lij^fr.'i^B-ifa^ndiBg'if.a- CU^egi'in- this- Colony

FROM THE LIBRARY
OF
JOHN PUNNETT PETERS
YALE 1873

Zhe Ifnternational ^bcological Xibrari^.

EDITED BY
CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.,
Sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Syjnbolics, Union
Theological Seminary, New York;

STEWART D. F. SALMOND, D.D.,
Sometim,e Principal, and Professor of Systeinatic Theology and Netv Testament
Exegesis, United Free Church College, A berdeeti.

THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS.
By CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.

International Theological library

THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS

BY

CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
\ 1914

COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNBB'S SONS

Published February, 1914

tin
THE REVEREND
FATHER GIOVANNI GENOCCHI
M S C IN ROME
BELOVED FBIEND AND FELLOW SERVANT
IN CHRIST JESUS

PREFATORY NOTE
This book, undertaken by Dr. Briggs many years ago,
was practically complete when his earthly service ended.
It had been put in form for the printer, and in large part
subjected to a final revision by his own hand. Since that
hand was stilled, the process of verification has been carried
through by his daughter — long a co-worker — Miss Emilie
Grace Briggs, who has also charged herself with the neces
sary corrections as the book was going through the press.
One to whom the teaching and the friendship of Dr. Briggs
have been among the choice blessings of life has, likewise,
read the proof. The volume has not been edited in any
other sense than this. It is Dr. Briggs's own learning and
his own convictions — deep and firm ones — that find expres
sion in it. If he could have supervised the printing himself,
he might have made minor alterations here and there, but
the work represents his mature thought, and is substan
tially as he would have had it.
No book on Symbolics will command universal assent
until the unity of the Church of Christ, which was to Dr.
Briggs an object of such intense desire, is actually realized.
He designed this one as a means to that great end. In the
analysis and comparison of creeds and confessions he was
not influenced by zeal for private interpretations, but ani
mated by the longing to bring to view underlying har
monies, and to show the prevailing and essential oneness
of the various official statements of belief put forth by the
vii

vui prefatory note
Church and its divided parts through the Christian cen
turies. His conception was a large one and the expression
of it in this book is profoundly sincere and impressive.
He was single-minded and courageous here, as he always
was. He was possessed by the hope that Christian bodies
of different name might recognize and accept their kinship.
The goal of his endeavor was a broad unity, in the peace
of God, reflecting and attesting the Divine Love.
Francis Brown.
Union Theological Seminary,
New York, January, 1914.

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION PAGE
Origin, History and Definition of the Discipline . . 3
PART I
FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
CHAPTER I. The Creeds of the Church  34
II. The Apostles' Creed  40
HI. The Nicene Creed  83
IV. The Athanaslvn Creed  100
V. The Faith of Chalcedon  109
PART II
PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
I. Introduction  121
II. Symbols of the Latin Church  123
III. The Origin of the Reformation .... 144
IV. The Symbols of the Reformation . . . 158
V. The Symbols of the Seventeenth Century . . 200
VI. Roman Catholic Symbols of the Nineteenth Cen
tury  221
VII. Protestantism of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries ... .... 236
ix

X contents PART III
COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. Introduction  261
II. The Principles of the Reformation .... 255
HI. The Sacraments  274
IV. The Doctrines of Faith and Morals . . . 310
V. The Formula of Concord and Its Opponents . . 337
VI. The Synod of Dobt and Arminianism . . . 360
VII. Old and New School Calvinists .... 373
VIII. The Westminster Confession and the Conflicts
of British Christianity ..... 382
IX. The Modern Consensus  406
Index  413

THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS

THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS
INTRODUCTION
ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION OF THE
DISCIPLINE
§ 1. SYMBOLICS, as a theological discipline, is quite
modern; but that which it stands for is as ancient as Chris
tianity itself: for so soon as Christianity became conscious of
itself, and was recognised as a religion distinct from Judaism,
out of which it sprang, it was necessary to define the essential
and distinctive principles of the Christian Faith; and it is just
the study of this definition which constitutes Symbolics.
The term Symbolics is an anglicised form of the German
Symbolik, for which English scholars had previously used
Symbolism. But Symbohsm in common usage means the
investing of things with a symboUc meaning, or the investi
gation of the intellectual, moral, and religious meaning of
external things. It was therefore important to have a word
which would not be ambiguous, but which specifically meant
the study of the Symbols of the Christian Faith; and so the
German word was anglicised for this purpose.
The term Symbol was used for the Apostles' Creed by
Cyprian, Augustine, Rufinus, and others, in the third and
fourth Christian centuries. The exact meaning of the term
is questioned: whether it refers to the composition of the
Creed, the putting together in a summary form of the Chris
tian Faith; or to its being a sign, emblem, badge, or banner,
about which Christians as soldiers of the Faith should rally.
The latter is probably the original meaning; but in fact the
Christian Creed has historically embraced both meanings.
3

4 introduction
The term was gradually extended from the Apostles' Creed
to the other ancient creeds.
2i5[j.poXov means properly something put together, especially of two
halves. On the one side it attains the meaning of a figurative repre
sentation of something in Art or in Literature. On the other side it
has the meaning of sign, token : either verbal, the parole of the soldier
(tessera militaris); or something to indicate membership in a society,
a token such as a seal ring. Thus the earliest known Christian symbol
combined both of these meanings: IX0TIl='Ir)aou<; Xpcaiix; 0eou Tlbq
SuT-^p, Jesus Christ, God's Son, Samour, whether its use was oral, written,
or engraved La the form of the fish itself. It subsequently was applied
to the Christian Creed, whose central term was an expansion of the
meaning of the Fish, preceded by confession of faith in God the Father,
and followed by confession of faith in the Holy Spirit; all based on the
baptismal formula of Matthew (28^").
The derivation of a6tipoXov from ouiipiXXeiv, to put together, compose —
referring to the Apostles' Creed as the putting together of the several
items of the Christian faith — was favom-ed by the tradition that the
Creed was composed by the Apostles; but this opinion probably rests
upon an earlier view, that it was a summary putting together of the
Christian Faith.
Symbol, the term of the Latin writers, Cyprian (t 258), Ep. 69',
Rufinus (t 410), Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum, Augustine
(t 430), de symbolo, sermo ad catechumenos, and others, gradually gave
way in the West to the term Credo, the reply of the candidate for bap
tism to the question: credis in Deum Pattern omnipotentemf etc.; but
the Easterns continued to use the term Symbol.
Tertullian uses the term regvla fidei {Be prcescriptionibus, c. 13),
Irenaeus the rule of Faith (Hwr. 1:9*).
The meaning, figurative representation, is retained in most modem
languages and in ordinary usage. It is the common meaning in Eng
lish of symbol, symbolic, and symbolism. That is the reason why we
anglicise the German Symbolik for the study of the symbols of the
Christian faith. But even in German Symholik retains this meaning,
as in Creuzer's Symbolik und Mythologie der alien Volker (1810-2),
Bahr's Symbolik des mosaischen Cidtu^ (1837-9), Menzel's Christlicher
Symbolik (1854).
This usage simply carries on that of the Latin theologia symbolica,
used with reference to the sacraments and Christian mysteries since
Dionysius the Areopagite, and in modem times by Parens in his theo
logia symbolica de sacrameniis (1643).
The term Symbol was used at first for the Apostles' Creed. The
Nicene Creed, which took up into itself the primitive local creeds of

origin, history and definition 5
the East, was at once regarded as a symbol; and so in East and West
it became the great symbol of the Church. The Athanasian Creed
was subsequently added in the West.
Abelard refers to the Symbol of Ephesus; and so throughout the
Middle Ages symbol is used in a general sense. It was usual to inter
pret the Symbol of the Apostles, and in that interpretation use the
Nicene Creed, or the Symbol of the Fathers as it was generally called
(j). Aquinas in Symbolum apostolorum expos-itio).
Alexander Hales (t 1245), gives the three Symbols: the Symbol of
the Apostles, the Symbol of the Fathers (the Nicene), and the Symbol
of Athanasius, and interprets them in three different articles (Summa,
111:696, Venice, 1575).
So Durandus (t 1296) says: "triplex est symbolum, primum est
symbolum apostolorum, quod vocatur symbolum minus . . . secun
dum symbolum est 'Quicunque vult' . . . tertium est Nicsenum . . .
vocatur symbolum mains" {Rationale divin. offic. 4 c. [25], de symbolo,
Nuremberg 1480 fol. 53 verso).
So Ludolph of Saxony (fourteenth century): "Sunt autem tria
symbola, primum apostolorum, secundum Nicaeni concilii, tertium
Athanasii; primum factum est ad fidei instructionem, secundum ad fidei
explanationem, tertium ad fidei defensionem." {Vita Jesu Christi, II :
c. 83, Cologne 1487 fol. v. IIII, verso.)
So the Anglican Articles of Religion (1571), in Article VIII, treat
"Of the three Creeds."
The Formula of Concord names them: "the primitive church sym
bols" {Epitome de compendiaria regula atque norma, II).
This usage has continued until the present time. I may mention
Cnoglerus Q., symbola tria, 1606; Vossius, de trihu^ symbolis, opera,
1701; Ernesti, tria symbola acumenica, 1878'; Harvey, History and
Theology of the Three Creeds, 1854.
Luther, however, in his Drey Symbola (1536, 15382),gives the Apostles'
Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Te Deum, adding the Nicene
Creed only by way of supplement. This does not imply any objection
on his part to the Nicene Creed; but shows that the term Symbol was
still flexible in usage.
§ 2. Fundamental Symbolics is the study of those Symbols
of the Christian Faith, which are the common inheritance of
historical Christianity.
The three Creeds — the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Atha
nasian — were recognised as ancient summary statements of
doctrines contained in Holy Scripture, not only by the
Roman Catholic Church, but also by the three great Churches

6 introduction
of the Reformation — the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the
Church of England. The Greek and Oriental Churches
limit themselves to the Nicene Creed; not because they have
any objection whatever to the others, but because these
have never had much circulation in the East, and their
definitions are entirely covered by the Nicene and Chalce-
donian formulas. These three Creeds are therefore re
garded as ecumenical and fundamental statements of the
Christian Faith, ranking next to Holy Scripture in authority.
To these Creeds we must add the doctrinal decisions of
the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and of its successors,
which limit themselves for the most part to an interpreta
tion of the Chalcedonian formula over against the Mono
physites and the Monothelites.
The Greek, Latin, and Protestant Churches all adhere to
these Symbols; and though there are still existing Churches
which separated from the Greek Church for political and
ecclesiastical reasons as much as for Monophysitism, yet in
fact these Monophysites have become so modified in their
Faith that, as the Council of Florence indicated, doctrinal
differences no longer stand in the way of their union with
the Latin and Greek Churches.
Accordingly we may regard these Symbols as the funda
mental Symbols of the universal Church, and the study of
them as "Fundamental Symbolics."
The theologians of the Middle Ages combined the study
of the Creeds and the Fathers with that of the Scriptures
under the head of "Positive Theology," and so distinguished
the Theology based on the authority of Christ and His
Church, from the Scholastic Theology as systematised by
the Scholastic theologians in the use of the Aristotehan
philosophy. That distinction prevailed until the seven
teenth century; and it even survived that century in some
Protestant writers, and has continued among Roman Cath-
oUcs until the present day. Indeed, one of the most char
acteristic marks of a Liberal Catholic is his cultivation of
Positive Theology over against the Scholastic Theology.

