80, 429 ; proof of, 85 ;
of Scripture, 94; external, 108, 111,

436

INDEX.

113 ; scepticism and, 129 ; freedom
and, 418, 428 f., ii. 127, 139, 185,
225, 230, 262, iv. 91, 251, 254, 256,
261, 304.
Baadee, Fr., i 188, 198.
Bacon, i. 429.
Baier, ii. 351, iv. 203, 224, 352.
Baldwin, iii. 64.
Baltzer, ii. 102, iv. 352.
Baptism, of Jesus, iii. 375, 377 ; of
John, 412, iv. 246, 277, 290, 292 ;
sins before, 25 ; Christian, 153, 173,
203, 238, 244, 272, 276, 285; necessity
of, 293 ; stages in, 310 ; and Lord's
Supper, 322, 324, 333 ; and Church,
366, 399 ; trustworthiness of, 423.
Baptist doctrine, iv. 283, 297.
Bartels, iii. 150, 175-
Barth, iii. 150, 175.
Basil, i. 383, 452.
Basilides, i. 365.
Baudissin, iii. 405.
Baumgarten, i. 196, 201.
Baumgarten-Crusius, iv. 15.
Baur, ii. 209, 219, iii. 30, 175, 188,
iv. 49, 256.
"Bautin, i. 87.
Baxter, iv. 431.
Bayle, i. 282.
Beauty, i. 264, 267, 271, 275, 339,
422, 458 ; perfected by the ethical,
463, cf. 284, 308, ii. 66, 169, 200,
243 ; in God, 360 ; and evil, 365,
iii. 30 ; of Christ, 351 ; in the con
summation, iv. 431.
Beck, i 41, 164, 168, 263, ii 192, 195,
iii. 52, 383.
Being, is God? i 248, cf. 189, 250,
253 ; is God all ? 440 ; God thinks
His, 324, 422, 439 ; ethical, 312,
316, 339 f., 427, 431 ; category of,
ii. 62, 118, 201.
3ekker, iii. 93.
Bellarmine, ii. 345, iii. 18, iv. 211, 226.
Benecke, iii. 47.
Bengel, ii. 351, iv. 389.
Bennet, iv. 307.
Berkeley, i. 63.
Beryll, iii. 205, 209, 257.
Besser, iii. 266.
Beyschlag, i. 404, iii. 176, 192, 207,
255, 258 ff., 289, iv. 342.
Beza, iii. 33.
Biblical theology, i. 23, 170, ii. 196.
Biedermann, i. 41, 200, 225, ii. 144,
368, iii. 95, 270, 276, iv. 49, 75.
Billroth, i. 188, 405.
Binder, iii. 92.
Birt, iv. 277.
Blasche, iii. 30.
Blessedness, of God, i. 448, 463 f.,

ii. 11 ; of men, iii. 115, 120, 200,
202 ; of Christ, iii. 330, 377, iv.
125, 131, 138 ; of believers, ii. 372,
iv. 230, 234, 238, 378, 382, 391,
399, 423, 428, 431.
Boehme, i. 261.
Boethius, i 381.
Bonnet, ii. 155.
Brahminism, i. 259, 281, ii. 248, 256.
Brentz, ii. 351, iii. 229, 306, 381,
iv. 320.
Briggs, iv. 385, 387.
Brbmel, iii. 266.
Braeh, i 204.
Budde, i. 395, ii. 153.
Buddhism, i 249, ii. 32, 242, 248, 251,
256, 361, iv. 375.
Bunsen, iii. 256.
Burk, iv. 209, 211, 219.
Burnet, iv. 415, 419.
Bushnell, iii. 254, 263, iv. 59.
feuxtorf, ii. 187.
CsisAEiirs, ii. 342.
Calixtus, i. 345, ii. 188, iii. 64, iv. 203,
367.
CaUing, iv. 183, 189 f., 203, 222, 235,
274 f.
Calov, ii. 187, iii. 64, 226, 382, iv. 203,
352.
Calvin, i. 262, ii. 187, 355, 396, iii. 33,
37, 79, 112, 239, 381, iv. 21, 170,
192, 283, 317, 321, 326, 342, 345,
349. .
Campanella, i. 399.
Canon, ii. 230, iv. 247, 253, 263.
Canz, i. 100.
Capito, iii. 34.
Caprice, in faith in authority, i. 112 ;
God not, 294 f., 299, 315, 418, 427,
429, 435, 445, 447 ; not reason of
the world, ii. 10, 55, 57, 249.
Cardan, ii. 156.
Carpocrates, iii. 202.
Cassian, ii. 342.
Catechesis, iv. 302, 304, 341.
Catholicism, iv. 25, 140, 148, 198, 206,
230, 232, 270, 275, 281, 284, 290,
292, 315, 326, 332, 336, 348, 364,
396.
Causality, i. 209, 242 ; divine, in
relation to space, 248 ; objective
validity of, 254 ; in relation to God,
256 ; merges in reciprocal action,
258, 421 ; self-origination of God,
267, 421 ; God causality in Athan
asius, 375, in Arius, 372, in
Schleiermacher, 401 ; not neces
sarily temporal, ii. 28 ; God's, in
creation, 35 ; the divine originates
secondary, 45, 49, 54 ; determined
and self-determining, 51 ; law of,

INDEX.

437

91, 124 ; secondarv, 154, 161 f., 187,
201, 222 f., iii. 42, 55, iv. 252 ; pro
ductive and mediate, 49.
Celtic religion, i 282, ii. 253.
Cerinthus, iii. 48, 213, 302, 331, 355,
376.
Certainty, of faith and laws of certainty,
i. 34 ; formal, 60, 62 ; nature of,
67 f. ; immediate, 70 ; religious and
scientific, 72, 85, 109, 159, ii. 232,
293 ; Christian, i. 152 ; personal,
115 ; generic, 75, 79, 90 ; extent of,
74 ; of inspiration, 96 f., ii. 121, 137,
193, 200 ; of salvation, iv. 53, 71,
122, 180, 184, 193, 199, 214, 223,
227, 231, 235, 274, 286, 336.
Chalcedon creed, iii. 216, 225, 238.
Chaldean religion, i. 279, ii. 239.
Chalybfeus, i. 262, ii. 92.
Chemnitz, iii. 230, 239 f., 335, iv.
203.
Chiliasm, iv. 365, 391, 393, 398.
Chinese religion, i. 264, 270, ii. 238,
253.
Christ, the essential contents of faith, i.
48, 178 ; historic, 115, 146 f., 415,
ii. 280-294 ; His image uninventible,
287 f.; centre of Scripture, i 149,
and of history of religion, ii. 236,
291 ; a new phenomenon to God, i.
331, 463 ; Christian world-principle,
i. 378, 458, ii. 16 f. ; principle of
conservation, 46, 57, 64 ; image of
God, 78, 85, 87 ; security for im
mortality, 88 ; relation to the law,
287, to angels, 96, 99, 101, to
miracles, 147, 150, 159, 289; faith
in, leads to Trinity, i. 415 ; omni
presence of, iv. 140 f. ; personal law,
ii. 370 ; excepted from evil, iii. 20,
24, 45, 48 ; the world preserved for,
58, 133, 294 ; Judge, iv. 147, 180,
377, 417 ; necessary, iii. 141 ; ideal
and historic, 270 f. ; centre of world,
324, 348 ; head of humanity, 321,
iv. 93, 98, 109, 115, 117, 142, 241,
311, 321, 399 ; and the Holy Spirit,
160, 163, 183, 311, 321, 399 ; and
His Word, 249 ; and Church, 371 ;
relation of eschatology to, 378, 399 ;
the all-glorifying Head, 433.
Christianity, absoluteness of, iii. 74,
319, iv. 132, 296.
Christlieb, iii. 287.
Christology, in relation to Trinity, i
363 f., iii. 285, iv. 139; and atone
ment, iii. 48, iv. 5, 21, 26, 32, 75 ;
and Lord's Supper, 321.
Chrysippus, ii. 131.
Chrysostom, ii. 178, 187, iv. 168, 315.
Church discipline, iv. 334, 340, 342,
348, 350, 352, 363, 368.

Church government, iv. 334, 342, 344.
Church, preaching, i. 80, 144 ; edu
cating, 81 ; iu fallibility of, 88 ;
authority, 112, 429, ii. 103, 128, iii.
396, iv. 89, 136, 145, 149 f., 154ffi,
162, 204, 241, 243, 257, 267, 269,
275, 284, 366 ; and baptism, 286,
295 f., 298 f., 366; and Lord's
Supper, 328, 331 ; and absolution,
337 ; invisible church, 345, 350,
357, 359 ; militant, 367 ; consum
mation of, 373, 378, 380, 396,
433.
Clarke, iii. 245.
Clemens, iii. 222.
Clemens, Alex., i. 366, ii. 237, 336,
iii. 351.
Clemens, Rom., iv. 10.
Clericus, iii. 245.
Cocceius, iii. 409.
Cognition, moral, i. 61 f., 65 f., 129, ii.
75, 81 ; criterion of religion, 109,
111, 114, 117, 119, 121, 192, 195,
200, 228.
Cognizableness, of God, i. 206, 211 ;
imperfect, 21 2 ; of miracles, ii. 179,
181 f.
Collenbuseh, iii. 360.
Communicatio idiomatum, iii. 231,
238, iv. 32, 34.
Communion, religious, i. 144 f., ii. 76,
121 ; with God, 115, 125, 199, 222,
225.
Concord, Form of, on Christology, iii.
233 ; on freedom and grace, iv. 171,
179 ; on atonement, 26, 34 ; on
Lords Supper, 320.
Concupiscentia, ii. 339, 343, 347, 352,
354.
Concursus, ii. 44, 49, 94, 153.
Conscience, i. 105, 156, 171, 311, 436,
446 ; of the world, 318 ; the church
the, of the individual, 429 ; in gene
ral, ii. 50, 57, 74, 115, 117, 139, 141,
170, 200, 228, 237, 241, 262, 310,
369, 392, iii. 39 f., 126, 295, 316,
402, iv. 73, 84, 119, 174, 182, 184,
230, 336, 374.
Conservation, of world, ii 18, 40, 44,
45 f., 62, 91, 95, 135, 141, 145, 153,
161, 174, 182, 187, 190, 201, 218 ff.,
222 f., 229, 234, 259 ; of the genus,
301, 340, 342 ; of capacity of re
demption, iv. 180 ; and Incarnation,
iii. 300 ; of the soul, iv. 379.
Consummation, of humanity, iii. 141,
307, iv. 165 ; of Christ, 119, 135,
138, 143, 415 ; of believers, 186,
242, 378, 396, 399, 432; of the
Church, 154, 373, 378, 380, 396,
400, 433 ; of the body, 413 ; of
nature and the world, 429.

438

INDEX.