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 7
At the Reformation the Reformers discarded the Scho
lastic Theology, and reverted to the Positive Theology, in
which they recognised the Scriptures as the only divine
authority, but the Creeds of the ancient Church as valid
summaries of the doctrines of Scripture; and in their sys
tems of doctrine they endeavoured to give the system of
doctrine taught in Holy Scripture. So Calvin sought his
material in the Bible; but his structural principle was not
the Aristotelian philosophy, but the order of the Apostles'
Creed, which he follows strictly, only making a fourfold
division instead of the traditional twelvefold.
The successors of the Reformers in the seventeenth cen
tury reintroduced the Aristotelian philosophy as the con
structive principle in their systems of Theology; and so
gave a newer Scholastic Theology in which they merged
the older Positive Theology. And so the distinction be
tween Positive and Scholastic Theology passed out of view.
The great Anglican theologians of the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries adhered to the Positive Theology of the
Creeds, though they made little use of the name.
The Theology of the ancient Church until John of Damascus was
Positive Theology without the use of the name; for it was essentially
the exposition and unfolding of the doctrines of the Canon of Holy
Scripture and of the Fathers. So, also, it continued to be used in the
West until the rise of Scholasticism. The study of Christian Theology
during all this period was the study of special doctrines such as came into
public discussion. The systematisation of Christian theology as Positive
Theology began in the cathedral schools during the twelfth century.
Ivo, Bishop of Chartres (t 1116 A. D.), in his Decretum, combines
a systematisation of canon law with Christian doctrine. Hildebert,
Archbishop of Tours (t 1134), in his tradatus theologicus, wrote the first
Latin system of doctrine. Abelard (t 1142), in his Sic et Non, massed
Biblical and Patristic authorities in evidence of Christian doctrines to
an extent unknown before. Turmel says: "Le 'Sic et Non' peut etre
considere comme la premiire synthese a peu pres complete de theologie
positive" {Histoire de la Theologie Positive, I:xxvi). The Sentences
of Peter Lombard (t 1160) are the culmination of Positive Theology
and the basis of Scholastic Theology. His contemporaries, Robert Pul-
lein and Baudin, use the same methods though with less success.

8 INTRODUCTION
Scholasticism now came in with the Aristotelian philosophy and,
under the spell of Albert the Great (f 1280), Bonaventura (t 1274), and
Thomas Aquinas (f 1274), dominated theology until the sixteenth cen
tury. Its power was broken by the Renaissance and Humanism. It
was characteristic of the Reformers, Roman Catholic and Protestant,
that they rejected the Scholastic method and reverted to Positive
Theology, although the term was seldom used. Melanchthon, who
first systematised Lutheran theology in his Jj^ci Communes, 1521,
rejects the Aristotelian philosophy and builds especially on the Epistle
to the Romans. Urbanus Rhegius issued his Symboli Christianas fidei
A-qkbiaiq in 1527 (English translation, 1543), in which he expounds the
Apostles' Creed as the Symbol of the Church, and then gives brief
Loci Communes in the method of Positive Theology.
Calvin's Institutes (1536) is the most important product of the Pos
itive Theology of the sixteenth century. Bullinger also, in his Summa
(1576), uses the same method; for his work is chiefly an exposition of the
Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the
Sacraments. Peter Martyr Vermigli, in his Common Places (1576; Eng.,
1583), and Nicholas Hemming, the Danish theologian, in his Way of Life
(1570; Eng., 1575), use the Biblical principle of the Law and the Gos
pel. The Roman Catholic theologians of the sixteenth century, espe
cially in Germany, also use the Positive Theology. Erasmus was the
great opponent of Scholastic Theology and one of the chief revivers
of the Positive Theology. He did enormous service by his editions of
the Greek Testament and of the Fathers. So Eck, the chief opponent
of Luther, in his Enchiridion, 1525 (said to have reached a forty-sixth
edition by 1576); Cropper, in his Institutio Catholica, 1565, and Hof-
meister, in his Loci Communes, 1547. The chief difference between
Protestants and Roman Catholics was in the emphasis upon the Scrip
tures by the Protestants and upon the Fathers by the Romanists.
In the meanwhile the term Symbol was used by many in the same
indefinite sense as in the Middle Ages. Thus Bullinger, in his Decades,
1583, uses symbola to comprehend, besides the three Creeds, the deci
sions of the Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, the First and Fourth of
Toledo, confessional extracts from Irenreus and Tertullian, the symbol
of Damasus, and the Decree of Gratian. J. Conrad, in his symbola
praecipua, 1583, adds to the three Creeds, the symbol of Damasus, the
Te Deum, the symbols of Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Con
stantinople (552 and 682), and other minor councils and confessions.
D. Lambert {Explicatio symboli apostolici, 1587) mentions as ortho-
doxorum patrum ac conciliorum quorumdam symbola, after Chalcedon,
the two Constantinopolitan decrees against Theodore and the Mono
thelites, and the edict of Justinian {ii. Walch, J. G., Bibliotheca Theo-
logica Selecta, 1757; I: 303-4, for this and others of a similar kind).

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 9
Symbol was also used in a still looser sense. Thus in 1622, at the
Jesuit University of Dillingen, three academical discussions were pub
lished: C. Paulus, Symbolum catholicum sive Pontificium collatum cum
symbolo apostolico; M. Riederer, Symbolum Lutheranum collatum cum
symbolo apostolico; M. Strigelius, Symbolum Calvinianum collatum
cum symbolo apostolico. These compare the characteristic doctrines
of the Pontifical, the Lutheran, and the Reformed with the Apostles'
Creed, and thus extend the term Symbol so as to virtually correspond
with Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Roman doctrines. So Klingius, in Loci
Communes (1662), uses symbola in a general sense for essential articles
of the Christian Faith. Similarly the Lutheran Rechenberg {Appen
dix Tripartita Isagogica, 1677-8, 1705), in his commentary on the
Apostles' Creed, gives it in order, "in sensu ecclesiae orthodoxae, in sensu
papaeo, in sensu reformatorum, in sensu Arminianorum, in sensu Socin-
ianorum." In the seventeenth century the scholastic methods again came into
use in both the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches, and pushed
Positive Theology into the background. The methods of Positive
Theology continued in the use of proof-texts and citations from the
Fathers; but the dominant method was the Scholastic.
Alsted, the encyclopsedist, in his Methodus sacrosandae theologiae, 1614,
still divides Didactic Theology into two parts. Positive and Scholastic,
the former based on Scripture, the latter arranging doctrines in sentences
by philosophy.
Olearius (1678) divides theology into four parts: Positive (based on
the Scriptures), Polemic, Exegetical, and Moral. But the term was also
attached to Polemic Theology by Ebart, J., Enchiridion theologia pos-
itiva polemica (1652, 1690^), and Kromayer, theologia positiva polemica
(1668). Ebart defines Positive Theology as that of the prophets and
apostles; it is the work of Polemics to defend it.
However, the Anglican theologians adhered to the methods of the
Positive Theology in their exposition of the Creeds and their emphasis
upon the study of the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Thomas Cartwright, the father of English Presbyterianism, in his
Christian Religion (1611, 1616^), arranges his material on the principle
of the Law and the Gospel, as did Vermigli and Hemming, and others
before him, but especially in the exposition of selected passages of Scrip
ture under each section. He was followed by the Puritans generally
in the use of the structural principle of the Covenants, which they sub
sequently transmitted to the school of Coccius in Holland.
The irenic efforts of Calixtus and his associates, and the Pietistic
movement of Spener and his disciples rejected the Scholastic method
and reverted to the historical and Biblical methods; but they seem not
to have employed the term Positive Theology. And so it passed out of

10 INTRODUCTION
use in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and has only been
revived in recent years by Roman CathoUc theologians (c/. Turmel,
Histoire de la Theologie Positive, 2 vols., 1906^).
Gradually the disciplines of Patristics, Symbolics, and Biblical Theol
ogy arose to take its place and to do its work more comprehensively
and thoroughly. The most important recent theological encyclopasdists,
such as Hagenbach, Kihn, and Schaff, ignore the discipline of Positive
Theology altogether.
§ 3. Particular Symbolics is the study of the Symbols of
the separate Churches of Christendom each by itself, in the
interest of the particular Church.
The great calamity of the division of Greek and Latin
Christianity was on ecclesiastical rather than on doctrinal
lines. The doctrinal differences, so far as they really ex
isted, were settled at the Council of Florence in 1439; and
it is only in the interest of the continuation of the separation
that any great importance can be attached to them.
The Greek Church adheres strictly to the one Symbol, the
Constantinopolitan form of the Nicene Creed, as interpreted
in the Chalcedonian formula. It felt no need of any other
Symbol until it was brought into conflict with the Churches
of the Reformation.
The Roman Catholic Church continued to issue defini
tions of Faith from the time of the separation from the
Greeks. There were ten ecumenical Councils between the
separation of East and West and the Reformation, the last
that of the Lateran, 1512-17, all of which in their doctrinal
decisions have hke symbolical authority. In addition to
these, provincial Councils, whose definitions have been ap
proved by the Popes, are authoritative, such as the Synod
of Orange, 529, which decided the doctrines in contro
versy between Augustinianism and Pelagianlsm and Semi-
Pelagianism; and the Synod of Rome, 1079, which com
pelled Berengarlus to sign a confession of faith In the doctrine
of the conversion of the elements in the Eucharist. All of
these were regarded as symbolical in the modern sense in
the West, whether the term symbol was attached to them or