Continuation of Christ's offices, iv.
142, 243, 247, 271, 276, 286, 295,
305, 323, 331, 340, 370.
Continued working of Christ, iv. 143,
149, 243, 291, 301, 327, 329, 377,
386.
Continuity of revelation, ii. 135 f.
Conversion, iv. 202, 206, 213 f., 228,
237, 284.
Co-ordination, of divine attributes, i.
202, 293 f., 322, 448, 457; of the
Triune Persons, 351, 353, 436.
Cosmogonies, ii. 255.
Cosmological argument, i. 248, 254,
265, 307.
Creation, ii. 21 ff, 234, 255, 259 ; first
and second, i 162, 167, 338, 343, 416;
not consummation, ii. 18 f. ; out of
nothing, 23, 35'; implies conserva
tion, 49, 53, 64, 79 ; acts of, 41 f.,
89, 90, 93, 95, 102 ; creative mo
ments in religion, 114, 135, 140,
201 ; and miracles, 153 ; idea of,
363, 372, iii. 298, iv. 249, 381, 422 ;
and genus, iii. 55 ; second creation,
301, 304, 307, iv. 73, 164, 178, 239,
288, 362, 400 ; and Incarnation, iii.
283, 300, 340, 342; future, iv. 429 f.,
432.
Creationism, ii. 88, 93 f., 341, 343, 353,
iii. 18, 51, 56, 301, 341.
Crellius, iv. 38.
Crisp, iv. 213.
Criticism, i. 95, 120, 146, 148, ii. 230.
Cyprian, ii. 340.
Cyrill, Alex., iii. 210, 215, 220, iv. 8,
13.
Cyrill, Jer., iv. 168, 315.
Damnation, ii. 356, iii. 131, iv. 28 f.,
103, 229, 417, 427 f.
Dannhauer, iii. 64.
Darwin, ii. 43, 90, 92.
Daub, ii. 98, iii. 94, 98, 261.
Dawson, ii. 89.
Death, i 301, ii. 66, 70, 82, 177, 262,
336 f., 339, 343, 354, 365, iii. 12, 15,
30, 114, 126, 354, iv. 79, 84, 168,
407,, 425 ; and Christ's kingly office,
iii. 388, iv. 132, 135 ; Christ's, iii.
412 f., 418, 424, iv. 10, 13, 20, 28,
42, 50, 53, 70, 76, 119, 130, 322,
374, 376, 382 ; second, 418, 425.
Degrees of inspiration, ii. 199, 266 f.
Deism, i 48, 83 f., 93 f., 98, 125, 197,
200, 233, 235, 238, 241, 244 f., 334,
336, 340, 366, 369, 373, 377, 389,
398, 400, 412, 444, 446, 460 f., ii.
43, 45, 112, 154, 158, 161, 266, 338,
iii. 79, 105, 200 f., 304, 389, iv. 46.
80, 180, 223, 260, 291.
Delitzsch, ii. 353, iii. 263, 304, 406.

Dependence, absolute, i. 235, ii. 110,
112, 114, 116, 124, 162, 201, 237 f.,
248, 263.
Descartes, i 218 ; ontological argu
ment, 429, 431.
Determination in God not limitation,
i 198, 201, 237, 324, 441, 458.
Determinism, ii. 54, 158, 349, iii. 18-
39, 83, 104, 121.
Development (Becoming), i 252 f., 318,
329, ii. 33, 35, 54, 70, 72, 74, 76,
102, 128, 175, 202 ; of the absolute
religion, i. 232, 236, 243 ; and evil,
ii. 364, 381, iii. 20, 28, 37, 59 ; in
Satan, 101 ; evil hostile to, 107 ; of
the God-man, 328, 367, iv. 125,
138 ; of state of grace, 178, 223; of
Church from faith, 155, 162, 358 ;
in the consummation, 382, 410,
412.
De Wette, iii. 405, iv. 46.
Dieckhoff, iv. 330.
Dieringer, i. 87, ii. 154.
Diodorus, ii. 336, iii. 211, iv. 168.
Dionysius, the Areopagite, i. 194, 249.
Dioscurus, iii. 211.
Docetism, i 48, 415, ii. 196, 219, 266,
iii. 204, 219, 222, 237, 302, 341, 351,
iv. 5, 33, 59, 63, 139, 327, 395.
Dodwell, iv. 379.
Doederlein, ii. 352, iii. 245, iv. 41.
Donatism, iv. 342, 353, 364, 366.
Dorner, A., i. 187, ii. 147, 152, iv. 18,
47.
Doubt, i 88 f., 108; practical, 130,
133, 136, 178.
Drey, V., i. 87.
Dualism, i. 126, 200, 208, 245, 277,
281, 313, 335, 341, 366, 369, 461,
ii. 10, 29, 36, 38, 119, 261 ; Kant,
i. 222 ; precluded by ontological
argument, 234, 318, 334, 361, 364,
378, iii. 18, 21, 25, 35, 38, 251, iv.
12, 67, 74, 78, 249, 416, 420, 423.
Dualistic religions, i 281 f., 295, ii.
237, 253, 255, 261, iv. 374.
Duns Scotus, i. 196, 201, 394, 428,
431, ii. 80, iii. 214, 221, iv. 18, 39,
82.
Dyad, i 364, 376, 420.
Dyothelitism, iii. 219, 359.
Ebeehaed, iv. 41.
Ebionitism, i 48, 148, 371, 398, 415,
iii. 183, 205, 207, 213, 214, 245, 255,
258, 285f., 301, 307, 311, 331, iv.
5, 52, 279, 326, 348. 395 ; its forms,
iii. 201.
Ebrard, i 178, iii. 254, 263.
Edwards, iv. 214.
Egyptian religion, i. 275, 281, ii. 236,
242, 254, 256 f., iv. 375.

INDEX.

439

Ehrenfeuchter, i. 76, 178.
Eitzen, v., i 25.
Elwert, i. 203, ii. 106.1
Emanationism, i 233^ 309, 365, 456,
ii. 10, 24, 39, 98, 261, iii. 201, 203,
205.
Empiricism, i. 62, 121, 124, iii. 355.
.Encyclopaedia theol., i. 30.
End, in itself, i. 271, 278, 304 ; the
ethical the absolute, 308, 456 ; of
the world, ii. 18, 26, 41, 53, 54, 56,
64, 68, 86, 119 ; of miracles, 179 f.,
219, i. 266, 268 ; absolute, 282, 287,
292 ; highest, 310, 339, 458.
Epiphanes, iii. 202.
Episcopius, iii. 352, iv. 259.
Erbkam, iv. 415.
Erhardt, iii. 94.
Ernesti, iii. 383.
Eschatology, iii. 77, iv. 143, 373, 381,
396.
Eschenmayer, iii. 94. 98.
Essence of God, i 187, 191 f., 202;
God absolute, 229, 234, 454 ; relation
of divine essence to matter, ii. 37.
Essenes, ii. 98.
Eternal truths, i. 62, 116, 163, 284,
289, 325, 428 f., 433, 445, 452, ii.
144, 196.
Eternity, of God, i. 239, 243, 337 ;
of creation, ii. 21, 29 ; of the spirit,
87, 253.
Ethical conception, of generic con
tinuity, ii. 327 f., iii. 65, iv. 95; of
Omnipotence, iii. 104, 122, iv. 82 ;
of the Unio in Christ, iii. 255 f.,
359 ; of power in Christ, iv. 145 ;
of Christ's activity now, 146 f. ; of
Church, 158, 358 ; of grace, 177 f. ;
consummation by ethical means,
382 f., 393, 397; ethical progress
after death, 408, 411.
Ethical, ethical good, i. 167, 303, 308, ¦
339, 343 ; perfectly ethical trini-
tarian, 412, 427 f., 432, 436, 444,
454, ii. 62, 72, 74 ; in religion, 117,
124, 126, 180, 248, 252, 254, 260.
Ethics and Dogmatics, i 24-30, 33,
cf. 132.
Eudsemonisin, iv. 38, 40 f., 62, 393.
Eunomius, i. 212, 250.
Eusebius, iii. 381, iv. 8, 13, 168.
Eutyehes, iii. 211, 215.
Evil, nature and origin, ii. 299, iii.
11 f. ; in Hebraism, 402 ; nature,
ii. 383 ; different conceptions of,
359, 386 ; theories of origin, iii. 18 ;
a, finite power, iv. 380 ; possibility
of, ii. 14, 56, 64, 66, 71, 73 ; idea of,
in heathenism, 256.
Evils, ii. 65, 84, 262, 336, 354, 365,
iii. 62, 65, 114, 126, iv. 5, 24, 30, j

48, 54, 63, 69, 76, 79, 83 f., 106,
112 f., 124, 230.
Evolution, ii. 90.
Ewald, iii. 154, 256, iv. 133.
Experience, i. 28 ; sensuous, 62, 68,
72 ; of God, 73, 93 ; of divinity of
Scripture, 96 ; stimulates a priori
knowledge, 163.
Expiation, ii. 241, 257, 264, iii. 403,
406, 423, iv. 23, 54, 57, 68, 72, 80,
85, 89, 99, 106, 212.
Fabei, iv. 342.
Faith, necessary to verify, i 19, 20 ;
relation to dogma, 29 f., 35, 168,
171 ; idea, 32 ; basis of knowledge,
75, 159 ; in Church, 82 ; in Scrip
ture, 94 ; in authority, 109 ; and
philosophy, 123 ; and doubt, 128 ;
and certainty, 152, 156 ; and three
fold cause of salvation, 364 ; sets
problems to science, 395, 413, 415 f. ;
universal tendency, 161, 378 ; and
verification, 308; ii. 122, 222, 230 ;
and historic research, 232 ; false
forms of, 372 ; and knowledge, iii.
282, iv. 195 ; and atonement, 20,
27, 35, 52, 94, 118, 123, 136, 147,
150, 154 ; and communion, 157 ;
and justification, 165, 173, 186, 188,
193, 197, 210, 212, 218 f., 226, 235 ;
and criticism, 254 ; and sanctifica
tion, 236 ; propagated through
Scripture, 250 ; through preaching,
265 ; and sacraments, 270, 275,
280 f.; and baptism, 281, 288, 290,
292,, 295, 299, 301 ; and confirma
tion, 305 ; and Lord's Supper, 313,
323 f., 328, 330; in the Romish
sense, 348 f. ; and the Church, 164,
242, 276, 349 f., 358, 360, 361, 365,
367, 372 ; and love, 372 ; and final
goal, 377, 395.
Farrar, ii. 197, iv. 415.
Fatalism, ii. 33.6, 349, iv. 168, 187.
Fate, i 279, 299, 315, 320, 342, 432,
434, 445, ii. 52.
Faustus v. Rhegium, ii. 342.
Federal theology, ii. 351.
Feeling, ii. 72 ; not religion, 108, 112 ;
religious, 114, 117, 119, 200, 202,
246.
Fetishism, ii. 237, 244 f., 248.
Feuerbach, i. 134.
Feuerborn, iii. 237.
Fichte, J. G., i. 64, 66, 75, 107, 224,
438, ii. 110, iii. 246, iv. 38.
Fichte, Junr., i. 76, 239, 402.
Fides historica, i. 93, 158, 175 ; divina,
93, 103 f., 154, 176, ii. 197.
Final cause, i. 277, 309-311.
Finitjide, and divine communication,

440

INDEX.

ii. 16 ; and religion, ii. 112 ; and
evil, 256.
Fischer, K., i. 402 f.
Flacius, ii. 349, iv. 129.
Flatt, iii. 245, iv. 42.
Fletcher, iv. 206, 213.
Flbrcke, iv. 389.
Foreknowledge, of the free, i. 332, ii.
58, cf. 265 f.; of sin, iii. 17, 37 f . ;
of faith, iv. 175, 185, 187, 381, 422.
Forgiveness, in the 0. T., iii. 408;
free, iv. 82 ; complete in the N. T.,
229 ; and the Lord's Supper, 322 ;
and membership in the Church,
335, 338.
Form and matter, ii. 23, 35.
Form-principle, i. 271.
Formal principle, i. 157, 418, ii. 225,
233.
Fbrster, iv. 168.
Freedom, i. 301, 326, 332, ii. 311 f.,
327, 336, 342, 344, 352 ; and autho
rity, 418 ; in God, 432, 435, 445,
447 ; willed by God, ii. 19, 33, 51,
55, 58, 73, 79, 81, 112, 115, 116 ;
absolute, 118 ; positive, given by
God, 120 f., 139, cf. 163, 177, 200,
247, 250, 260 ; and original sin,
357, 366 ; and law, 368 ; false, 388,
390, 393, 399 ; and evil, 374, 381,
402, 404 f., iii. 16 f., 22 ; necessary,
39, 41 ; and the genus, 45, 51 f.,
55, 57, 65, 69 f., 75, 83, 102, iv.
91, 93, 216 ; in Christ, iii. 295, 327,
356, 359, 366 f. ; and dependence,
iv. 64 ; and the Spirit, 161, 165 ;
and grace, 168, 173, 179 f., 182,
191, 210, 222, 225, 227 ff, 235,
285 ; real and formal, 186 ; to decide
for Christianity restored, 180 f., 184,
204, 283, 300, 421, 424 ; in develop
ment of Church, 152, 397 f. ; in
future, 412, 427 ; perfected, 430.
Fries, iii. 274, iv. 46.
Frohschammer, ii. 352.
Fulgentius, ii. 342.
Gatjnilo, i 217.
Gaupp, iii. 263.
Generic consciousness in relation to
certainty, i. 75 f., ii. 75, 94, 121,
126, 201.
Gennadius, ii.. 342.
. Genus, ii. 95, 126, 134, 201, 219 ;
generic sin, 324, 344, 347, 349, 358,
405, iii. 42, 46 f., 50, 54, 57, 67,
75, iv. 26 f., 95, 105, 423; generic
punishment, iii. 114, 119, 130, iv.
95, 112 ; and Christ's' development,
iii. 341 ; and personality in Christ,
376 ; and substitution, iv. 89, 98 ;
and guilt, 95 ; and freedom, 91, 93 ;