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 11
not; but they were never adopted by the Greeks and Orien
tals, and so cannot be included under Fundamental Sym
bolics. The breaking up of the Western Church at the Reforma
tion resulted In the organisation of a great number of na
tional Churches over against the Roman Catholic Church,
which insisted upon being International or super national.
These national Churches issued official declarations of their
Faith, no longer in the form of Creeds, but as Confessions of
Faith, Articles of Religion, Catechisms, and other the like
documents. These were all ofiBcial decisions of particular
Churches and became the standards, or banners, of these
Churches in the ecclesiastical warfare that characterised the
sixteenth century.
It was maintained by all these Churches that their deci
sions expressed the doctrines of Scripture and that the op
posing statements of the other Churches were unscrlptural
and erroneous. The Roman CathoHcs alone recognised di
vine authority in the apostolic tradition expressed In the
teaching of the Fathers and the Creeds and the concihar
doctrinal decrees of the Church.
The Lutheran Churches asserted the Faith of the Refor
mation in the Augsburg Confession with Its Apology, com
posed by Melanchthon, 1530. The Smalcald Articles, 1537,
together with the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Luther,
were declared by the Form of Concord to be symbolical.
The Form of Concord was soon added to them by the very
fact that subscription was required to it in most Lutheran
countries; and so these all, with the ecumenical Creeds,
were united in the Book of Concord as the symbolical book
of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches.
The stricter Lutherans, toward the close of the sixteenth century,
felt the need of a more definite Rule of Faith; and so they began to
restrict the term Symbol to the ecumenical Creeds, and the official
Lutheran declaration of Faith. Accordingly the Form of Concord
(1578-80) declares the Augsburg Confession (1530), together with the
Apology and the Smalcald Articles (1537), to be "the Symbol of our

12 INTRODUCTION
Age," and the two Catechisms of Luther to be "the Bible of the laity"
{Epitome de compendiaria regula. III). The Formula of Concord itself
was soon added to them. Thus L. Hutter, in his Libri Christianae
concordiae (1608), takes for granted that it is a symbolical book; and
henceforth it closes the numerous collections of Symbols that were made,
the whole being combined in the Book of Concord. Carpzov, Isagoge
in libros ecclesiarum lutheranarum symbolicos (1665, 1675^, 1691'), gives
I, Tria symbola cecumenica; II, Augustanum confessionem ejusque Apolo-
giam; III, Articulos Smalcaldicos ; IV and V, Utrumque catechismum
Lutheri; VI, Formulam Concordiae. He defines the symbols as public
confessions of the Church, and distinguishes between the ecumenical
symbols, and those of particular churches. The Symbols of the Luth
erans thus became fixed in the Book of Concord until the present day.
The Reformed Churches produced a large number of
symbolical books In the different countries in which they
spread. The fundamental Symbols were the "Tetrapolltan
Confession" of Bucer and Capito, presented to the Diet of
Augsburg in 1530, and several local Symbols prepared by
Zwingll and Calvin.
The chief Reformed Confessions, however, are the "First
Helvetic" (1536), and the "Second Helvetic" (1566), the
"GalUcan" (1559), the "Belgic" (1561), the "Scottish"
(1560), the "Czengerine" (1570), and the "Declaration of
Thorn" (1645). The German Reformed have as their chief
Symbol the "Heidelberg Catechism" of 1563; but many
other smaller independent jurisdictions issued their par
ticular Symbols.
Salnar, in 1581, gathered the ten chief Symbols of the
Reformed Churches in his Harmonia confessionum fidei
(translated Into English in 1586 at Cambridge). The pur
pose of this collection Is clear from the title: to show the
essential unity of the Reformed Churches over against the
Roman CathoHc and Lutheran.
The unity of the Reformed Churches was broken on the
Continent by the conflict with Arminianism, decided by the
general Synod of the Reformed Churches at Dort, In 1618-9,
not only against Arminianism, but also for a Scholastic type
of theology to which many of the Reformed Churches would

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 13
not conform. Still later, In 1675, the Helvetic Consensus ruled
out of orthodoxy all liberal tendencies in Calvinism.
In the Reformed Churches the term Confession was usually employed
until quite recent times: e. g., Harmonia confessionum fidei, 1581
(English, 1586); Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum Fidei, 1612; Syl-
loge Confessionum, 1804. It is only in quite recent years that the term
Symbol has been used by Mess, J. J., Sammlung Symbolischer Bihher
der reformirten Kirche, 1828-46; Beck, F. A., Die Symbol. Biicher d.
Evang. Reform. Kirche, 1830; but the older term still prevails, as in the
collections of Niemeyer, 1840; Bockel, 1847; Heppe, 1860; Bode-
mann, 1867^; Maier, 1903.
The Church of England expressed her Faith In the " Forty-
two Articles of Religion" of 1553, and the "Thirty-nine"
of 1562.
The "Lambeth Articles" were drawn up In 1595, and the
"Irish Articles" were adopted by the convocation of the
Irish Episcopal Church in 1615. These were in the interest
of High Calvinism. They divided rather than harmonised
theological opinion, and did not attain any more than tem
porary symbohcal authority. They were, however, fa
voured by the Puritan party, and he at the basis of the
" Westminster Confession."
The unity of the Churches of Great Britain was broken
by the efforts of the Puritan party to bring these Churches
into closer conformity with the Reformed Churches of the
Continent, with the disparagement of the special features
of the Anglican type of Reformation.
The Westminster Assembly endeavoured to unite the
four nations, English, Welsh, Irish, and Scotch, about one
Confession of Faith, one form of worship, and one govern
ment and discipline; but in vain, because the Puritans
refused toleration to any other doctrines or Institutions but
their own. The inevitable result, therefore, was the split
ting up of the Church in these nations Into a number of
different denominations, which continue till the present day,
each one of them having its own Symbols of Faith.
The Roman Catholic Church rallied around the Canons

14 INTRODUCTION
and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 1563, and the Trlden-
tlne Confession of Faith of 1564. The dogmatic decrees of
the Council of the Vatican, 1870, constitute the latest sym
bol of the Roman Church. These decrees also extend sym
bolical character to definitions of faith and morals by the
popes ex cathedra, such as the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, 1854, of
Pius IX, which defined the doctrine of the immaculate con
ception of the Virgin.
It is only in quite recent times that Roman Catholic scholars, in
fluenced by Lutherans, have begun to collect the official doctrinal
decisions of the Church under the term Symbols; cf. Danz, J. L., Libri
Symbolici Ecclesice Romano-Catholicce, 1836; Streitwolf and Klener,
Libri Symbolici Ecclesias Catholicce, 1836-8. The most widely used is
Denzinger, H., Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum, 1900'. He does
not distinguish between symbols and definitions, but seems to use
them as synonymous terms.
It is indeed a moot question in the Roman Catholic Church where
exactly the line of infallibility is to be drawn. This situation justifies
to some degree the criticism of many Protestant scholars, that one
cannot be sure whether certain decisions have symbolical character
or not. At the same time the Roman Church does distinguish between
infallible doctrine and doctrine which is authoritative without being
infallible; and many Protestant scholars are in error in classifying the
Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, and other kindred documents, as symbolical.
I assert this on the authority of the best Roman theologians and canon
ists, and of Pope Pius X himself.
In Great Britain and America a large number of denom
inations have arisen from time to time, each of which has
its own standards or principles.
The Congregationalists, or Independents, and the Bap
tists agreed to the Westminster Confession In its doctrinal
parts, and only disagreed as to some Christian institutions.
Usually the local churches of the Congregationalists and
Baptists have their own confessions or Creeds, to which
their members subscribe at their reception Into full com
munion. However, the New England Churches issued the
"Cambridge Platform" in 1648, prepared by a Synod at
Cambridge, Mass.; and in 1658 the Congregational Churches

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 15
of England Issued a "Declaration of Faith and Order."
The English Baptists agreed upon a similar Confession In
1677, finally adopted in 1689, and agreed to by the Ameri
can Baptists at Philadelphia in 1742. The Methodists have
a revision and condensation of the "Articles of Religion"
as their Symbol, adopted at Baltimore in 1784. And so
other denominations have their Symbols of various kinds,
usually modifications of those already mentioned.
The study of the Articles of Religion has been cultivated
by Anglicans, and of the Westminster Confession by Presby
terians, and of the various other Symbols of other denom
inations by their representative divines; but little attention
has been given to the study of these Symbols in the Re
formed and Anglican Churches compared with the activity
on this subject among the Lutherans.
Alongside of the systems of doctrine, or newer Scholas
ticism of the seventeenth century, a study of the Symbols
of the particular Church arose, especially among the Ger
man Lutherans. At first there was a collecting of the Sym
bols of the Lutheran Churches; then a general account of
them was given in Introductions; and finally the theology
of these Symbols was given, at first by Rechenberg (1677),
and Sanden (1688). Thus the discipline of Particular Sym
bolics originated.
The literature of the Particular Symbols will be given in connection
with their study.
It is sufficient to mention the systematic works: KoUner, Symbolik
der lutherischen Kirche, 1837; Symbolik der romischen Kirche, 1844;
Klein, Zur kirchlichen Symbolik, 1846; Gass, Symbolik der griechischen
Kirche, 1872; Wendt, B., Symbolik der romisch-katholischen Kirche,
1880. § 4. Christian Polemics is the study of the differences of
the separated Churches, in order to maintain the special articles
of Faith of the particular Church over against all others. It
therefore emphasises the Dissensus of Christendom, and neg
lects the Consensus.

16 INTRODUCTION
The statement of the variant Faiths of the different
Churches gave rise to Polemics; and "Polemical Theology"
became a very important theological discipline In the seven
teenth century. Among the Reformed theologians the term
theologia elenchtica was preferred to that of polemica; but
the latter term ultimately prevailed. Both of these words
have become anglicised as polemical and elenctical; but the
latter is seldom used in our days. However, Francis Tur-
rettln's Institutio Theologiae Elenchticae was used as a text
book by Scotch and American Presbyterians as late as the
middle of the last century.
This Polemical Theology, which began with a mainte
nance of Symbolical doctrines, soon became the special
charge of the Scholastic divines; and thus was detached
from Positive Theology and Symbohcal Theology, and at
tached to Scholastic Theology.
"Polemics," rightly studied, should build upon the dis
sensus of the Symbols, and endeavour to maintain the
right of the particular Symbol of the religious denomina
tion to which the writer belongs against the supposed errors
of other particular Symbols.
As Kihn rightly says {Encyklopcedie der Theologie, a. 422): "The
motive, aim, and fundamental thought of controversial theology must
be love for the truth, and reconciliation therewith. Every other
Polemic is intolerance, inhumanity; yes, to quote Klee {Encyklop. s.
51), bestiality and diablery." But in fact, as Marheinecke says {Christ-
liche Symbolik, 1810, s. 46): "None of the older polemic divines has
represented the doctrine of his opponents justly and truly. All have
brought to every statement the prejudice of both the exclusive Tight
ness of their own and the absolute falseness of the other doctrine."
Polemics began In the sixteenth century with the great
battle of the Reformation between the Protestant Reformers
and the defenders of the Papacy. In the first stage of the
conflict Protestantism made constant victorious progress,
because of its appeal to Scripture and the fundamental Sym
bols over against the tradition and authority of the Church.
After the Council of Trent had made its decisions and

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 17
accomplished its reforms, and the Jesuit Order had estab
lished its great educational institutions, the tide of battle
changed, and the Counter Reformation gained a series of
important victories in all the Latin countries. South Ger
many, Poland, and Hungary, and seriously threatened
Protestantism in its chief centres. This was due to a great
extent to the reversion of Protestant divines on the Conti
nent to scholastic methods, in which they were easily ex
celled by their opponents; especially as the mystic element,
so prominent in the great mediaeval Scholastics, was absent
from them, and a hard and dry Intellectualism was unre
lieved by the warmth of emotion and the vital Impulses of
the higher religious life.
The conflict culminated in 1680-90 in a literary polemic,
probably the most extensive known in history, especially
in Great Britain. Protestantism beat back the papal army
from Great Britain, Scandinavia, North Germany, Holland,
and the greater part of Switzerland; and the lines of division
were estabhshed, which have remained In all essentials to the
present day.
A third period of conflict began with the Council of the
Vatican in 1870; but it was impossible to arouse much en
thusiasm. It was a scholars' war, in which the people had
no interest; and it soon exhausted itself. However, a very
extensive polemical literature was produced in a very few
years. Besides these great conflicts between the Papacy
and Protestantism, a polemic no less serious was carried on
between the Reformed and Lutheran on the Continent, and
also between the state Churches and dissenting theologians
and parties, especially in Holland and Great Britain. These
conflicts also produced an extensive polemical literature.
Moreover, all of these Churches and denominations waged
war against heresies and schisms of various kinds, which not
only separated from the national Churches, but abandoned
the basis of historical Christianity, and moved away into
tangential extremes of unchristian or antlchrlstian theory
and practice.