makes satisfaction in Christ, 117 ;
and personality, 215 f., 241; -and
faith, 162 ; perfecting of, 381.
Gerhard, J., i 94, 196, 330, 382, 38.8,
ii. 59, 153, 178, iii. 381, iv. 31, 109,
173, 203, 206, 208, 211, 220, 226,
235, 267, 293, 352, 392, 406, 416.
German religion, ii. 238, 242, 251,
254, iv. 375.
Gess, iii. 151, 167, 172 f., 194, 254,
260, 263, iv. 28, 56," 379.
Gnesio-Lutherans, iv. 171.
Gnosis, i. 163, 166 ; Christian, 338,
413.
Gnostics, i. 249, 365, ii. 24, 335, iii.
205.
God-consciousness, ground of all cer
tainty, i 75, cf. 159 ; new, 155 ;
not the verification of God, 184, cf.
229, ii. 67, 75, 79, 83, 94, 101, 112,
154, 169, 181, 198, 246, 259. _
God, idea of, whether innate, i. 214 ;
the Christian idea true and neces
sary, 170, 173, 338, 343, 416, ii.
109 ; God's act, 116 ; fundamental
to religion, 235, 240 ; determines
conception of evil, ii. 360, 383, iii.
42, 78 ; and various Christologies,
252 ; and theories of atonement, iv.
6, 26 f., 32, 75, 80 ; and grace, 177 ;
and immortality, 378 ; and Christ's
threefold office, iii. 389.
God-likeness, i. 197, 417, 422, 437,
444, 456 f.; in the world, ii. 15, 25,
111, 146.
God-man, ii. 220, 230 ; idea in
heathenism, 260.
Godmanhood, natural, iii. 340 ;
essential, 349; ethical, 359>; official,
374, 381.
Godet, ii. 197, iii. 254, 263.
Goeschel, iii. 271, iv. 56, 59.
Goltz, v. d., i 146.
Goode, iv. 307.
Goodness, physical, i. 267, 272, 275,
277, 293, 309, 365, ii. 124 ; ethical,
i. 339, 377, 430, 456 ; of the world,
ii. 65, 67, 74, 76 ; of natural law,
162 ; of God, 261.
Goodwin, iii. 245, 289.
Government of world, ii. 19, 53, 154,
172, 253, 259.
Governmental theory, iv. 39, 103.
Grace, i 19, 32, 431, ii. 80 f., 202,
337, 342, 358, 401, iii. 75, iv. 75,
190, 206, 210, 214, 225, 228, 230,
289, 296, 299 ; and justice, iii. 139,
401, 404, iv. 65 ; and freedom, 165,
169, 175 ; its kinds, 178.
Grace, means of, i. 143, iv. 153, 173,
189, 204, 230, 238, 249, 258, 340,
360.

INDEX.

441

Greek religion, i. 264, 270 f., 279,
289, ii. 239, 241 f., 246, 251, 255,
257.
Gregory the Great, ii. 153, iv. 12, 170,
406.
Gregory Naz., i. 376, 453, iv. 10, 13.
Gregory Nyssa, i. 381, 391, 452, ii.
340, iv. 11 f., 415, 419.
Grotius, i. 395, ii. 188, iv. 38, 82.
Gruner, iii. 245.
Grynaeus, iii. 239.
Giider, iv. 127, 402.
Guilt, ii. 335, 338, 340, 343, 347, 350,
353, 355, 358, 366, 369, 386, 398,
402, 404, iii. 43 f., 47 f., 51, 54, 60,
76, 96, 109, 128, iv. 173, 292 ; con
sciousness of, i. 141, ii. 202, 241,
256 ff., 262; and Christ's high-
priestly office, iii. 388, iv. 6, 10, 20,
22 f., 25, 44, 47, 49, 65, 73, 80, 84,
100 f., 102, 115, 148; transferable-
ness of, 33, 40, 94 ; and repentance,
188; and justification, 201 f., 209,
212, 216 f., 228, 229 f. ; and law,
iii. 403 ; and sacrifice, 405.
Giinther, i. 405, ii. 352, iii. 214, 222.
Hades, iv. 376, 404, 409.
Hafenreffer, iv.' 203.
Haferung, iii. 245.
Hahn, iii. 49, 237 ; Junr., 263 ; Mich.,
iv. 420.
Haniann, iii. 339.
Hamberger, i. 188, 261, iv. 429.
Hamilton, i 208 f., 430.
Hanna, iv. 116.
Hanne, iv. 133.
Haring, iv. 72.
Harless, iv. 34, 176, 273.
Harmony, i. 267, 271, 284, 339, 422,
458 ; perfected by love, 463, ii. 66,
169.
Harms, Fr., i. 263, ii. 40, iv. 260.
Harnack, iv. 22, 55, 366.
Hartmann, v., i 121, 126, 231, 268,
276, 400, ii. 36, iii. 27, iv. 47.
Hase, ii. 118, iii. 407.
Hasse, iii. 263.
Hebrew religion, i. 215, 237, 272 £,
305, 311, 320 f., 339, 343, ii. 22,
140, 254, 259 f.
Hegel, i. 115, 198, 206, 225, 242, 250,
272, 281, 314, 400, 438, ii. 12, 367,
iii. 23, 27, 251, 270, iv. 48.
Heilmann, iii. 244.
Heinrici, ii. 320.
Held, iv. 22.
Hell, iv. 128 f.
Hengstenberg, iii. 298, iv. 202, 230,
232, 384.
Herbart, i. 122, 458.
Hering, iii. 183.

Herrlinger, iii. 226, iv. 171, 356.
Herrmann, iii. 269.
High-priesthood of Christ, iii. 337,
360, 382, 388, 397, 399, 401, 411,
iv. 1 f., 52, 72, 98, 101, 112, 115,
124, 146, 151, 217 f., 224, 244, 268,
396 ; and baptism, 276, 279 ; re
flection of, 303.
Hilary, i. 376, 382, 452, ii. 340, iv. 8,
10, 13.
Hilgenfeld, iii. 176.
Hinduism, ii. 238, 241 f., 248, 254.
Hippolytus, i. 366, iii. 208, 256.
Hirtzel, ii. 172.
History, i. 278 ; the Son the principle
of, 434 ; God's relation to, 460, 462,
ii. 32, 70, 79, 93, 98, 102, 124, 181,
136, 142, 163, cf. 198, 222 ; essential
part of contents of faith, i. 47 ff. , ii.
223, 225, 232, 237, 249, 260, 264 f.
Hbfling, iv. 282, 288, 293, 296, 299,
325.
Hofmann, v., i. 233, 356, 8*87, 403, ii.
59, 97, 192, 352, iii. 49, 92, 96, 257,
263, 287, 382, 392, 405, iv. 22, 51,
54, 128, 135, 176, 384, 389.
Holiness, i. 292, 300, 305, 321, 339,
433, 448, 456, ii. 101, 117, 200, 254,
354, 358 ; the gods not holy, 256 f.,
258, 260, 262 ; and original sin, iii.
58 ; and law, 403 ; in the O. T.,
405 ; of the Church, iv. 346, 348,
355, 359, 366 f.; and blessedness,
382.
Hollaz, ii. 351, iii. 382, iv. 203, 224,
317, 352, 416.
Holsten, ii. 317, iii. 175, 350, 360, iv.
50, 133.
Homogeneity, of the subject and object,
i. 67 f., 130 ; of the subject with
Christianity, 141 ; of objective and
subjective dogmas, 445.
Homousia, i. 375, ii. 219.
Honorius, iii. 216.
Hopfner, ii. 153, iv. 205.
Hugo, v. St. Victor, i. 393.
Humanity of Christ, necessary to
atonement, iv. 32, 60, 118, 126;
perfect organ of Logos, 138, 140 ff.
Humboldt, Alex, v., ii. 92.
Hume, D., i. 191, 255.
Humility, false, i. 106, 151; trae, 141,
151 ; in God, 447 ; in man, ii. 114,
117, 201 f., 261 f.
Huss, iv. 348.
Hiitter, iii. 381, iv. 203, 352.
Idealism, i. 64, 115 f., 121, 124;
leads to Egoism, 91, ii. 38 f., 254,
iii. 246, 251, iv. 46, 48.
Identity, i. 208, 236, 248, 250, 258,
422 ; ethical, 461, ii. 47, 137.

442

INDEX.

Ignatius, i 368, iii. 220, iv. 153, 314.
Ignorance and sin, ii. 305, 309, 312,
367, iii. 68 f., 73, 76, 115, iv. 66.
Image of God, ii. 77 ; the world an, 20,
27, 45, 54, 180.
Immanence, i. 242, 343, 347, 363, 365,
377, 386, 412, 414, 444, 450, ii. 18,
145, 162, iii. 279, iv. 150, 238.
Immateriality of God, i. 238, cf. ii.
35 ff.
Immortality, ii. 72, 82, 84, 87, 100.
Immutability, i. 143, 236, 244, 316,
329, 365, 460, ii. 42, 160, iii. 122,
285, 288, 298, 328, iv. 14, 33, 80, 223.
Imperfection of the world, ii. 28, 70,
202, 248, cf. 66, 71 ; of inspired
men, 195.
Imputatio mediata et immediata, ii.
350.
Incarnation, i 115, ii. 220, 232, 234,
254 ; its necessity, 205-209, 218.
' Indifference, L 249 ; God not, 294, 429,
447, cf. ii. 80, iii. 27, 41, iv. 83.
Individual in relation to person and
subject, i. 444, ii. 76, 93.
Individuality, ii. 26, 39, 75, 128. 193 f.,
198, 223, 229, 252, iii. 348, 352, iv.
93, 162, 240, 330, 369 f. ; perfecting
of, 432.
Inductive proof imperfect, i. 39 f. ; for
God, 213 ; for design, 266 ; for right,
288
Infallibility, ii. 185, 192, 195, iv. 152,
252, 268 f., 336, 348.
Infant-baptism, iv. 192, 203, 205, 238,
277, 280, 285, 293, 304 f., 363.
Infinity, i. 237 ; agrees with determina
tion, 143, 198, 324, 440, 458, ii. 17 ;
nature and, 67 ; of man, 86 f., 125,
247, 252.
Inspiration, i. 95, 103, 147, 175, 181,
ii. 141, 183 ; theory of assistance,
187 ; dogmatic exposition, 189-225,
iv. 252.
Intellectualism in relation to evil, ii.
367, 387, iii. 31 f. ; in relation to
atonement, 382, 389.
Intelligence, God, i 267, 284, 303, 305,
309, 323 ; and personality, 337 ; and
Trinity, 403, cf. 439, 458 ; its co
operation in creation, ii. 25, cf. 13,
34, 37.
Intercession of Christ, iv. 114, 117,
144, 147, 149, 224, 234, 292, 302,
421 ; of Church at baptism of infants,
282, 295, 300, 305.
Intermediate state, iv. 382, 387, 391,
401, 408.
Intuition, i 70 ; intellectual, 71 ;
Christian, 164, 173 f. ; God's self-
intuition, 325, ii. 58, 61 ; intuition
of God, 117, 120, 194.