18 INTRODUCTION
The literature of Polemics is enormous. There is the great conflict
between Protestantism and the Roman Catholic theologians in general,
sometimes confined to specific doctrines, at others covering the whole
ground of difference. Then, again, each Protestant nation has its own
special polemic with Rome. The Polemic within Protestantism itself
is just as serious and extensive; on the Continent between the Lutheran
and Reformed, and in Great Britain between the Churches established
by law and the non-conforming and dissenting bodies. And there is
also the conflict of all the divisions of historical Christianity against
the numerous heresies and sects, ancient and modern.
The literature of the great conflicts since the Reformation will be
given in connection with the Symbols about which the conflict raged,
in our study of them in Comparative Symbolics. It will be sufficient
here to call attention to the different modes of polemic as indicated in
the titles of some of the most important volumes, published in the
different stages of the conflict.
(1) The emphasis in the sixteenth century was upon heresies,
schisms, and errors.
Lutzenburgus, B., catalogus hcereticorum, 1523.
Dietenberger, J., Phimostomus Scriptuariorum contra hsreticos, 1532.
Bullinger, H., de origine erroris, 1539, 1568.
Hosius, Treatise of the beginning cf heresies, 1565.
Barthlet, J., Pedigree of Heretiques, 1566.
Hessels, J., Confutatio cuisdem Hcereticos, 1567.
(2) A little later the method changed to a statement of differences,
or controversies.
Alberus, Erasmus, Unterschied d. Evangelischen u. Papistischen, 1539.
Pighius, Albertus, controverdae proecipuae, 1542.
BuUinger, H., Gegensatz evang. u. rom. Lehre, 1571.
Andrea, J., Von den Spaltungen, 1574.
Aspileneta, M., Enchiridion, sive Manuale Controversiarum, 1575.
Cunerus, P., Tract, de controversiis, 1583.
Coster, F., Enchiridion controversiarum, 1585.
Valentia, G., de rebus fidei hoc tempore controversis, 1591.
Huber, S., Gegensatz Luth. u. Calv. Lehr., 1592.
Vasquez, Controversiarum, 1595.
Osiander, L., Enchiridion Controversiarum, 1602-3; English, Manuell
or brief volume of Controversies of Religion between the Protestants
and the Papists, 1606.
(3) In the seventeenth century a milder spirit modifies the polemic
method, and the historical method conies into the field.
Bossuet, Histoire des Variations des Eglises Protestantes, 1688.
Du Pin, Histoire des Controverses, 1699.
Buddeus, J. F., Hist. u. Theol. Eirdeitung in d. Religionsstreitigkeiten,
1728.

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 19
Rambach, Hist. Eirdeitung in d. Streitigkeiten, 1738.
Baumgarten, Geschichte Religionsparteyen, 1766.
Dannenmayer, M., Hist, svccincta controversiarum, 1780.
(4) In the eighteenth century Polemics becomes a discipline, and
at first in the Reformed Chlirches.
Turrettin, F., Institutio theologiae elenchticae, 1682-8.
Fabricius, Disputatio de theologia elenchtica, 1702.
Bechmann, F., Theologia Polemica, 1719.
Bernhold, J. B., Compendium Polemicae, 1734.
Gerdes, Dan., Elenchus veritatum, circa quas defendendas versatur
theologia elenchtica, 1740.
Stapferus, J. F., Institutio theologiae polemicae, 1743.
Pichler, V., theologia polemica, 1746.
Schubert, J. E., Institutio theologiae polemicae, 1756.
Wyttenbach, Tlieologiae elenchticae initia, 1763-5.
(5) In the nineteenth century Polemics was little cultivated. We
may mention:
Hase, K., Handbuch d. prot. Polemik, 1865^, 1894«.
Tschackert, P., Evangelische Polemik, 1885, 1888^.
Accordingly Polemics, in the main, was unfruitful of good
and only productive of evil; because it was not based upon
valid distinctions, it was not carried on in the proper spirit,
and the methods were those of a special pleader who mag
nifies the differences and misrepresents the opponent, seek
ing for victory over the antagonist rather than for a vin
dication of the truth. It was only natural, therefore, that
this method should abandon the ground of Symbols, and
attach itself to the Scholastic Theology.
Thus Polemics became discredited, and in modern The
ology has been well-nigh abandoned. There is, however,
room for it, if it be carried on upon the basis of the Symbols
themselves, and especially after a thorough comparative
study of them, which has in a scholarly and unbiassed way
already made the discrimination between the concord and
the discord of Christendom; has already weighed each state
ment in the scales of accurate measurement in the due pro
portions of the theological system.
On this sound basis, with a conviction of the truth and
accuracy of the particular symbol, it is quite proper that it

20 INTRODUCTION
should be maintained in a dignified and scholarly way
against opposing statements; and these statements may be
critically examined and their errors exposed. It Is not prob
able, however, that Polemics will be much cultivated in this
generation; for there Is a remarkable lack of enthusiasm
for the differences between the religious bodies among
scholars really competent to distinguish them properly and
to maintain them.
§ 5. Christian Irenics is the study of the differences of the
separate Churches, in order to soke them and harmonise them.
It emphasises the consensus, and tends to depreciate the dis
sensus. Christian Irenics arose in opposition to Polemics. In the
early days of irenic effort, chiefly by men on the border
lines, where different denominations coexisted, many helpful
discriminations were made, which were of permanent use.
Irenic movements began in the period of the Reformation
itself. Martin Bucer and Philip Melanchthon were the chief
peacemakers on the Protestant side, John Gropper and
Julius v. Pflug on the side of Rome, in the early stages of the
Reformation, and many differences were resolved, especially
at Augsburg and Ratlsbon; but political and ecclesiastical
interests were in the way of any valid reconciliation.
Ferdinand of Austria encouraged Friedrich Nausea, and
especially George Witzel, a pupil of Erasmus, who in his
Methodus concordiae ecclesiasticae (1537) urged reforms in
doctrinal statements and ecclesiastical usages, and in his Via
Regia (1564) proposed the laying aside of scholastic dogma
tism and a return to the simplicity of doctrine and usage of
the early Church. The Roman Catholic George Cassander,
in his De officio (1561) and his Consultatio (1564), exposes in
a mild and gentle way the inconsistencies of the Protestant
Reformers. He considers the differences in an irenic spirit,
and makes useful proposals for reconciliation, especially in
the. doctrine of the Eucharist. The most important of these
are the following:

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 21
(1) The authority of Scripture and of apostolic tradition
as witnessed by the primitive Councils and Fathers; (2)
the jurisdiction of the Pope, restricted to the limits set
by Jesus Christ and the early Church; (3) the doctrinal
differences as adjusted by the conference at Ratlsbon; (4)
the Mass a remembrance and representation of the priest
hood and sacrifice of Christ continued in heaven.
These positions were adopted in all essentials by John
Forbes In 1620, in his Consider ationes modestae; and by
Grotlus In 1641, in his republication of Cassander with
annotations. Other efforts were made In the seventeenth century. The
most useful of these was probably that of Rupertus Mel-
denius. His golden sentence of peace, In necessariis unitas,
in mm necessariis libertas, in utrisque charitas, was taken from
Conrad Berg by Richard Baxter, and so became current in
the Anglo-Saxon world. *
His personality and residence have not been discovered, notwith
standing the researches of many scholars. His Parcenesis Votiva, issued
about 1626, is of extreme rarity. The copy I examined is in the Royal
Library of Berlin. The work gained recognition through the volume
of Conrad Berg, Praxis Catholica. This also I consulted in the same
library, which contains the only copy preserved, so far as I know, ex
cept one, which I was able to secure a short time ago, after hunting
for it many years.
The chief Irenic divine of the first quarter of the seven
teenth century was George Calixtus of Helmstadt, who sought
a basis for reunion In the Christian consensus of the first five
centuries. These men and their associates were called Syncre-
tists, because they sought to harmonise and combine the
doctrines of the different Churches in one. Their oppo
nents thought the differences irreconcilable, and so accused
them of indifference to the distinctive doctrines of these
Churches. But syncretism Is simply the combination of
* Briggs, Origin of the Phrase "In Necessariis Unitas," etc., Presbyterian
Bgvjew, July, 1887, pp. 496 seq.

22 INTRODUCTION
elements, or principles, in unity. All great religions are
syncretistic. And no union is possible without syncretism,
or combinations of some kind. Such syncretisms may be,
and often are, heterogeneous combinations, as in ancient
Gnostic sects, and their recent imitators. Other syncre
tisms underrate and neglect important differences. But
neither of these faults is inherent or necessarily involved in
irenic syncretisms.
John Dury, the great peacemaker of the middle of the
century, tried to rally the Christians of his time on what
he called Practical Theology; that is, such doctrines of Faith
and Morals as were not scholastic, but of practical impor
tance. *
A Professor of Aberdeen, toward the close of the century,
issued an anonymous tract called Comparative Theology, in
which he tried to get a basis for union In the theological
principles he determined in this way. His work had little
Influence In Great Britain, but it was reproduced in Hol
land, and was helpful there. These irenic movements were
still in the particularistic stage. They dealt with certain
prominent questions, but were not sufiiciently comprehen
sive. The questions neglected were raised up as obstacles
by their opponents. The pragmatic study of the concord
and discord of Christendom, and of the relative weight
and just proportion of the differences in the Positive The
ology of the Church, was necessary to successful irenic move
ment. Not until "Comparative Symbolics" had been
thoroughly studied could there be a sound Christian Irenic.
At the close of the seventeenth century there was a tre
mendous struggle for reunion all over the world. Theological
literature from 1680-1700 is for the most part either polemic
or irenic in that Interest. The most important irenic move
ment Is that headed on the Continent by the Roman Cath
olic, Spinola, General of the Franciscans, and the great
philosopher Leibnitz, sustained at one time by a Pope, the
* Briggs, The Work of John Durie; Presbyterian Review, April, 1887,
pp. 297 seq.

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 23
Curia at Rome, and a General of the Jesuits, but strangely
enough opposed by Bossuet and the Galilean party, largely
from political interests.
Many useful proposals were made and entertained at
Rome, such as (1) the use of the older term conversion rather
than the scholastic transubstantiation ; (2) that faith jus
tifies not absolutely, but as the root of all justification;
(3) the limitation of papal authority by a constitution, with
freedom for the different provinces of the Church in local
affairs. Though this irenic movement failed, the polemic also
failed; but they were both Instructive, and no one can
understand the real state of the controversy between Prot
estants and Rome unless he has thoroughly studied both
of these movements.
Some of the older writers distinguish between "Irenics"
and " Henotlcs." " Irenics " Is a plural of irenic, an adjective
from the Greek elpr]viic6<;, peaceful, pacific. "Henotlcs" is
a plural of henotic, from the Greek evaTiK6<s, serving to unite,
unifying. If we were strictly to adhere to the meaning of these terms,
"Irenics" would be the discipline that seeks to promote
peace and harmony among the religious bodies; and we
should have to use "Henotlcs" for the effort to promote
union. But henotic movements have absorbed irenic ones;
and so the term "Irenics" has come to be used to embrace
all movements for union as well as peace. And it Is cer
tainly best to combine them: for although many movements
for peace have been made, and still will continue to be made
without going any further, yet they are all, in fact, prepar
atory to the bringing about of that much greater and more
fruitful work, the Reunion of Christ's Church.
§ 6. Comparative Symbolics is the objective study of the
Symbols, either of some or of all the Christian Churches, in the
interest of historic truth and fact, to determine their historic
relations, their consensus and dissensus.

24 INTRODUCTION
The excesses of Polemic on the one hand, and the failures
of Irenic on the other, opened the eyes of scholars to the
necessity of a pragmatic study of the differences between
the Churches. This was begun by Planck in 1796. On
the basis of his work Marheinecke, in 1810, published the
first Christliche Symbolik; and Winer his useful compar
ative study In 1824, but without using the term Symbolics.
Mohler then came into the field, in 1832, with his Symbolik,
which determined the terminology of the disclphne subse
quently, although it was productive of a long controversy
in which many Christian scholars on all sides took part.
Thus as Polemic may be conducted with an irenic spirit,
and Irenic with a polemic spirit, so It Is difficult to maintain
the purely objective critical and historic study that Sym
bolik demands, and is easy to fall back into Polemics.
From that date the majority of writers on this subject
have used the term Symbolik, with or without appropriate
defining adjectives, and usually with explanatory sub-titles.
But a considerable number have continued to follow Planck
and Winer in the use of other terminology for the discipline.
J. G. Planck originated the department of Comparative Symbolics in
his Abriss einer historischen und vergleichenden Darstellung der dogma-
tischen Systems unserer verschiedenen christlichen Hauptpartheyen nach
ihren Grundbegriffen, ihren darav^ abgeleiieten Unterscheidungslehren
und ihren praktischen Folgen, 1796, 1822'.
The first to use the term Symholik for this discipline was P. Marhei
necke in his Christliche Symholik, oder historisch-kritische und dogmor-
tisch-komparative Darstellung des katholischen, lutherischen, reformirten
und Socinianischen Lehrbegriffs nebst einem Abriss der Lehre und Ver-
fassung der iihrigen occiderdalischen Religionspartheyen, wie auch der
griechischen Kirche, 1810-3. He states that he lectured for many
years on Planck's Abriss before he undertook this work of his life.
The first words of his Introduction are to the effect that Polemic
had battled itself to death, and now substantially, in another form,
had risen as Symbolics. Marheinecke was unable to complete this
extensive work; but he issued a complete outline: Institutiones Sym-
bolicae, 1812, 1830^ Charles Butler pubHshed his Historical and Lit
erary Account of the Formidaries, Confessions of Faith, or Symbolical
Books of the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Principal Protestant Churches,

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 25
1816. The material is chiefly historical; yet the purpose is a compar
ative study, and there is a concluding Essay on the Reunion of Chris
tians. J. G. B. Winer next published his useful Comparative Darstellung des
Lehrbegriffs der verschiedenen christlichen Kirchenparteien, 1824 (English,
1873; ed. Ewald, 1882).
J. A. Mohler now came into the field with his Symbolik, 1832 (18891";
English, 1843), which provoked a long controversy, but doubtless fixed
the terminology of the discipline. Unfortunately Mohler limits Sym
bolics to the differences of doctrine which arose in the Revolution of
the sixteenth century, as he calls it; and he devotes more than a quar
ter of his work to the sects, which he regards as legitimate children of
Protestantism. Many of the chief Protestant scholars regarded his
work as polemic rather than the irenic that he designed, and sharply
attacked it:
Marheinecke, Ueber Mohler' s Symbolik, 1833.
Baur, F. C, Gegensatz des Katholicismus und Protestantismus, 1834,
18362.
Nitzsch, C, Protestantische Beantwortung der Symbolik Mohler's, 1835.
Hase, K., Handbuch der protestantischen Polemik gegen die rtmisch-
hatholische Kirche, 1862, 1894«.
Neander, A., Katholicismus und Protestantismus, ed. Messner, 1863.
Mohler replied to Baur in Neuc Vntersitchungen, and Baur to Mohler
in Erwiederung auf Mohler, 1834, 1836. Other replies were also made :
(v. Friedrich, J., Mohler der Symboliher, 1894).
The influence of Mohler limited the discipline to the differences in
doctrine between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants among
most Roman Catholic scholars; whereas Protestant scholars use it in
the more comprehensive sense, and discuss the Symbols of all Chris
tian Churches.
The chief works on Comparative Symbolics, in addition to those
already mentioned, are the following:
(1) Those which use the term Comparative with various terms re
ferring to the Symbols:
Tafel, J. F., Vergleichende Darstellung und Beurtheilung der Lehrge-
gensatze der Katholiken und Protestanten, 1835.
Bodemann, F. W., Vergleichende Darstellung der Unterscheidungs
lehren der vier christlichen Hauptconfessionen, 1842, 1869^.
Schneckenburger, M., Vergleichende Darstellung des Lutherischen und
Reformirten Lehrbegriffs, 1855.
St. Aldegonde, M. de, Tableau des differends de la religion, 1857.
Sartorius, E., Vergleichende Wiirdigung evangelisch4utherischer und
romisch-katholischer Lehre, 1859.
Kattenbusch, F., Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Confessionskunde, 1, 1892.

26 INTRODUCTION
(2) Those which use the term Symbolik, either with or without the
use of the term Comparative in title or sub-title:
KoUner, E., Symbolik alter christlichen Confessionen, 1837-44.
Guericke, Allgemeine christliche Symholik, 1839, 186P.
Hilgers, B. J., Symbolische Theologie, oder die Lehrgegensatze des
Katholicismus und Protestantismus, 1841.
Buchmann, J., Popularsymbolik, oder vergleichende Darstellung der
Glaubensgegensatze zwischen Katholicismus und Protestantismus,
1850.
Baier, A. H., Symbolik der christlichen Confessionen und Religions-
partheien, 1853-4.
Matthes, K., Comparative Symbolik, 1854.
Hofmann, R., Symbolik, oder systematische Darstellung des symbol.
Lehrbegriffs der versehied. christi. Kirchen und namhaften Secten,
1857.
Karsten, H., Popvldre Symbolik, 1860-3.
Phtt, G., Grundriss der Symbolik, 1875, 1888^
Oehler, G. F., Lehrbuch der Symbolik, 1876, 1891=.
Scheele, K. H. G. v., Theologische Symbolik, 1877 (German, 1881);
also Symbolik, 1883, in Zockler's Handbooks.
Philippi, F. A., Symholik, 1883.
Gumlich, G. A., Kurzgefasste christliche Symbolik, 1889^, 1910^
Schmidt, H., Handbuch der Symbolik, 1890.
Miiller, E. F. K., Symbolik, Vergleichende Darstellung der christlichen
Hauptkirchen nach ihrem Grundzuge und ihren wesentlichen
Lebensausserungen, 1896.
Nosgen, K. F., Symbolik, 1897.
Burg, J., Symbolik, 1899.
Loofs, F., Symbolik, oder christliche Konfessionskunde, I, 1902.
Comparative Symbolics presupposes the preliminary study
of Fundamental Symbolics and Particular Symbolics. It
leaves out of view all the introductory historical questions
which belong to these preliminary parts of our discipline, In
order to devote itself to the subject-matter of doctrines of
Faith and Morals contained In these Symbols; and studies
these doctrines not so much in the structure and form of
the Symbols In which they are stated as In their relations
to each other, In the variant statements of the same doctrines,
and In their emphasis upon different doctrines : for the pur
pose of this study Is to ascertain how far there is agreement
and concord, and how far there is disagreement and discord.

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 27
These then are the three great divisions of Symbolics:
(1) Fundamental Symbolics, the study of the Ecumenical
Creeds and Concihar Decrees.
(2) Particular Symbolics, the study of the Symbols of the
particular Churches.
(3) Comparative Symbolics, the study of the Symbols In
order to determine their consensus and dissensus; and this
in three different Interests— the Polemic, the Irenic, and the
Pragmatic. § 7. Christian Symbolics limits itself to the Symbols of
Christian Churches, those that adhere to historical Christianity
and its fundamental Symbols. The doctrinal statements of
the various sects, which have separated from historical Chris
tianity and its fundamental Faith, cannot rightly be included in
this discipline.
The question necessarily arises as to the limits of the dis-
ciphne. There have always been sects of various kinds
which have arisen from time to time to take their place out
side of historic Christianity. Some of them are such hetero
geneous mixtures of Christianity with various philosophies,
or ethnic religions, that, like the Gnostic sects, they have
no right to the Christian name. Others, such as the Mon-
tanists and Donatlsts, adhered to the fundamental Faith of
the Church, and so remained Christian when they separated
from organic Christianity and thus lost their right to a part
in the Christian Church. Their special beliefs, whether
expressed In official documents or in the statements of their
Fathers, have never, so far as I know, been considered as
having a place in Christian Symbolics.
The same position must be taken consistently with re
gard to mediaeval and modern sects, some of which are truly
Christian, others not, as they have departed from the funda
mental Symbols and institutions of the Christian Church.
This is to treat them not unfairly, but In accordance with
the doctrines and institutions which are their distinctive
characteristics.