Invisibility and visibility of Church,
iv. 359, 372.
Irenseus, i. 366, ii. 340, iii. 141, 210,
220, 335, iv. 8, 9, 11.
Irving, Ed., iii. 350, 360, iv. 50, 339.
Jacobi, F. H., i 19, 75, 115, 119, 207,
440, iii. 246, 251, 268, iv. 38, 47.
James, doctrine of evil, ii. 305, 315 ;
Christology, iii. 158 ; Justification,
iv. 195.
Jehovah, i. 215, 235, 274, 280, 296,
321, 346 f.
Jerome, iv. 406.
Jesuits, iv. 85.
John of Damascus, i. 194, 241, 380,
381, 387, 392, iii. 218, 289, iv. 8, 10.
John on sin, iv. 305, 321 ff, 331;
Christology, iii. 187 f. ; atonement,
422.
Jolly, iv. 307.
Joviniau, iv. 348.
Judgment, iii. 71, 114, 118, iv. 106,
113, 118, 126, 142, 144, 165, 184,
229, 320, 330, 343, 348, 363, 374,
376, 382, 387, 391, 401, 405, 408,
410, 415.
Juridical argument for existence of God,
i 286 ; for immortality, ii. 86.
Juridical conception of evil, ii. 326,
342, 369, 389, 401 ; jur. Unio in
Christ, iii. 263; doctrine of atonement,
iv. 14, 19, 76, 90, 102 f.,. 123, 216.
Justice, i 191, 273, 277, 283, 286 f.,
290 ; God essentially just, 293 f. ; in
the world, 297, 299 ; an end in jtself,
304 ; its nature, 339, 365, 430, 455,
460, ii. 18, 57, 59, 66 ; innate justice
of man, 81 ; of God, 117, 241, 255 ; in
heathenism, 255, 261 ; in' the O. T.,
303, iii. 401, 404 ; and holiness, i.
321, ii. 354, 358 ; and sin, 327, 351,
354, 398, 402, iii. 33, 58, 81 ; and
Satan, 89, 99, 102, 105 ; and punish
ment, 116, 119, 125 f., 127 f., 130 f.,
iv. 9, 13, 18, 23, 27, 29, 37, 48, 55,
60 f., 123 f., 425 ; retributive, 63, 72,
79, 82, 84, 212 ; not vengeance, 103 ;
in Christ, 126 ; and Christ's resur
rection, 134 ; and love, ii. 372, iii.
133, 135 f., 243, 277, 406, iv. 4, 7,
87, 98 f., 107, 115, 117, 124, 126,
180 f., 190.
Justification, i. 55, 462, ii. 346, 372,
iii. 429, iv. 20, 26, 37, 118, 146,
165, 178, 193, 195, 199, 290; and
atonement, 209, 238 ; and faith, 216,
218, 223, 235; perfect, 229; and
consummation, 391, 399.
Justin Martyr, ii. 237, iv. 9, 168, 314,
315, 406.
Justitia originalis, ii. 343, 345 ; com-

INDEX.

443

mutativa, iv. 90 ; civilis, ii. 349, 396,
iii. 66, iv. 178 ff.
Kabbala, ii. 98.
Kahle, iv. 376.
Kiihler, ii. 303, 311.
Kahnis, i 387, iii. 96, 260, 263, 268,
iv. 28, 409.
Kant, i. 60, 108, 115, 121, 218, 221,
255, 265, 286, 306, 313, ii. 371, iii.
94, 120, 246, 251, 269 f., 277, iv. 38,
42, 73, 76, 100, 173, 207.
Karg, iv. 24.
Keckermann, i 395, iii. 382.
Keerl, iii. 150, 175, 183, 190, 206, 255,
260, 268.
Keil, iv. 384.
Keim, iii. 189, 345, 412, iv. 133.
Kenotists, iii. 207, 237, 240, 254, 257,
259, 263, 311, 330, 333, 338, 393 f.
Kern, iv. 412.
Keys, power of, iv. 244, 333.
Kingdom of God, ii. 25, 58, 87, 97,
126, 172, 210, 292, iii. Ill, 383, 389,
396, iv. 60, 70, 74, 142, 154, 158,
241, 422 ; the end of justification,
236, 325, 340, 380 ; on earth, 383,
395, 397, 400 ; and church, 433 ;
perfecting of, 428.
Kingly office of Christ, iii. 382, 387,
399, 418 f., iv. 53, 101, 114, 125, 144,
151, 244, 305, 323, 333,338,387, 396.
Kinkel, iv. 135.
Kirk, iv. 232.
Klee, ii. 352.
' Kliefoth, iv. 175, 266, 299, 402.
Knowledge, i. 206, 228, 278, 285 ;
God's, 323, 328, 339, ii. 75 ; different
from volition, 61, 72 ; trinitarian, i
412, 422, 438, 441 ; not an absolute
end, 339, 457 ; and working, 459,
cf. 309, ii. 58 ; religion not, 108 ff. ;
religious, 113 ; absolute, 118 ; prior
to power, iii. 35, 332 ; of Christ, 315,
327, 335, 363, 397, iv. 108, 115;
natural, iii. 356 ; atonement through,
iv. 76, 80, 120 ; perfecting of, 430.
Konig, iv. 203.
Kbstlin, i. 46, 57, 59, 164, ii. 161, 166 f.,
192, 195, iii. 183, iv. 22.
Krauss, iii. 381, 386.
Kreibig, iv. Ill, 202, 230.
Kryptists, iii. 237, iv. 32.
Laotantius, iii. 32.
Landerer, iv. 18, 168.
Lanfranc, iv. 315.
Lang, iii. 274.
Lange, A., i. 40, 63, iii. 269.
Lange, J. P., i 28, 455, ii. 195, 197,
iii 96, 260, 299, 349, 355, 383, iv.
403, 416, 429.

Lasco, a., iv. 170.
Law, what ought to be, i. 305, 311, ii.
303, 306, 367, 369, 389, 397, iii. 24,
37 ; God not mere, i. 316, 339, 431,
446, 462 ; the Father gives, 433 ;
legality, 112, 418, 430, 436; is
Christianity ? 82, cf. ii. 57, 115, 139,
201, 287 ; law of religious history,
234, 241, 249 ; impersonal, 254 ; legal
stage and Christianity, iii. 65, 400,
402, iv. 119, 190, 261 f., 289; and
atonement, iii., 403, iv. 21 f., 26, 35,
38, 55, 123 ; use of, 240.
Leibnitz, i. 63, 395, 431, ii. 27, 40, 362,
iii. 30, iv. 39.
Leo the Great, iii. 216, iv. 8.
Lessing, ii. 108, 115, 395, 235, iv.
402.
Ley.decker, iii. 389.
Liebermann, iii. 309.
Liebner, i. 174, 206, 393, 408, 410, 452,
455, iii. 207, 260, 263, iv. 142.
Life, i. 253, 258, 267, 271, 308, 339,
397, 400 ; trinitarian, 411, 420, 452 ;
and light, 49 ; and spirit, 459, ii.
40, 54, 64 ; of nature, 65 ; of the
soul, 87, 90 ; religion, community of
life, 115 f., 250 ; in the world, 45.
Limborch, iii. 52.
Lipsius, i. 39, 200, 440, ii. 118 ; logi
cal prius , iii. 91, 95, 204,269,274,
276, iv. 74.
Lbffler, iv. 41.
Logic, i. 171 ; immanent in world, 268,
430 ; in God, 284, 289, 291 ; in the
Trinity, 392, 422, 435 ; of love, 458,
ii. 25, 29 f.
Logos, i. 162, 170 ; in Philo, 349 ; in
John, 356, 358 ; in Sabellius, 368 ;
principle of revelation, 433 ; prin
ciple of the world, ii. 40, 64, 95, 141,
219, 234 ; a«'.py.a.TixU, iii. 296 ; and
the Spirit, iv. 159.
Lombard, Pet., i. 381, 392 f., ii. 343,
iii. 221, iv. 12, 18.
Lbscher, ii. 153.
Lotze, i. 241, 439, 458, ii. 156, 166.
Love, i. 191, 310, 316, 322, 365, 393,
403, ii. 360, 372 ; self-love in God,
i. 409, 442 ; triune, 411, 426, 431,
437 ; universal, 443 ; and the divine
attributes, 448, 454-465 ; the world
loved by God, ii. 19 ; ground of the
world, 11, 14, 25, 53, 57, 59 ; and
generic consciousness, 75 ; ground of
immortality, 86, cf. 101 ; God love,
106, 117, 200, 202, 221 ; God's love
and omnipotence, iii. 29, 34 ; and
sin, 34 f., 81 ; in the Incarnation,
325 f., 338 ; and justice, 133, 138,
243, 277, 406, 424, iv. 4, 14, 19, 56,
60, 73, 77, 80 f., 87, 99, 107, 115,

444

INDEX.

117, 126, 421 ; substitutionary, 93,
303 ; Christ's love, iii. 397, iv. 109,
116, 124, 147, 150, 190 ; and faith,
157, 237, 371 ; and communion, 157,
162, 241, 361 ; prevenient, 118, 181 f. ,
194, 207, 210, 212, 214, 222, 225,
228, cf. 288, 295, 299 f., 313 ; Lord's
Supper sacrament of love, 325 ; in
1 church discipline, 343, 368 ; and
Church, 361, 365, 369, 381 ; perfect
ing of, 431.
Liicke, i. 403, 405, ii. 192, iii. 96.
Luthardt, iii. 96, 263, iv. 128, 169, 176,
384.
Luther, i. 92, 98, 111, 144, 156, 391,
396, ii. 187, 197, 346, 356, 396, iii.
35, 64, 112, 1«3, iv. 343, 406 ; Christ
ology, iii. 224, 308, 313, 360; theory
of atonement, iv. 22, 32, 126, 170,
199, 223, 235, 255 ; baptism, 282,
288, 292, 301 ; Lord's Supper, 317,
321, 326, 330, 332 f. ; Church, 355.
Macedonit/s, i 377.
Magic, i. 431 ff., ii. 84 f., 136, 175,
222, 349, 358, iii. 307, 390, iv.
52, 54, 77, 89, 111, 182, 189, 217,
219, 272, 282, 285, 288, 299, 315,
328 f., 366.
Malan, ii. 172.
Malebranche, i. 63.
Man, and nature, ii. 66, 68, 92, 95 ;
and angels, 101 ; nature of man, 107,
219, 221 ; man active in religion,
116 ; in miracles, 172.
Man, Son of, iii. 168 f.
Manichaeism, i. 48, 137, ii. 24, 74, 193,
308, 318, 335, 339, 345, 402, iii. 34,
49, 137, 362, iv. 12, 165, 168, 178,
183, 190.
Mansel, i. 208, 430, iii. 269.
Marcellus, i. 369, ii. 18, iii. 205.
Marcion, i. 365, 368, iv. 77.
Maresius, iv. 24.
Marheinecke, i 196, iii. 261, 271, 383,
iv. 49.
Martensen, i. 113, 174, 201, 335, 452,
ii. 60, 109, iii. 96, 105, 107, 110, 112,
260, 352, 355, 383, iv. 81, 84, 108,
131, 137, 140, 409, 411.
Mass, iv. 148, 314.
Materialism, i. 39, 61, 89, 122, 125,
210 ; precluded, 235, 262, 265, ii.
35, 92, 94.
Material principle, i. 156, 418, ii. 230,
233.
Mathematical truths, i. 62, 163, 268,
284, 289, 291.
Mathy, iii. 245.
Matter, i. 235, 262, 271, ii. 23, 36, 100,
102, 164, 255 ; and evil, ii. 317 f.,
334 f., 352, 364 f., 375, iii. 25 f.,