28 INTRODUCTION
All Symbols of Faith that are truly legitimate are based
upon the fundamental Symbols of the undivided Church.
If there should be any that depart from them, they cannot be
considered as legitimate Symbols of the Church. The same
is true of the fundamental institutions of the Church. If
any religious body rejects the Christian Sacraments or an
ordained ministry in apostolical succession, It may be Chris
tian in other respects, but it is not a part of the organism of
Christianity. The inclusion of the Faith of modern heretical sects in the discipline
of Symbols by many writers from various motives makes the limits of
the discipline altogether uncertain, because their number and variety
is much greater than that of the historic Churches. It is impracti
cable to state with sufficient thoroughness and accuracy their relation
to one another and to historical Christianity within the bounds of the
discipline. It is usually difficult to determine whether they have any
really official statements, or not. The definition of Sjrmbol has to be
made extremely elastic in order to include them. There is no pro
priety in including modern sects and excluding ancient and mediaeval
sects, especially if, as is often the case, they have really held to the same
things. The inclusion of the sects of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
in Comparative Symbolics tends insensibly to change the objective
treatment of the Symbols into Polemics, as was evident in the con
troversy originated by Mohler. On the other hand, it tends to confuse
the distinction between Church and sect, the legitimate Faith of the
Church and illegitimate forms. There is no valid reason to stop with
those sects that bear the name of Christian; for if you are to include
the Swedenborgians, Mormons, and Christian Scientists, there is no
valid reason why you should not consider also the Buddhists, Parsees,
Zoroastrians, and Mohammedans, as W. A. Curtis has done in his
History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith in Christendom and Beyond,
1911; and then we have passed from Comparative Christian Symbolics
into the more comprehensive field of Comparative Religion.
§ 8. Christian Symbolics is limited to the study of Symbols
of Faith. Christian Institutions developed side by side with
the Christian Faith, have their official statements, and may be
studied as fundamental, particular, and comparative institu
tions from the same points of view: yet the two departments

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 29
have usually been kept apart, and may be readily distinguished;
so that it is better to regard them as separate disciplines.
So long as the Symbols of Faith were considered by them
selves, it was quite easy to separate their study from that
of Christian Institutions; and the same situation continued,
though with some difficulty, when we had to consider the
particular Symbols of the Christian Churches on the Conti
nent of Europe, where the discipline of Symbolics arose, and
where alone it was studied until quite recent times. But so
soon as "Comparative Symbolics" came into the field for
serious and comprehensive study, the situation gradually
changed. So long as the comparison was chiefly between
the Lutheran and Reformed Symbols of the Continent, no
need was felt to go beyond the field of doctrine; because
institutional differences were shght, and of little comparative
importance. Even in the comparison of Roman with Prot
estant Symbols It was not difficult to confine the study to
doctrines of Faith and Morals, and to refer institutional dif
ferences to the disciplines of Liturgies and Church Law.
But when it came to a serious study of the differences be
tween the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches,
it became evident that the doctrinal differences were really
merged in the more Important institutional differences; and
so the three chief writers on Symbols of recent times — Kat-
tenbusch, Miiller, and Loofs— insist upon the inclusion of
institutions with doctrine in the discipline of Symbolics.
The probable reason why "Symbolics" has excited so
little interest in Great Britain and America is that the chief
differences between the religious denominations are not
doctrinal but institutional. The names of the Churches of
America, apart from those that originated on the Continent
of Europe and so are transplanted continental terms, are in
stitutional names: Protestant Episcopal, Presbyterian, Con
gregational, Baptist, Methodist, and the hke. The same is
true In common usage In Great Britain likewise. If there
fore any one wishes to make a comparative study of the
consensus and dissensus of British and American Christianity,

30 INTRODUCTION
he must pay more attention to rehgious institutions than
to doctrines of Faith and Morals.
Rehgious institutions, no less than doctrines, depend for
the most part upon official documents of the Churches.
Indeed, It has been quite common to include the Symbols
under Religious Institutions, as do Stanley and A. V. G.
Allen, making the latter the more comprehensive term.
From the point of view of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, there
is some justification for this. Rehgious institutions belong
to the rehgious life of the Church; Creeds and Confessions
of Faith to the doctrinal or more intellectual side of Chris
tianity; and Christian Ethics to the moral side. The three
departments may be distinguished, or combined, according
to circumstances. From the point of view of theological
encyclopaedia, they are sometimes combined and some
times distributed in different parts of the system. If the
comparative study of the consensus and dissensus of the
Churches Is the chief motive, they certainly belong together.
It will not do to classify all under Christian Institutions,
because the disclphne of Symbolics originated in Germany,
and has been cultivated chiefly there. It has won its right
by long study and an extensive literature; whereas the
comparative study of Christian institutions is quite recent.
Moreover the Creeds and Confessions are Institutional only
in part, so far as they are used in the institutions of worship,
government, and disclphne of the Church; whereas their
chief importance is In the intellectual sphere, as doctrines of
Faith. The question naturally arises whether we shall follow the
recent German writers on Symbohcs, and class Institutions
under that head.
The term Symbol has, for so many centuries, been asso
ciated with Creeds and official statements of the Faith of
the Church, that one hesitates to extend it so as to cover
rehgious institutions: and yet on the other hand there is
no reason, so far as the term Symbol itself is concerned, why
it should not be thus extended; for the credal statement is

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 31
no more a symbol, or badge, of a religious body than its
forms of worship, or its system of government. Moreover,
the Symbols of the Churches since the Reformation do, in
fact, include institutions as well as doctrines.
It is necessary, if we wish to know what any particular
Church stands for and what is the consensus of Christianity,
to study the Liturgies and Canons of the Church as well as
the Creeds and Confessions. It is, however, convenient to
treat of the Creeds in one course of instruction and of the
Institutions in another.
It would be much better, if scholars could agree upon some more
comprehensive term, such as Comparative Theology, to include both these
departments of study. It is noteworthy that Kattenbusch and Loofs,
both of whom published the first of their volumes on Symbolics years
ago, have not as yet been able to complete their work. The fact is
that they both overload their volumes with the study of Christian
Institutions, and they find that they have undertaken a much more
difficult task than they imagined. The discipline has been extended
so as to become impracticable, and the Institutions in Kattenbusch
crowd the Faith.
Christian Institutions have three great divisions: (1)
Institutions of Worship, (2) Institutions of Government and
Discipline, and (3) Institutions of Education. Institutions
of Worship have as their authority Liturgies and other
formulas of worship, usually studied under the head of Li
turgies. Institutions of Government and Discipline have
as their authority Canons of Councils treated usually under
the head of Church Government and Canon Law. The
usual classification of Liturgies and Canon Law under the
head of "Practical Theology" emphasises the practical side
of these great studies to the neglect of the historical and
systematic sides.
The same distinction between fundamental, particular, and
comparative must be made here as In the case of Symbols of
Faith. There are the fundamental Liturgies of the Chris
tian Church, and there are the fundamental Canons of Coun
cils, upon which all Christian Institution depends. There

32 INTRODUCTION
are also fundamental principles and methods of Christian
Education. When the Greek and Roman Churches separated, the
differences In Institution developed more rapidly than those
of doctrine, in the liturgies, ceremonies, and Canon Law of
the separated Churches.
The Protestant Reformation itself was due more to insti
tutional differences than to doctrinal ones; although after
the division more stress was laid upon the doctrinal In
controversy, not, indeed. In Great Britain, but on the Conti
nent of Europe. The Roman Catholic Church revised Its
Liturgy, and constrained all parts of the Church to the
Roman Breviary and the Roman Missal and ceremonial. The
Canon Law was also revised, and made of universal obliga
tion. Each of the Protestant Churches developed its own
peculiar Institutions. There is a group of Lutheran Litur
gies, another of Reformed Calvinistic Liturgies. Here the
Church of England makes a third group with its Book of
Common Prayer.
So also in canons of government and discipline we have
the Lutheran consistorial government, the Calvinistic pres-
byterial, and the Anglican episcopal governments, all with
canons, laws and rules of various kinds regulating them.
The types of Christian Education are also different, espe
cially for the training of the ministry.
The English Revolution left the Church of England In
the midst of a group of dissenting Churches, differing from
her as to worship and government in almost every variety
of conception, from the full liturgy of the Church of Eng
land, through the partial liturgy of the Church of Scotland,
to the entire absence of liturgy among several non-conform
ing bodies. The Baptists separate on the question of the
subjects of baptism and mode of baptism. The Quakers, or
Friends, celebrate the sacraments in spirit, but not in the
letter. Every variety of church government and church
law developed in different organisations, some of which
contend for their peculiarities as if they were the very es-

ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEFINITION 33
sence of divine Scriptural authority. Each one of these
denominations, each group of them, has its own particular
institutions of worship and of government, regulated by
official documents of these bodies, each requiring special
study by the adherents of the particular body.
We have finally the Comparative study of Institutions.
This study distinguishes first the primitive Christian Insti
tutions of the undivided Church from the particular Insti
tutions of the separate Churches. It then groups these
separate Churches, and classifies their liturgical books and
canons of law. Finally it seeks the consensus and dissensus
of Christendom in this regard.
The institutions of Christianity have, however, their doc
trinal principles, which give shape and organisation to them.
These doctrinal principles of Institutions must be consid
ered In Christian Symbolics, and it is not difficult to separate
them from the Institutions In which they are enveloped.
Thus the doctrine of the Eucharist is one thing, the
Eucharist as an institution expressing the doctrine Is another
thing. So the doctrine of the Holy Ministry is one thing,
the organisation of the Ministry Into an institution is an
other thing. The doctrine is the essential thing; its organ
ised expression, though highly important, is not so essen
tial. So the Roman Catholic Church limits infallibility to
doctrines of Faith and Morals, and excludes Christian Insti
tutions from infallibility. This fact alone is a sufficient
reason for the separation of them into different departments
of study.

PART I
FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
CHAPTER I
THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH
§ 1. There are three Creeds of the Church: the Apostles'
Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
The term Creed is from the initial Latin word, credo, I
believe. This singular was always used as the first word of
the Apostles' Creed, so far as we know; although there are
references to it by certain Latin writers, in which the plural
credimus is used.
The Nicene Creed, also, has the singular, credo, in the usage
of the Western Church; although there are not a few an
cient forms of it that use the plural; as was the case in the
original Greek Nicene Creed, TnuTevo/iev, and in the general
usage of the local creeds of the Eastern Churches. However,
examples of the use of the singular are known. The use of
the singular was doubtless due to the recitation of the Creed
in the ceremony of baptism, when the candidate was asked,
according to the ancient rituals, continued until the present
time in somewhat varying form: Credis in Deum Patrem
omnipotentemf with the answer: Credo. The question and
answer were usually uttered thrice for the three parts of the
Creed, once for each person of the Holy Trinity. The singu
lar. Credo, expresses therefore the personal faith. The plural
of the Nicene Creed expresses the common faith of the
Church. Where the singular is used, it must be regarded
34

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH 35
as the organic singular, the Church or congregation speak
ing in the consciousness of its unity as /.
The Athanasian Creed begins in a more dogmatic way,
and makes the personal or common faith objective, as the
Faith of the Church, which it is necessary to believe for
salvation. These three Creeds are the official Creeds of the Christian
Church, all three of Western Christendom; but the Greeks
and Orientals hmit themselves to the Nicene Creed, which
took up into itself earlier forms of the Apostles' Creed of
the' Eastern Churches, superseding It In baptismal as well
as in other liturgical uses. The Athanasian Creed is a
purely Western symbol, giving an interpretation of the
Nicene Creed In Western terminology; but there Is nothing
in it that is not in strict accordance with the Greek inter
pretation of the Creed of Nictea, except the filioque, where
the difference is more nominal than real.
These Creeds express officially the Faith of the Church in
that stage of development which had been reached at the
time they were composed: the Faith of the fundamental
centuries of the Christian Church, the heroic age of Chris
tianity, the age of the Fathers of the Church. The Faith
of that age, as expressed in its official Creeds, has always
been regarded as the fundamental Christian Faith of the
Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern Church.
§ 2. These three Creeds, like many other ancient documents,
bear names to which strictly they are not entitled, but which in a
more general sense are fully justified. They have not remained
in their original integrity, but have been enlarged and adapted
gradually in their public use. These changes have not impaired
their authority; for they have been officially recognised, and for
centuries established in tJie use of the Churches.
The Apostles' Creed was not composed by the Apostles,
but does in fact set forth the Apostolic Faith. We do not
know when the legend of apostolic authorship arose; but
it could not have been later than the third century, for

36 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
Rufinus, in his Commentary on the Creed of the last quarter
of the fourth century, says: "Our forefathers have handed
down to us the tradition." * This assignment of the Creed
to the Apostles corresponds with similar assignments of other
documents such as the Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles,
the Didascalia, the Constitution of the Apostles, and other
like primitive writings. There Is behind the legend the fact
that Tertulhan, Irenaeus, and all other early Christian writ
ers, regarded the Creed as apostohc in its statement of the
Christian Faith.
The Nicene Creed in its present form is an enlargement
and modification of the original Creed of Nicaea, as finally
adopted by the Council of Chalcedon; but essentially it is
the Creed of Nicaea.
The Athanasian Creed was not composed by Athanasius:
but it does set forth the Faith for which Athanasius stands
historically more than any other, although that Faith is
stated In a Western rather than an Alexandrian form, and
is nearer to Augustine than to Athanasius. Substantially
the names are justified, but not formally and technically.
No one of these Creeds Is in its original form. They have
been slightly modified and considerably enlarged, but the
additions and modifications do not in any way impair their
original meaning. They simply interpret, explain, and
unfold the Creeds, and state what had been the common
teaching of the Church from the beginning. Therefore they
were not questioned.
§ 3. The three Creeds have been studied in a very extensive
literature from the earliest to the present time.
In collections of Symbols and in Comparative Symbolics
they have been regarded as fundamental. In dogmatic
treatises, written by orthodox divines, they have been re
ferred to as authorities next to Holy Scripture. In Church
Histories they have received their historical position and
* Expos. Symb. Apost. II; v. Library of Nicene and Post-Nicme Fathers,
series 2, vol. Ill, p. 542.

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH 37
influence. In Pastoral Theology they have been considered
In connection with Catechetics and the Sacramental Liturgies.
Besides there Is an extensive special literature upon them.
In the ancient Church the chief writers on the Symbols
were Ambrose (t397), Rufinus (1410), Augustine (t430),
and Niceta, Bishop of Remeslana, early in the fifth century.
In the Middle Ages the writers on Positive Theology and
Scholastic Theology all used the three Creeds as fundamen
tal authorities. At the Reformation they were regarded as
second only to the Sacred Scriptures in authority. Eras
mus, Urbanus Rhegius, and Bullinger expounded the Apos
tles' Creed; Luther the Apostles' Creed, the Athanasian, and
the Te Deum; Melanchthon and Cruciger (f 1548) the Nicene
Creed. Calvin constructed his Institutes in the order of the
Apostles' Creed. Most of the Catechisms of the Reforma
tion included the exposition of the Apostles' Creed. In the
Church of England, Field (1581) and Bishop Hooper (1581)
wrote expositions of the Apostles' Creed.
In the first half of the seventeenth century In England
Perkins (1616) and Bifield (1626) expounded the Apostles'
Creed, and Archbishop Ussher wrote his monumental work
upon it (1647), giving a review and classification of the
different forms of the Symbol so far as known in his time.
On the Continent Parens expounded the Athanasian Creed
(1618); Cnoglerus (1606) and Vossius the three Creeds
(1642). In the last half of the century numerous writers appear,
among whom we may mention:
In England, J. Pearson, Bishop of Chester, who wrote
his standard Exposition of the Creed in 1659, bringing to
gether a mass of historical Information from a large number
of ancient writers. His work passed through many editions
(1692«, 1701', 1830, 1847, 1850, 1859 +), and Is still a text
book In Anglican theological schools. I may also mention
Heylyn (1673), and Barrow on the Apostles' Creed (Works,
1683, 1700, 1830 -t-); G. BuU on the Nicene Creed (1687,
1851); and John Wallis on the Athanasian (1691).

38 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
On the Continent, Witsius (1681, 1697) and Tentzel (1692)
wrote on the Apostles' Creed; Baler on the Nicene (1695);
Montfaucon (1698) on the Athanasian; and Heidegger on
the three Creeds (1675-80).
In the eighteenth century the chief work was that of
P. King on the History of the Apostles' Creed, interpreting
it in relation to the heresies of the times (1702, 1719*) ; and
D. Wateriand on the Athanasian Creed (1723, 1728; Works,
1843^ 1870).
On the Continent the three Creeds were discussed by
C. G. F. Walch (1770), J. E. I. Walch (1772). Fecht (1711),
Ittig (1712), Sulcer (1718), and Holsten (1748) wrote on
the Nicene Creed and SperonI (1750) on the Athanasian.
In the early nineteenth century several works appeared
on the Apostles' Creed: Schwab (1828), Rudelbach (1844),
Meyers (1849), all in Germany; and in England, Radcliffe
on the Creed of Athanasius (1844).
In the middle of the century great interest in the Creeds
became manifest, and numerous scholars wrote on the sub
ject in Great Britain: on the Creeds in general, (1) Ham
mond (1850); (2) Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica (1854,
1858), De Fide et Symbolo (1869, Enghsh 1886), History of
Earlier Formularies of Faith (1892); (3) Swainson, Creeds
of the Church (1858), Nicene and Apostles' Creeds (1875); (4)
Harvey, History and Theology of the Three Creeds (1854).
On the Continent, also, there was a revived Interest. Cas-
pari, in his thoroughgoing researches into the origin of the
Apostles' Creed, put the whole subject on a new basis. His
works are monumental in character: Ungedruckte, unbeach-
tete, und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Tauf-
symbols, 3 Bde. (1866-75); Alte und Neue Quellen (1879).
Von Zezschwitz, in his System der christlichen Katechetik
(1863-9), also gave valuable work, especially on the prac
tical side. In France, Nicolas (1867) discussed the Apos
tles' Creed, and Revlllant that of Nlctea (1867).
In 1872 Lisco made an attack upon the Apostles' Creed,
which greatly agitated Germany, and called forth much dis-

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH 39
cusslon, in which many eminent divines took part, especially
in favour of the Creed; among whom we may mention
Semisch, Zockler, Gass (1872), Mucke (1873), Von der Goltz
(1873), Harnack, A. (1877), Ernesti (1878^), Hahn (1877^,
1897^). The conflict was renewed. In 1892, by Harnack's Das
Apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, which stirred up a wide
spread discussion by Zahn (1893, trans. 1899), Baumer
(1893), Bernoulh (1896), Kunze (1898), and especially Kat
tenbusch, who, building on Casparl, yet greatly advanced
the historic exposition of the Creed: Das Apostolische Sym
bolum (1894, 1900^, 1904); Beitrdge zur Geschichte des alt-
kirchlichen Taufsymbols (1892); Zur Wiirdigung des Aposto-
likums (1892).
The discussion in Germany had to do almost exclusively
with the Apostles' Creed, whereas in England and America
the discussion embraced all the Creeds. In great measure
the discussion In England was independent of that on the
Continent until Harnack's time, but the Anglican divines
have come into the field against him. The earlier discus
sions in England were more in the interest of Catholicity.
Discussion of the Creeds In general has been made by Lumby,
History of the Creeds (1873, 18873); Hort, F. J. A., Two
Dissertations (1876), and Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (1877,
1890^. The Athanasian Creed has been especially con
sidered because of the objections to Its use in the Anglican
Liturgy: by Stanley, A. P. (1871); Ffoulkes, E. S. (1872);
Hardy (1873), and Richey (1884). Since 1892 important
work has been done especially by Burn, A. E., Introduction
to the Creeds (1899), Nicene Creed (1909); Bindley, T. H.,
(Ecumenical Documents of the Faith (1899, 1906^); Wm.
Sanday, In Journal of Theological Studies (1899); McGiffert,
A. C, The Apostles' Creed (1902); Swete, H. B., The Apos
tles' Creed (1899, 1905).

CHAPTER II
THE APOSTLES' CREED
§ 1. The Apostles' Creed in its present form may be traced
to about 700 A.D., about which time it was probably revised
officially in Rome. An earlier form is quoted by several writers
of the fourth century.
Pirminlus, a Benedictine missionary of the middle of the
eighth century. Abbot of Reichenau, quotes it In modern
form (Dicta Abbatis Pirminii). It Is also given in this same
form In the Psalter of Gregory III (731-741).*
Rufinus, a priest of Aquilela, wrote a Commentary on the
Creed {Expositio Symboli Apostolici), in the last quarter of
the fourth century. In which he compares the Creed of Rome
with the Creed of Aquileia. He says that all candidates
for baptism were required to recite it publicly, and that no
alterations were allowed. The form had doubtless been
fixed, and as it were stereotyped, officially In Rome. A
Greek form of the same Creed Is given by Marcellus of
Ancyra (337-341). This form is also confirmed by the com
mentaries of Ambrose and Augustine, by the Psalter of
iEthelstan, and by other witnesses {v. Schaff II, pp. 47-48;
Burn, p. 200).
§ 2. The Apostles' Creed may be traced to the middle of the
second century by distinct references to it in Irenasus and Ter
tullian. The reason that the Apostles' Creed does not appear in
* For details of evidence v. Caspari, Anecdota, p. 151; Burn, Intro
duction to the Creeds, pp. 233 seq. For the text in Latin, Greek, and
English V. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II, p. 45; for the Latin text
V, Burn, p. 240. 40