30 f.; and the resurrection, iv. 133,
407 ; and consummation, 414, 429.
Maximus, iii. 216.
Means and end, i. 266, 278, 281, 297,
ii. 41, 56, 59, 67, 219, 456.
Measure, i 264, 267, 271, 273, 277,
284 ; and justice, 290, 296, ii. 66,
169, 200, 242.
Melanchthon, i. 22, 390, 394 ff, ii. 346,
351, 396, iii. 224, 335, iv. 21, 170,
174, 203, 210, 349.
Mendelssohn, i. 220.
Menken, iii. 350, 360, iv. 50.
Menzer, iii. 64, 120, 237.
Merit of Christ, iv. 17, 26, 30, 34, 105,
210, 212, 226 f.
Messianic idea, ii. 85, 267-280, iii. 145.
Metaphysics, of divine self-conscious
ness, i. 444, cf. 405 f. ; of love, 437,
444, cf. 426 ; argument for immor
tality, ii. 86.
Method, dogmatic, i 168, 172 ; in
' proofs for God, 247 ; historic, ii. 233;
Methodism, iv. 191, 206, 212.
Meyer, iii. 263.
Mill, J. S., i. 62, 282, iii. 269.
Millennium, iv. 383, 389 f. ; truth in,
398.
Ministry of word, iv. 244, 256, 263.
Miracles, i. 181, 213 ; moral, 430, ii.
41 f., 92, 136, 141, 146; theories,
152 ; dogmatic exposition, 161 ;
teleology, 179, iii. 348, iv. 23 ;
Christ's, 111.
Missions, iv. 290, 294, 303, 341, 391 f. ;
home, 303, 392.
Modalism, i. 383, 399.
Mohammedanism, i 280, 342, ii. 54,
275, iv. 383, 390.
Mbhler, iv. 353.
Moloch, i. 277, 280.
Monarchians, i. 350, 362, 367, 389, iii.
208, 290.
Monism, i. 121 f., 126, 133, 157, 365,
ii. 91, 119.
Monophysitism, iii. 211, 215, 222, 242,-
307, 359.
Monotheism, i. 231, 363, 366 f., 377,
448, ii. 238, 244, 246, 259.
Monothelitism, iii. 216, 359.
Montanism, ii. 187.
Moral argument, i 305.
Morality and religion, i. 132, 320, 446,
ii. 75, 91, 241, 259, 372, 395, 400,
iv. 177.
Mornseus, i. 395.
Mortality of Christ, iii. 350, 353 f., iv.
125 ; of man, ii. 337, iii. 49, iv. 168,
379, 400 ; and liability to tempta
tion, 430.
Miiller, Jul., i. 25, 38, 173, 408, 420,
ii. 161, 165, 181, 330, 375, 380, iii.

INDEX.

445

46 f., 72, 96, 207, 260, iv. 174, 259,
277, 319, 342.
Muller, Max, ii. 238.
Munchmeyer, iv. 277, 284, 358, 366.
Musseus, iv. 206.
Mysticism, i. 62, 195, 200, 231, 250,
261, ii. 372 f., iii. 223, iv. 204;
theory of atonement, 3, 9, 20, 50,
134 ; Lord's Supper, 314.
Nagelsbach, iv. 277.
National Church, i 81 f.
Natural religion, ii. 115, cf. 136, 138.
Natural science and religion, i. 74 ; and
design, 277, ii. 39, 90, 102, 175.
Nature, in God, i. 261 f., 271, 309 ; not
passively in God, 263, 285 ; not God,
268, 315, 342 ; in God not creative,
ii. 25, cf. 14 ; of God in relation to
the world, 37 f. ; and spirit, 285,
292 f., 297, ii. 40 ff, 62, 65, 70, 84,
91, iv. 324, 327 f., 330, 382, 395,
400, 407 f., 413 ; and angels, ii. 97,
102; and religion, 117, 143, 162,
168, 175, 224, 237, 247 ft'. ; spiritual,
evil, 399, 402, iii. 50 f., 55, iv. 74 f. ;
in Christ, iii. 217, 224 f., 308 f., 313,
336 ; and Christ's offices, 386 ; and
morality, 121, iv. 63, 83 ; and grace,
177 f. ; and the sacraments, 275 f. ;
and baptism, 276, 280.
Nature, system of, ii. 41, 50, 145, 153,
158, 161 f., 165.
Neander, iii. 255.
Necessary, the, in fact, i. 308 ; in
itself, 308,' 312 ; in God, 458 ; ethi
cally, 428, 434, 446, 456, ii. 20, 57,
80, 82 ; logically, i. 227, 269, 287 f.,
311 ; free choice necessary, ii. 56.
Neo-Kantians, iii. 269, 274.
Neo-Platonism, i. 194, 249, 275, ii. 43,
252.
Nestorianism, iii. 210, 219, 242, 311,
362.
Nevin, iv. 307.
Newton, i 241.
Nicolas v. Methone, iv. 17.
Nicolaus v. Cusa, ii. 11.
Nirvana, ii. 251.
Nitzsch, C. J., i 24, 36 f., 173, 192,
204, 416, ii. 192, iii. 96, 260, 376, iv.
54, 342, 379, 426.
Nitzsch, C. L., i. 108, ii. 142, iii. 247.
Nitzsch, Fr., ii. 147, iii 219, iv. 8, 13.
Noesgen, iii. 268.
Noetus, i. 368, iii. 205.
Obedience of Christ, i. 435 f., iv. 16,
22, 32, 34 f., 40 f., 52, 109, 216 ; of
value to God, 118.
Occidental thought, ii. 248, 251.
Ochlocracy, iv. 151.

Oehler, iii. 263, 406, iv. 376.
Oertel, iv. 402.
Oetinger, i. 261, 263, ii. 11, iv. 401,
415, 420.
Oettingen, v., i. 82.
Office, teaching, iv. 263, 265, 344.
Offices of Christ, ii. 203, iii. 381-392 ;
kingly, 392 ; prophetic, 397 ; high-
priestly, 401 ; office and person, 280,
379, iv. 124 ; in heaven, 132, 136 f.,
142, 154, 243.
Oischinger, ii. 352.
Oleviauus, iii. 239.
Oishausen, iii. 299.
Omnipotence, i 261, 281, 285, 295,
298 f., 337, 430, 432, 458, ii. 15, 25,
35, 42, 45, 57, 74, 112, 114, 117, 154,
169, 200, 245, 254, 259, iii. 307, iv.
64 ; and sin, iii. 18, 29, 34, 38 ; and
justice, 102, iv. 82 ; Christ's, iii. 327,
iv. 145.
Omnipresence, i 144, 240, 245, 337, cf.
ii. 224, 254.
Omniscience, i. 329, 332, ii. 254.
Ontological argument, i. 214, 226, 229,
cf. 191, 247, 323, 454.
Opus operatum, iv. 271, 276, 280, 366.
Order, God the principle of, i. 269,
277, 284, 308, ii. 200 ; higher and
lower, 164, 176, 243.
Organism, i 267, 271, 275 ; God
absolute, 412, 421, 450 ; the world
an, ii. 21, 26, 48, 54, 57, 75, 95,
127, 131, 163, 167; of God's king
dom, iv. 381, 431.
Organization of Church, iv. 265, 268 f.,
326, 333, 338, 340, 350, 370.
Oriental thought, ii. 247, 250.
Origen, i. 324, 440, ii. 27 f., 32, 40,
187, 336, iii. 46, 49, 207, 220, iv.
9, 11, 13, 314, 406, 415, 419.
Original guilt, ii. 340, 343, 348 ff.,
353 f., iii 59, 67, iv. 10, 13, 20, 216.
Original sin, ii. 302, 338, 341, 347,
354, iii. 11 f., 14f.,17, 42, 51, 55,
74, iv. 25, 29, 96 f., 406; not
damnable, 423 ; and freedom, ii.
357, iii. 59, iv. 97. ¦
Osiander, iv. 26, 206.
Otto, iv. 342.
Paedagogy, Christian, iv. 289 ; of the
Church, 299, 304, 338, 341.
Pajon, iv. 259.
Pancosmism, i. 122 f., 340, ii. 253.
Pantheism, i. 48, 123, 200, 204, 231,
234, 241, 339 f., 365, 369, 374, 377,
390, 399, 412, 447, 460, ii. 37, 109 ff.,
118, 162, 247, 249, 252, 261; its
forms, i. 254 ; dynamic, 255 ; of
life, 261 ; of the world-order, 305,
307 ; ethical, 317, 328, 334, iii. 104,

446

INDEX.

108, 121, 200, 215, 255, 288, 307,
321, iv. 48, 140, 259, 379.
Paracelsus, ii. 156.
Paret, iii. 173.
Parousia, iv. 376, 387, 395.
Paschasius Radbertus, iv. 315.
Passover, iv. 305.
Patripassianism, i. 367, iii. 205, 207.
Paul of Samosata, iii. 202, 205.
Paul, on sin, ii. 305, 307-310, 312,
316-320 ; Christology, iii 172-183 ;
on high-priestly office of Christ,
172 ; on justification, iv. 195 f.
Paulus, Dr., i. 108.
Peip, i. 408.
Pelagianism, i. 48, 107, 137, 373, 431,
ii. 80, 125, 188, 335, 337 f., 343,
iii. 44, 53, 60, 105, 137, 245, 344,
362, iv. 165, 168, 173, 177 f., 183,
190, 299.
Pelt, i. 25.
Penal desert, iii. 119, 125, 128, 135,
iv. 10, 20, 65, 73, 81, 85 f., 101,
106, 115, 148, 188, 233.
Persian religion, i. 281 f., ii. 98,
-239 ff., 253 f., 261, iii. 26, 92, iv.
375.
Person, in Trinitarian sense, i. 379,
448 f., 451.
Person in Christ, iii. 293, 308, 310.
Personality, ii. 397 f., iii. 31 f., 324 ;
of God, i. 260, 319, 337, 339 f., 343,
412, 437 f., ii. 107, 111, 262 f.; and
attributes, i. 447, 453 f. ; and per
sons, 448 f. ; in distinction from
subject, 444; Christian, 153 f., 160,
162, 418, 431, ii. 20, 76, 86, 94,
124, 136, 187, 198, 221, 243 ; of the
gods, 250, 252 f. ; and original sin, iii.
51, 55 ; and the race, 54, iv. 89, 92,
94 f. ; and sin, ii. 377, iii. 70 ; and
punishment, 119 ; and Christ's office,
280, iv. 143 ; free, and Holy Spirit,
161, 193, 225, 239 f., 336; and
sacraments, 276, 325 ; and educa
tion, 304 ; perfecting of, 401.
Pessimism, i. 125 f., 128, 138, ii. 65.
Peter, doctrine of, sin, ii. 305, 316 ;
Christology, iii. 159-161 ; high-
priesthood of Christ, 417.
Peter Martyr, iii. 239.
Petersen, iv. 415, 419.
Peyrerius, ii. 89.
Pfaff, iii. 244.
Pfleiderer, O., i. 200, 206, 225, 438 f.,
441, ii. 239, iii. 175, 274.
Philippi, i. 191, 200, 210, 241, ii. 81,
192, 353, iii. 49, 94, 96, 188, 224,
237, 254, 271, 290, 311, iv. 28, 34,
37, 51, 55 f., 177, 384, 406, 409,
413.
Philo, i. 309, 349, ii. 186, iii. 193.

Philoponus, i. 385.
Phoenician religion, i. 284, ii. 254 ff.
Photinus, iii. 202, 205.
Phrygian religion, i. 281.
Physical, and spiritual, i. 276, 294,
298, 314, 339, 342, ii. 44; and
ethical, i 427, 434, 458 f.; deriva
tions of world, ii. 9 f., 64, 91, 250,
252 ; conception of evil, ii. 325, 335,
361, 372, 374 f., 386, iii. 31, 39,
51 ; Unio in Christ, 261 ; redemp
tion, 427, iv. 3, 50, 62, 76 f., 83,
119, 272 f. ; and ethical in Christ,
135, 145, 416 ; conception of grace,
428 ; of sanctification, 409.
Physico-teleological argument, i. 264,
268, 323.
Pietism, iv. 71, 205, 284.
Piscator, iv. 24.
Pisteology, i. 31.
Plato, i. 290, 293, 320, 362, 372, 427,
ii. 238, 242, 251, 318, 328. 334, 368,
iv. 375.
PUtt, H., i. 408, iii. 254, 263.
Plotinus, iii. 30.
Polytheism, i. 215, 231, 237, 272,
274 f., 319, 328, 343, 345, 363, 365,
ii. 235 f., 239 f., 245, 248.
Ponerology, division, ii. 299 ; and
atonement, iv. 1, 4, 20, 22, 27, 75,
177.
Potency, i. 258, 260 ; in God, ii. 13,
37; in nature, 43, 50, 90, 137,
387.
Power, in Christ's kingly office, iii.
389, 392, 396 ; in His atoning work,
iv. 13, 18, 35, 39, 41 ; Christ's,
perfectly revealed, 401.
Praxeas, i. 368, iii. 204.
Prayer, ii. 121, 238.
Predestination, i. 299, 333, 336, 430,
462, ii. 332, 341, 356, iii. 16 f., 37,
52, 60, iv. 25 f., 33, 39, 65, 149,
167, 170, 183, 184 f., 224, 260, 285,
287, 348, 409, 422, 428.
Pre-existence, of Christianity in God,
i. 182 f. ; of the idea of right, 289 ;
in Adam, ii. 44 ; of Christ, i 355,
iii. 171, 174, 185, 239, 257, 283,
290 f., 294.
Pre-existence theory, ii. 88, 93 ; of
individuals, 337, 339, 350, 380, iii.
46, 53.
Preparation for Christianity, ii. 234 ;
even by heathenism, 235 f.
Pressense de, ii. 197, iii. 263.
Priesthood, iv. 148 f., 188, 264, 267,
335, 396.
Principium essendi of Christianity, i.
169 ; cognoscendi, 169.
Progress, ii. 54, 70, 74, 99, 121, 124,
136, 139.

INDEX.

447

Proof, psychological, for God, i. 214.
Prophecy, ii. 61, 140, 176 f, 202, 240,
259, 264, 270 ; and Christ, iii. 400,
iv. 152, 262.
Prophetic office of Christ, iii. 382, 388,
397, iv. 52, 55, 101, 121, 128 f., 240,
244, 247, 261, 267, 272.
Providence, i. 334, cf. 462, ii. 44, 52,
62,157, 168, 225, 237, iii. 78 f.
Providentia universalis, etc., ii. 62.
Psychological derivation of religion, i.
39, 179, ii. 107.
Punishment, i. 298 f., 430, 457, 462,
ii. 57, 65, 337, 341, 348, 353 f.,
366, 369, 393, 398, 402, iii. 49,
62 f., 69, 71, 76, 95, 102, 114, 120,
126, 134, iv. 417, 421; and sacri
fice, iii. 406 ; and atonement, iv. 6,
10 f., 21 f., 28, 30, 36, 40 f., 50, 54,
62, 69, 73, 79, 82, 96, 99, 103, 112,
173, 233, 292 ; none for believers,
83, 119, 202, 229 f., 407, 410 ;
Church discipline not, 342.
Purgatory, iv. 130, 198, 230, 396, 406,
410.
Pusey, Dr., iv. 232, 284, 307, 415.
Quakeek, iv. 267, 275, 308.
Quatrefages, ii. 92.
Quenstedt, i. 196, 201, 241, 325, 328,
330, ii. 29, 187, iv. 27, 36, 173, 203,
211, 293, 392.
Quietism, iii. 389.
Rathmann, iv. 259.
Rational idea of the absolute, i. 227 ;
of design, 269, 271 ; of justice,
287 f., 297, 303 ; of the ethical,
311, 316, 415, 434.
Rationalism, i. 20, 108, 116, 146, 350,
374, 391, 398, ii. 86, 135, 155, 186,
188, iii. 383, 389, iv. 41, 54, 131,
152, 173, 230, 232, 259.
Raymund v. Sabunde, ii. 99.
Reason and authority, i. 80 ; and
faith, 99, 106 ; and history, 117,
120 ; grounded in the absolute,
228 f. ; and Christianity, 170 f.,
181 f., 338, 416 ; and miracles, ii.
42, 81, 91 ; and religion, 108, 1361,
141, 232, 244, 252 f.
Receptivity, in cognition, i. 66, 69,
72 f.; for God, 326, 464, ii. 19; of
lower for higher, 44, 50, 53, 67, 72,
75, 79, 87, 92, 95, 106, 111, 121,
123, 129, 134, 136, 145, 154, 158,
167, 175, 189, 193, 198, 227, 237,
260; for Christ, iii. 284, 342, 348 f.;
for substitution, iv. 89, 93, 97, 117 ;
for grace, 165 f., 179, 188, 216, 228,
234 ; of human nature for the
divine, iii. 226, 230, 235, 239 ; in

baptism, iv. 279, 286, 290, 299 ; in
the Lord's Supper, 310, 324 f.
Redemption, capacity for, ii. 335, 339,
iii' 34, 46 f., 59, 69, 70, 136, iv. 86,
96, 177 f., 180, 184, 234, 363.
Redemption, need of, ii. 332, 336 f.,
339, 343, 389, 397, iii. 34, 43, 46,
53, 59, 67, 136, 396, iv. 86 f., 96 f.,
177, 181 f., 184, 190, 234, 358,
420.
Redepenning, iii. 256.
Reflection of Christ's offices, iv. 243,
267 ff., 302, 326, 331, 333, 338, 340,
370.
Reformation idea of faith, i. 90 f. ;
doctrine of Trinity, 395 f. ; more
anthropological and soteriological,
395 f., 414 f. ; unites authority and
freedom, 428, cf. 414, 436, ii.
187.
Regeneration, iv. 164, 178, 186, 192,
196, 229 f., 232, 238, 381 ; and
justification, 203 ; and baptism, 278,
281, 288, 292, 295, 301 ; and Church,
299.
Reiff, i 41, iii. 383.
Reimarus, iii. 245.
Reinhardt, i. 201, iii. 49, 52, 244, iv.
41.
Religion, i. 119, 122 f., 131 f., 133 f.,
144, 153 f., 162, 181, 183, 229, 307,
331, 341, 447.
Religion, history of, ii. 233, 245 ; of
heathenism, 233.
Religions, i. 249 ; their ideas of God,
250, 259, 264, 275, 280 ff., 305, ii.
48, 54, 62, 76, 91, 101, 106 f., 114 f.,
133, 139, 194, 237, 245.
Renan, ii. 181, iv. 133.
Repentance, ii. 304 ; Christ the
principle of, iv. 101, 122, 190, 289 ;
doctrine of, 187, 206, 228.
Resurrection, ii. 84 f., 170, 337; of
Christ, iv. 132, 147, 309, 317, 330 ;
of the dead, 374, 378, 382, 389, 392,
401, 405 ft'., 410, 413, 433.
Reusch, i. 399.
Reuss, iii. 189.
Reuter, iv. 19.
Revelation, i. 92, 100, 107, 179, 182,
229, 237, 342; in O. T., 346;
trinitarian, 350, 356 f., 358, 370,
451, 453, ii. 69, 116, 133 f. ; notes
of, 135 f. ; form of, 140 ; contents,
199 ; in relation to sin, 202 f.
Rhossis, iv. 316.
Ribbeck, iv. 277.
Richard v. St. Victor, i 393.
Riehm, iii. 263, 404, 406.
Right, i. 276, 287 f., ii. 200, 243, 257 f. ;
a priori, i 288, 292, 303, 310.
Rinck, iv. 402, 406.

448

INDEX.

Ritschl, i. 189, ii. 142, 234, 243, 305,
368, iii. 45, 72, 121, 124, 126, 270 ;
his Christology, 274 f., 344; opposed
to doctrine of offices, 383, 386 ; on
atonement, 405, 425, iv. 60 ff, 74,
215 ; on the Church, 353.
Ritter, i. 71, 130, 188, 227, 363, ii. 50,
iii. 201.
Rocholl, iv. 140.
Roehr, iii. 245.
Roman religion, i. 264, 270, 272, ii.
251, 255, 257.
Romang, i. 205, iii. 96.
Rothe, i. 24, 75, 174, 193 f., 201, 261,
327, 335, 407, 463, ii. 14, 18, 29,
46, 53, 60 f., 103; 107, 141, 144,
152, 158, 161, 163, 165, 178, 181,
192, 352, 366, 375, iii. 13, 21, 32,
84, 96, 104, 255, 263, 321, 349, 355,
373, iv. 108, 133, 136, 153, 353, 379,
413, 425, 429".
Rougemont, ii. 199, iii. 331.
Riickert, iv. 308.
Sabeanism, ii. 98.
Sabellianism, i 258, 351 f., 358, 367 f.,
379, 388, 398, 421, iii. 205, 208,
245, 255, 257, 285 f., 289.
Sack, K., i. 180, ii. 195, 197, iii. 349.
Sacrament, iv. 151, 153, 156, 244, 270 ;
and Word, 272 ; and faith, 275, 281 ;
and Christ, 274 ; and Church, 346,
350 f., 355, 360, 364, 368, 370 f. ;
offer of grace in, 286, 291, 300, 312,
329, 337, 423.
Sacrifice, ii. 241, 257, 288, 303, iii.
402, 414 f., 421 f., iv. 9, 13, 107,
146.
Sadeel, iii. 239.
Samson, iv. 79.
Sanctification, iv. 24, 37, 55, 72 f., 77,
94, 100, 119, 121 f., 193, 197 f., 201,
206, 209, 212 f., 214, 225, 230, 232,
234, 238, 325, 380, 408.
Sartorius, i. 25, 408, 455, iii. 260, iv.
56, 59, 140, 175, 330.
Satan, ii. 322, 330, 337, 340, 354, iii. 14,
27, 420, iv. 8f., 14, 16, 20, 51, 54,
76, 120, 128 ; Biblical doctrine, iii.
85 f. ; ecclesiastical doctrine, 91 f. ;
dogmatic doctrine, 97 f.
Satisfaction, iv. 13, 17, 21 f., 29 f., 40,
68, 83 f., 85 f., 98, 107, 115, 193, 224.
Scepticism, i. 61, 110, 112, 122, 124,
128, 223, 255 f., ii. 252, 258, iv. 67.
Schelling, i. 115, 131, 198, 224, 231,
233, 249, 252, 309, 314, 400, 406,
ii. 12, 38, 40, 69, 89, 99 f., 229, 246,
249, iii. 27, 46, 94, 98, 251, 260,
270, iv. 48, 403.
Schenkel, ii. 74, iii. 89, 95, 108, 123,
224, 228, 256, 258, 263, iv. 24.

Schefzer, iii. 64.
Schiller, ii. 367.
Schism, iv. 367, 369 f.
Schleiei-macher, i. 20, 34, 37, 130,
1721/182, 199, 205, 208, 227, 242,
245, 313, 333, 401, ii. 29, 59, 61,-
74, 971, 1071, 113, 116, 118,, 125,
137, 144, 152, 158, 192, 194 ; doctrine
of evil, iii. 21, 34 ; of Satan, 89, 94,
112 ; of punishment, 126 f Christ
ology, 251, 255, 268, 308, 311, 342,
345, 360; of Trinity, 286; of Christ's
offices, 383, 387 ; of atonement,
iv. 37, 51, 87; of Christ's con
tinuous working, 143, 150; of grace,
173; of the Church, 245, 303; of
Scripture, 253, 256 ; of baptism,
289 ; of the Lord's Supper, 326 ; of
Christ's Second Coming, 382, 386 ;
of the Apokatastasis, 4l5, 420.
Schmid, C. F., i. 168, ii. 192.
„ O., iii. 345.
K., ii. 43, 90, 155.
H., iv. 46.
,, R., iii. 298, iv. 31S.
Schmidt- Warneck, iv. 219.
Schmieder, iii. 263.
Schneckenburger, iii. 204, 238, iv. 24,
203.
Schoberlein, i. 261, 394, 426, ii. 94,
iii. 357, iv. 56, 277, 429.
Schopenhauer, i. 121, 1261, 276, 400,
ii. 361, iii. 27, iv. 47.
Schultz, iii. 274, 360, iv. 376, 379.
Schultze, iii. 192.
Schwarz, iii. 321.
Schweizer, i. 38, ii. 106, 147, iii. 382,
iv. 24, 65.
Science, independence of historical re
search, ii. 233 ; among the heathen,
258 ; its abuse, ii. 395.
Scienlia Dei libera, etc., i. 325, 327,
336, ii. 13, 351, iii. 50, 53, 64.
Scotus Erigena, iii. 30, iv. 419.
Scripture, i. 36, 42 1, 91, 95 1, 101,
146 1, 157, 168, 172, 175, 213, ii.
186, 188, 230, iv. 248, 251, 253 1,
2611,327.
Self-affirmation or self-preservation, i.
295, 310, 322, 327, 339, 365, 373,
435 1, 443, 447, 455, 460, ii. 12 1,
255, iii. 122, 139, 243, iv. 56, 83 1,
871
Self-attestation of the truth, i. 89 1,
156, 159, 162, 170 1, 181, ii. 186,
230; of Christianity, i. 172, 178,
183 ; of God, 259, 420, ii. 36.
Self-communication, i. 311, 365, 370,
376, 443, 447, 456, 460, ii. 12, 16 1,
19, 39, 106, 120, 124, 146.
Self-consciousness, i. 601, 671, ii. 67,
72, 83, 94, 120, 184, 198, 2451, 247,

INDEX.

449

251, 265 ; dependent on God-con
sciousness, i. 75, ii. 118, iii. 23 ;
Christian, i. 155, 167 ; triune, 422,
438 1, 451, ii. 13; God's, i 337,
iii. 31 ; of Christ, 309, 364, 377 ;
new, iv. 161.
Self-constitution, ii. 47, 49 ; original
in man, 95, 110, 124.
Self-determination, i 319, 438, ii. 121.
Self-distinction in God, i. 258, 412,
422 ; of God from world, ii. 20.
Self-existence. See Aseity.
Self-redemption, iii. 136, iv. 86, 178,
218.
Self-reproduction, ii. 45, 50, 62.
Semi-Arians, iii. 203.
Semi-Pelagians, ii 342, iv. 165, 169,
173, 179, 183.
Semisch, iv. 9.
Semites, ii. 2381, 245.
Semler, iii. 93.
Sengler, ii. 262, 315, 405.
Sensuousness and sin, ii. 366-374 1,
379, 382, 385, 390, 400, iii. 35.
Separatism, iii. 390, iv. 242, 357, 364 f.
Servetus, i 399.
Severus, iii. 216.
Sieffert, iv. 134.
Simon, iv. 58 f.
Simplicity of God, i. 196, 198, 202,
235, 236, 294, 376, ii 58, 61.
Sin, its relation to Incarnation, i. 177,
ii. 103, 124, 128, 191 1, 201, 202 1,
225, 227, 247, 262, 264 ; universality
of, ii. 3041, iii. 11, 43, 133 ; in dis
tinction from evil, ii. 371 ; against
the Holy Ghost, iii. 72, iv. 94, 287,
417, 421 ; in distinction from guilt,
48 1, 65, 67 1, 72 1, 80 f. ; in the
regenerate, 240 ; and error, 369 ;
abolition of, 384.
Slavic religion, i 282, ii. 253.
Socinians, i. 200, 241, 334, 350, 391,
398, 430, iii. 202, 245, 331, 382,
iv. 33, 38, 40, 60, 65, 82, 316, 333,
379, 415, 425.
Socrates, ii. 238, 368, iv. 174, 431.
Solity of God, i 197, 233, 280, 282,
296, 342, 365, 443 1, 458 ; of the
God-man, ii. 207, 209 ; of inspired
men, 191, 246, 257.
Son, i. 350, 383, 425, 434, ii. 40 ; of
God, iii. 151, 167, 171.
Sophocles, ii. 238.
Soul of Christ, iii. 332, 336, 341, iv. 31,
127, 130 ; and body, 413 f. ; its
substance good, 427.
Soul, sleep of, iv. 403, 411 ; transmigra
tion of, iv. 374, 401.
Souls, care of, iv. 244, 268, 304, 342.
Space, i. 238, 460, ii. 30, 224.
Species of men, ii. 89, 92.
Dornek. — Christ. Doct. iv.

Spencer, iii. 269.
Spener, iv. 392.
Spinoza, i. 198, 218 ft, 251, 256, 277,
400, 431, 439.
Spirit, and nature, i 284 1, 293, ii. 41,
62, 66, 71, 163, 168, 175 ; relation
of justice to spirit, i. 299, 304; God,
277, 282 1, 337, 439 ; the Spirit in
the O. T., 346 ; triune, 350, 359,
416, 421, 423, 437, ii. 221, 227, 230;
man as spirit, 72, 84, 87, 102.
Spirit, Holy, iii. 343 1, iv. 143, 146,
154, 156, 193, 197, 231, 235, 240 f. ;
and the "Word, 249, 268 ; and the
Scripture, 253, 257, 259 ; and com
munion, 162 ; and baptism, 278 ;
and the Church, 345 1, 350, 366,
371 ; and Christ, 399.
Spirituality, i 244, 276, 283, 285, 294,
323, 437, 451, ii. 62.
Splittgerber, iv. 406.
Stages of evil, ii. 325, 384 1, 391 ; of
guilt, iii. 60, 76 ; of death, 118 ; of
punishment, 130, iv. 427 1 ; of
receptiveness, 91, 93 ; of the sense
of justification, 231.
Stahl, iv. 56, 353, 358.
Stancarus, iv. 26.
State, ii. 241 1, 255, 257, 263, 293,
iii. 121, 127, iv. 60, 82, 89, 95, 151,
303, 339, 343, 388, 3901
States of Christ, iii. 225, 228, 232,
235 1, 242, 252, 254, 337 ; and
offices, 382, 3851, 3901, iv. 32.
Staudenmaier, ii. 352.
Staudlin, iv. 47.
Steffens, iv. 411.
Steinbart, iv. 41.
Steinheil, iv. 415.
Steinmeyer, iii. 173, 263.
Steinwender, iii. 298.
Steitz, iv. 316.
Steudel, iii. 52, iv. 402.
Stier, iv. 50.
Stoa, i. 307, 320, 362, 368, ii. 242, 396,
iv. 375.
Storr, i 103.
Strauss, i. 318, ii. 154, 284, iii. 188
261, 309, 321, iv. 131, 133.
Stroh, iv. 50.
Subjectivism, moral, ii. 370 1, 389,
iv. 89 ; in Christology, iii. 246 ; in
doctrine of atonement, iv. 38, 77,
148, 152 ; in the Church, 156.
Subordination, i. 348, 350, 367, 383,
385, 390, 398, 409, 436, 452, iii. 266,
289.
Substance, i. 251, 253, 258, ii. 47,
247 ff., 253; in Arius, i. 372.
Substitution, ii. 213, iii. 4071, 414,
420, 423, 427, 429, iv. 8, 34, 40, 44,
52, 55, 86 1, 89, 107, 116, 147, 201 ;
2F

450

INDEX.

magical and productive, 92, 1181,
151, 161, 193, 216, 234 ; and bap
tism, 279, 290, 292, 295, 325.
Suffering of Christ, iv. 27 1, 30, 36, 39,
57, 104, 109 ; necessary, 111 ; sym
bolic theory, 121.
Supererogatory works, iv. 16, 35, 85.
Supper, Holy, iv. 244, 272, 293, 305,
324 1, 333 ; partaking of unbelievers,
3181, 3291; exclusion from, 368;
and Christ, 399.
Supralapsarianism, iii. 33, iv. 170.
Supranaturalism, i 20, 37, 991, 103,
107, 116, 147, 179, 244, 3971, ii.
1361, 162, 171, 186, 190, 230, iv.
54, 259.
Suso, H., i. 143.
Stisskind, iv. 43.
Swedenborg, i. 399, ii. 97, 187, iii. 97,
245.
Sympathy of Christ, iv. 52, 56, 106,
114, 148.
Synergism, iv. 169, 171, 173, 179, 181.
Syrian religion, i. 275, 279, 281, ii.
2541, 257, iv. 375.
Tatian, iv. 379.
Teleology, i. 264, 274, 277, 305, 309,
' 454, 456, ii. 25 1, 32, 36, 52, 67, 71,
84, 901, 120, 144, 157, 169, 179,
224, iv. 374 ; Christian, 416.
Terminus gratis, ii. 356, iv. 382, 412.
TertuUian, i 81, 164, 366, ii. 103, 219,
340, 350, iii. 208, 257, 294, 298, iv.
314, 406.
Testaments, O. andN., iv. 131, 221,
261.
Testimonium Spiritus S., i. 92, 95, 97,
172, iv. 71, 1601, 197, 199, 201,
231, 235.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, ii. 69, 319,
336, iii. 49, 54, 211, 213, iv. 168.
Theodoret, iv. 11.
Theodotus, iii. 202.
Theologia naturalis, i. 44, 100, 189,
265.
Theopaschitism, iii. 257.
Theophilus of Antioch, i 240.
Theosophists, i 261.
Thetie theology, i 22, 170.
Thiersch, iv. 353.
Tholuck, i. 97, 188, ii. 188, 192, 195,
iii. 183.
Thomasius, i. 193, 200, 386, 411, 413,
415, 452, 455, iii. 96, 195, 207, 237,
260, 264, 298, 333, 382, 391, iv. 22,
55, 176, 275.
Thought, discursive, i. 71, 73 ; on the
way to knowledge, 226, 307, 311 ;
not absolute per se, 305, 310 ; and
mental representation, 441.
Thumm, iii. 226, 237.

Tichonius, iv. 348.
Tieftrunk, iv. 43, 47.
Time, in relation to God, i. 238 1, 329,
460, ii. 291, 87, 102, 145, 224.
Tbllner, iii. 245, iv. 24, 41.
Tradition, ii. 224, iv. 152, 255.
Traduciamsm, ii. 88, 93, 340, 350, 352,
iii. 298, 301.
Transcendence of God, i. 119, 197,
2421, 274, 336, 340, 346, 363, 366,
377, 412, 414, 443, 447, 460, ii. 171,
146, 162, iv. 150, 238.
Transubstantiation, iv. 311, 315.
Trendelenburg, i. 68, 252, 427, ii. 12.
Tridentine creed, ii. 344, iv. 170, 202,
316.
Trinity, i. 349-465, 311, 316 ; in the
O. T., 345 1; in the N. T., 349 ; in
the Apostles, 352; history of doctrine,
361 ; attempts at synthesis, 390 ;
positive exposition, 412 ; immanent,
logical, 422 ; physical, 420 ; ethical,
419, 426, 456 ; economic implies
immanent, 3501, 363 1, 370,417;
. connection with divine attributes,
365, 370, 380, 448 ; economic, ii. 17,
20; world-forming, 271, 54, 65,
1451, iii. 286, 291, iv. 189, 158;
and baptism, 280.
Tritheism, i. 381, 383, 409, 426, 448,
452, iii. 219, 289, 312.
T^esten, i. 37, 191, 205, 4041, ii.
192, iii. 96, 260.
Typology, ii. 267-270.
Ubiquity, iv. 139.
Ullmann, iv. 17.
Union of natures in Christ, forms of,
iii. 210, 217 ; answers to idea of
God, 252, 261 ; union and develop
ment, 330 ; and atonement, iv. 5,
251, 1251; sacramental in Lord's
Supper, 326.
Uniqueness of Christ, iii. 347 ; neces
sary to atonement, iv. 1071, 117.
Unity of God, i. 231, 282, 377, ii. 238,
252, 2541; in Hegel, i 400; as
organism, 449, 451 ; of the world.
idea, ii. 26 1 ; of the world, 41, 43,
48, 91, 101, 145, 160, 162, 167, 176 ;
of mankind, 92 ; of consciousness,
ii. 118 ; of nature and spirit, 180 ;
of divine and human in history of
religion, 198, 235, 242 ; of God and
man, iii. 307, iv. 160, 193, 208, 217,
223 ; of Christianity, 271 ; of grace,
272, 324 ; of Church, 151, 339, 341,
346, 348 1, 366, 370, 433 ; of doc
trine, 364.
Universal religion, ii. 125, 131, 135,
200.
Universality of Christianity, ii. 2331;

INDEX.

451

of grace, 358, iv. 167, 199, 211, 223,
225, 2361, 287, 405, 409, 419, 4221;
of atonement, 251, 131.
Urlsperger, i 399, iii. 245.
Ursinus, iii. 239.
Valentin, i 365, ii. 12, iii. 206, 215.
Venturini, iii. 245.
Via negationis, ete., i. 202, 268.
Vigilantius, iv. 348.
Vincentius, ii. 342.
Voigt, iii. 260.
Vorstius, i. 241.
Wagner, R., ii. 94.
Walch, i 201, iii. 245.
Wegscheider, i. 350, 398, ii. 188.
Weiss, ii. 318, iii. 167, 176, 183, 263,
287, iv. 128.
Weisse, i 130, 239, 261, 4021, ii. 30,
99, 157, iii. 256, iv. 22, 133, 379, 425.
Weiszacker, iii. 189, iv. 72, 84.
Werenfels, i. 97.
Westcott, iv. 137.
Whately, iv. 307.
White, iv. 379, 415, 425.
Will, i 305, 309, 315, 330, 337, 339,
441, ii. 40 ; divine will as Providence,
54, 61, 721, 81, 201 ; religion not,
108, 110 ; religious, 114, 117, 119,
121, 144, 156, 200 ; and knowledge,
3071, 309, 3361, 368, 381, iii. 332;
Ego the product of, 312 f. ; of Christ,
315, 335, 355, 359, 363, iv. 107 ;
and faith, 299 ; perfecting of, 431 1
Wisdom of God, i. 191, 273, 277, 296,
303, 311, 322, 3231, 339 ; (in the
0. T. iii 346, 348), 424, 448, 458,
ii. 15, 53, 57, 101, 1541, 157, 200,
202, 224, 263, 368, 371 ; and evil,
381, iii. 32, 80 ; of Christ, 397, 400,
iv. 152 ; in the doctrine of atone
ment, 14, 19, 86.

Wolf, i. 98, 399, ii. 65, 86, 110.
Wolleb, iv. 24.
Word, in the O. T., iii. 147 ; of Christ,
iv. 143, 146, 153, 156, 189 ; of God,
244, 247 ; in stricter and broader
sense, 249 ; as means of grace, 258 ;
ministry of, 263 ; and the Spirit,
259 ; and sacraments, 270, 272, 324 ;
and Church, 346, 3501, 355, 360,
364, 368, 371 ; and Christ, 250,
2721, 386.
Works, good, ii. 338, iv. 1691, 188,
2331; faith and repentance not good
works, 212 ff. ; ana the atonement,
41, 45.
World-consciousness, ii. 1001, 154,
1801, 185, 198, 245, 248, 251, 259 ;
and God-consciousness, 75 ; new,
155, 166 ; and self-consciousness,
439 ; medium of religious con
sciousness, ii. 22, 67, 75, 83.
World, government of, i 299, 305,
430, ii. HO; 249 ; and evil, 327,
351, 353, 3651, 388, 393, 397, iii
78, 82, 114, 121 ; and Satan, 102,
108 ; and atonement, iv. 56, 63, 821
World-idea,, i. 293, ii. 16 (cf. 13, 20,
311), 49, 53, 87, 95, 1371, 145,
159, 168.
World, origin from God, ii. 91, 13 ; a
religious question, 21.
World, perfection prepared for, ii. 27,
cf. 64, 68, 70, 74, 76 ; of man, 78,
82, 99, 177.
Wbrner, iii. 254, 263.
Wycliffe, iv. 348.
Zanchius, iii. 239.
Zeller, ii. 162, iii. 188, 201.
Zezschwitz, iii. 268, iv. 128, 215.
Zbckler, ii. 89, 91.
Zwingle, ii. 347, iii. 49, 238, iv. 311,
3161, 322, 326, 333, 345, 353.

END OF VOLUME IV.

MORKIBON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HEK MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Four Volumes, imperial 8vo, handsomely bound, price 18s. each,
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS.
Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.
Volume I.
THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS.
By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., and MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D.
Volume II.
ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL.
By W. MILLIGAN, D.D., and W. F. HOULTON, D.D.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Bt the Vert Rev. Dean HOWSON and Rev. Canon SPENOE.
Volume III. (Shortly.)
Romans. By Philip Sohafp, D.D., and Matthew B. Riddle, D.D.—
Corinthians. By Principal David Beown, D.D. — Galatians. By Philip
Schaff, D.D.— Ephesians. By Matthew B. Riddle, D.D.— Philippians. By
J. Rawson Lt/mby, D.D.— Colossians. By Matthew B. Riddle, D.D.—
Thessalonians. By Marcus Dods, D. D. —Timothy. By E. H. Plumptee, D. D. —
Titus. By J. Oswald Dykes, D.D.— Philemon. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D.
Maps and Plans — Professor Arnold Guyot.
Illustrations -W. M. Thomson, D.D., Author of ' The Land and the Book.'

From the Right Rev. the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.
' A useful, valuable, and instructive Commentary. In all the interpretation is set forth
with clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the volumes to the
thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects great credit ou the
publishers as well as the writers.'
From the Right Rev.' the Bishop of Winchester.
'I have looked into this volume, and read several of the notes on crucial passages.
They seem to me very well done, with great fairness, and with evident knowledge of the
controversies concerning them. The illustrations are very good. I cannot doubt that
the book will prove very valuable.'
From ' The London Quarterly Review.'
' The second volume lies before us, and cannot fail to be successful. We have care
fully examined that part of the volume which is occupied with St. John — of the Acts we
shall speak by and by, and elsewhere — and think that a more honest, thorough, and, in
some respects, perfect piece of work has not lately been given to the public. The two
writers are tolerably well known ; and known as possessing precisely the qualities,
severally and jointly, which this kind of labour demands. We may be sure that in them
the highest Biblical scholarship, literary taste, and evangelical orthodoxy meet.'
From • The Record.'
' The first volume of this Commentary was warmly recommended in these columns
soon after it was published, and we are glad to be able to give as favourable a testimony
to the second volume. . . . The commentators have given the results of their own
researches in a simple style, with brevity, but with sufficient fulness ; and their exposi
tion is, all through, eminently readable. . . . The work is one which students of even
considerable learning may read with interest and with profit. The results of the
most recent inquiries are given in a very able and scholarly manner. The doctrines of
this Commentary are evangelical, and tho work everywhere exhibits a reverence which
will make it acceptable to devout readers. '

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

HANDBOOKS FOR BIBLE CLASSES.
'These volumes are models of the multum in parvo style. We have
long desired to meet with a Series of this kind— Little Books on Great

Subjects.'— Literary World.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE GALATIANS.
mitt) EntrDtfurtttra aitB fiottts [Price Is. 6d.
By the Eev. Professor JAMES MACGEEGOE, D.D.
THE POST-EXILIAN PROPHET S-
HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI.
WHLiO) ffnttolmttton anil Jiotes lPrice 2s-
By MAECUS DODS, D.D.
' Thoughtful, suggestive, and finely analytical.' — Evangelical Magazine.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST.
By Eev. JAMES STALKEE, M.A. [Price is. 6d.
1 As a succinct, suggestive, beautifully written exhibition of the life, of our Lord, we
are acquainted with nothing that can compare with it.' — Christian World.
THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS.
By Professor JAMES S. CANDLISH, D.D. [Price is. ed.
' An admirable manual ; sound, clear, suggestive, and interesting.' — Free Church
Record.
THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES.
By Eev. Professor MUEPHY, Belfast. [Price is. u.
'We know no Commentary on the Chronicles to compare with this, considering the
small size and cost.' — Wesleyan Methodist Magazine.
THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH.
OTttfr Introtmction ano faattB [Price 2s.
By Eev. JOHN MACPHEESON, M.A.
' This volume is executed with learning, discrimination, and ability.'— British Messenger.
THE BOOK OF JUDGES.
By Eev. Principal DOUGLAS. [Price u. 3d.
' This volume is as near perfection as we can hope to find such a work.'— Church
Bells.

THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.
By Eev. Principal DOUGLAS. [Prke is. u.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
 By Eev. Professor A. B. DAVIDSON [Shortly.
SCOTTISH CHURCH HISTORY.
By Eev. NOEMAN L. WALKEE, M.A. [simay.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, Seoond Edition, demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.,
THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST,
IN ITS PHYSICAL, ETHICAL, AND
OFFICIAL ASPECTS.
By A. B. BRUCE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FEEE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW.
1 Dr. Bruce's style is uniformly clear and vigorous, and this book of his, as a whole,
has the rare advantage of being at once stimulating and satisfying to the mind in a high
degree.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
' This work stands forth at once as an original, thoughtful, thorough piece of work in
the branch of scientific theology, such as we do not often meet in our language. ... It
is really a work of exceptional value ; and no one can read it without perceptible gain in
theological knowledge.' — English Churchman.
' We have not for a long time met with a work so fresh and suggestive as this of Pro
fessor Bruce. . . . We do not know where to look at our English Universities for a
treatise so calm, logical, and scholarly.' — English Independent.

By the same Author.
Just published, Second Edition, demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.,
THE TEAINING OF THE TWELVE ;
OE,
(^position of passages in tfje ffiospels
Ktfjioitino; tfje Efoclbe IBiscipIes of Sesus ttnoer discipline
for tfje ^nosttesIjiiJ,
'Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject — a
book full of loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the fundamentals of Christian
faith and practice.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
' It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and now that a
second edition has been called for, the Author has taken the opportunity to maka some
alterations which are likely to render it still more acceptable. Substantially, however,
the book remains the same, and the hearty commendation with which we noted its first
issue applies to it at least as much now. — Rock. ,
'The value, the beauty of this volume is that it is a unique contribution to, because a
loving and cultured study of, the life of Christ, in the relation of the Master of the
Twelve.' — Edinburgh Daily Review.

T. and T. Clark's Ptiblicdtions.

Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,
THE INCARNATE SAVIOUR.
A LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST.
By Eev. W. E. NICOLL, MA.
'It commands my warm sympathy and admiration. I rejoice in the circulation of
such a book, which I trust will be the widest possible.' — Canon Liddon. -
' There was quite room for such a volum&. It contains a great deal of thought, often
penetrating and always delicate, and pleasinglv expressed. The subject has been very
carefully studied, and the treatment will, I believe, furnish much suggestive matter both
to readers and preachers.' — Rev. Principal Sanday.
In crown 8vo, Eighth Edition, price 7s. 6rf.,
THE SUFFERING SAVIOUR;
OR, MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE
SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
By F. W. KRUMMACHER, D.D.
' The work bears throughout the stamp of an enlightened intellect, under the teaching
of the Holy Spirit, and of a profound study of the Word of God.' — Record.
' The reflections are of a pointed and practical character, and are eminently calculated
to inform the mind and improve the heart. To the devout and earnest Christian the
volume will be a treasure indeed.' — Wesleyan Times.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
Just published, Second Edition, in crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.,
DAVID, THE KING OF ISRAEL:
A PORTRAIT DRAWN FROM BIBLE HISTORY AND THE BOOK
OF PSALMS.
At the close of two articles reviewing this work, the Christian Observer says: 'Our
space will not permit us to consider more at large this very interesting work, but We
cannot do less than cordially commend it to the attention of our readers. It affords
such an insight into King David's character as is nowhere else to be met with ; it is
therefore most instructive.

In demy 8vo, price 7s. 6<£,
SERMONS TO THE NATURAL MAN.
Bt WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D.,
Author of ' A History of Christian Doctrine,' etc.
' Characterised by profound knowledge of divine truth, and presenting the truth in a
chaste and attractive style, the sermons carry in their tone the accents of the solemn
feeling of responsibility to which they owe their origin.'— Weekly Review.
In One Volume, crown 8vo, price 5s., Third Edition,
LIGHT FROM THE CROSS:
SERMONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD.
Translated from the German of A. THOLUCK, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in the University of Halle.
' With no ordinary confidence and pleasure, we commend these most noble, solemnizine
and touching discourses.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. .

,;ke ,:;;•- E^SITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05457 9850

J»

»fe*?

" (X/1

l» «* ' ' "wj'y1. y

V*fTV'

-r«. V .

¦ *' i

01

¦v "":-::,:- '¦ - -

?« - • v. .,:'<

fi^^mm

>#«*
""Je^M.,