THE apostles' CREED 41
literature is supposed to be the necessity that the Church
was under, in times of persecution, of keeping secret her
essential institutions. The Creed as a symbol, used In the
ceremony of baptism, would thus be kept secret. The only
references to it that one can expect are references to its state
ments of Faith, and these not such as to give the exact
formula. Nevertheless there are phrases of the Creed that seem to
be so fixed In usage as to imply that they were well-known
forms of words. It seems probable that in Rome about the
middle of the second century the Creed was revised Into
the form which underlies the statements of the writers of
the second and third centuries. Many attempts have been
made to ascertain the exact form of the Creed of the second
century on the basis of three references to it in Irenaeus
(c. 180 A.D. Adv. Hcereses, I : lOS III : 4}- ', IV : 330 ; and
three in Tertullian (c. 200 A.D. De Virginibus Velandis, 1 ;
Adv. Praxeam, 2; De Prcescript. Hceret. 13); confirmed by
Cyprian (c. 250 A.D. Ep. 69, 70), Origen (c. 230 A.D.
De Principiis, 1 : 4-6), and the numerous Eastern Creeds.
There are differences as to details, but general agreement as
to most articles.
The following arrangement of the Creed exhibits Its three
stages of development according to my opinion. The form
of the second century is given In small capitals, additions
of the fourth century in italics, those of the seventh century
in ordinary type. The words in brackets were omitted in
later forms.
The Apostles' Creed
I believe I. In [one] God the Father Almighty, Maker
of heaven and earth:
II. 1 — ^And in Jesus Christ [God's Son], His only Son,
OUR Lord :
2 — Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of
THE Virgin Mary:

42 fundamental symbolics
3— Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was cruci
fied, dead, and buried: He descended Into
hell:
4— The third day [risen] He rose again from the
dead:
5 — He ascended into heaven:
6— And [seated] sitteth on the right hand of God
the Father Almighty :
7 — From thence He shall come to judge the
quick and the dead.
III. 1 — [And] in the Holy Ghost:
2 — The Holy cathoHc Church, the communion
of saints:
3 — ^The forgiveness of sins:
4 — The Resurrection of the [flesh] body, and
the life everlasting. Amen.
§ 3. The Apostles' Creed originated on the basis of the
triune formula of baptism, and the necessity for a baptismal
profession of faith. The triune original expanded into twelve
articles, in order to express the six saving acts of Jesus Christ,
and the three of the Holy Spirit.
The formula of baptism was originally, into My name, the
name of Jesus Christ, Acts 2'*, 10**; the name of the Lord
Jesus, Acts 8'^ 19*; into Christ Jesus, Rom. 6'; into Christ,
Gal. 3^'; into the name of the Lord, Didache 11, Hermas
(yis. Ill : 7); into the name of the Son of God, Hermas {Sim.
IX: 13, 16, 17). But the Didache 7 gives the triune for
mula based on Matthew, which throws it back Into the first
century; and there Is no reason to doubt that it was original
in our Gospel of Matthew, and that it represents Christian
usage of the last quarter of the first century.* The two
formulas existed side by side through the second century.
The shorter one was defended as valid by St. Ambrose, St.
* V. Briggs, Apostolic Commission, in Studies in Honour of Basil L.
Gildersleeve, 1902, pp. 1-18.

the apostles' creed 43
Thomas Aquinas, and other Fathers and Doctors of the
Church, and has always been so recognised.
It is evident from the statements of the New Testament
that a confession of faith in Jesus Christ was necessary In
order to baptism. The primitive Christians were also Jews.
The fundamental Faith of Israel was the Unity of God. For
Jews who became Christians, that was presupposed; but
when converts were made from among the Gentiles, it was
necessary that they should confess the Unity of God as well
as the Messiahship of Jesus. Furthermore, faith In the Holy
Spirit was required in order to baptism, as is evident from
Acts 19^"'; cf. John 3' seq., and the formula of baptism,
Mt. 28'8.
Thus we have in the New Testament clear evidence as
to the three constituents of the Creed:
(1) The one God, Yahweh, of the Old Testament religion.
(2) Jesus as Lord, Christ, Son of God.
(3) The Holy Spirit.
And so we may say that all candidates for baptism In
apostolic times must have professed their faith in these three
essential doctrines of the Christian religion. These three
things constitute the Creed, and all else is a development
of these three elements.
The most ancient Creed known, apart from the old Roman
Creed, is the short Creed of the Church of Jerusalem (Cyril,
Cat. XIX) : Triarevco ew rbv iraTepa^ ical et? tov vlov, koI et? to
TTvevfia TO ayioVj ical et? ev /SctTTTta/Ma fieTavoia<;.
This the candidate for baptism said, according to Cyril.
The fourth item simply gives what was required for bap
tism by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost, and what has
always been required, namely, repentance in order to remis
sion of sins.
Therefore we may go back of the Creed of the second
century to an original Christian Creed of the first century,
which simply contained a Trinitarian Creed:
•mcTTeva)
I. et? 'iva @eov iravTOKpaTopa^

44 fundamental symbolics
II. Kal et? 'Irjaovv 'K.picrTov ©eoO viov awTrjpa^
III. ical et? TO a<yiov TrveO/xa.
The first clause expresses the unity of God. UavTo/cpaTopa
= mxas is used instead of ^1^^ Yahweh, Lord; because
Lord had become a special title of Christ among primitive
Christians. The second clause is the phrase of the symbol of the Fish,
IX@T2: 'Ir]aov^ XptcrTo? 0eot) Tto? Swtjj/j = Jesus Christ,
God's Son, Saviour, the secret symbol and token of the prim
itive Christians. The term Saviour was subsequently ex
panded into the six saving acts of Jesus.
The third clause expresses faith In the Holy Spirit, which
was subsequently expanded Into the three saving acts of the
divine Spirit In the organisation and guidance of the Church,
in the remission of sins at baptism, and in the final resurrec
tion of the body.
§ 4. The first article of the Creed was originally a confession
of faith in the one personal God of the Old Testament, and all
that was implied therein. Father was inserted in the apostolic
age in the Christian sense of the Father of Jesus Christ. Maker
of Heaven and earth was finally added to emphasise the doc
trine of creation.
The first article of the Creed Is based on the jJDty (Deut.
6*'0, so called from Its initial Hebrew word: mn'' ^Slti''' JJQ^
la's: ^7331 •]2:ib ^D2 ynba nin> nx nansi im mn'' i^n^x
This was followed by vv. 6-9, and then by Deut. ips-zi
and Num. 15"-*i. This Shema was the Confession of Faith,
the Creed of Israel, said at morning and evening worship,
with appropriate prayers of the nature of ascriptions to
God, called Benedictions. Josephus {Ant. 4*' ^^) testifies
that this was the custom among the Jews from remote
antiquity, therefore undoubtedly in the time of Jesus and
of Jesus Himself.
Jesus attests the Shema (Mark 1228-30). There can be no
doubt as to the meaning of this Creed to Him and to His

THE apostles' CREED 45
apostles: (1) It asserts that the God of the Old Testa
ment was really God, excluding every kind of Atheism; (2)
that He was the one only God, excluding Polytheism; (3)
that He was the personal God of Israel, excluding Pantheism;
(4) that love was the most important relation between God
and His people as moral beings.
This fundamental faith of Israel was implied in all Jewish
converts to Christianity, and so In all Gentiles who became
Christians. It was then necessary that it should be put Into
a Christian form. The formula which would have come over
from Judaism was: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is One. This
was transformed into the personal relation: / believe in one
God, Yahweh. Yahweh, in the time of Jesus, was a secret
name; not used, but always represented by Lord, as in the
citation by Jesus, in the Greek version by Ki;/3io?, In the
Hebrew by ""ilt^. But the term Lord was so attached to
Jesus Christ by His disciples, that It was not used for the
God of Israel In the Pauline Epistles, except in citation
from the Old Testament.* Accordingly another term was
necessary to indicate the God of the Old Testament. The
most natural one was mtOX, which is usually associated
with mn'' in the Prophets, and which had itself become a
proper name.f This was favoured by Its use In the New
Testament: transliterated In Rom. 9^^ James 5*, and trans
lated iravTOKpaTcop, II Cor. e^*; Rev. 1*, 4*, 11", 15^, W- ",
19^''^, !2P2. Accordingly, we have in the Christian Creed
et? eva @€ov iravTOKpaTopa. The Greek word, which means
all ruler, does not express the exact sense of the original
Hebrew, God of Hosts or armies: the Latin omnipotentem
and the English Almighty also give variant conceptions. It
is easy to draw nice distinctions between these terms, but
without any advantage, for in fact iravTOKpaTopa In the Creed
was nothing more than a proper name to identify the God
of the Christian with Yahweh Sabaoth of the Hebrews.
* V. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 86-87.
t V. my article in Robinson's Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, new edition,
BDB.

46 fundamental symbolics
In the baptismal formula the phrase was into the name of
the Father. It was inevitable therefore that Father should
appear in the Creed soon after the baptismal formula ap
peared in Matthew and the Didache. There can be no doubt
as to the meaning of Father In the baptismal formula, and It
is improbable that It would be used In the Creed in any
other sense. It is Father of Jesus Christ, His only Son, and
so it has always been understood in the Creed. As the one
God Sabaoth implied the entire Old Testament doctrine of
God, so the term Father Implies all that was additional in
the New Testament doctrine of God.
The Creed of the fourth century has no longer one God
but only God; probably because it was not necessary at that
time to emphasise the unity of God over against polytheism,
and in order to avoid a misinterpretation of this article of
the Creed In the Interests of Monarchianism and Arianism.
The phrase Maker of heaven and earth was not in the Creed
of the fourth century, but is found in Creeds of the eighth
century; probably owing to the Influence of Eastern Creeds,
and in order to emphasise the doctrine of creation.
§ 5. The second article of the Creed expresses faith in Jesus
as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and as the Son of God and
Lord God of the New Testament.
It is altogether probable that the original form of this
article corresponded with the meaning of the symbol of the
Fish: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.
It Is Improbable that these two formulas, that of the Creed
and that of the Fish, identical in meaning, were different
in form when they both were secret symbols; for the mem
ory, especially that of untrained people, would have been
confused by even slight verbal differences. The crwTripa
was omitted when the salvation was described In the six
subordinate articles that follow, and the more comprehensive
our Lord was put In Its place. All this is simply the putting
together of the most characteristic titles of Jesus ascribed
to Him in the New Testament.

THE apostles' creed 47
The fundamental confession of faith Is that of St. Peter,
the spokesman of the apostles. This Is given In the four
Gospels in the simplest and original form: Thou art the
Messiah (Mark 8^').
The Book of Acts and the Epistles have a large number
of passages, which clearly show that salvation in apostolic
preaching depended simply upon believing that Jesus was
the Messiah, Son of God, Lord, Saviour (Acts 2=6-38, 5", 8",
920, 1631; I Cor. 123; j^om. iq'""; I John 4"^, 51- ''). These
terms all came into the Creed.
(1) Jesus Christ.
The name Jesus was the proper name of Jesus of Nazareth,
given Him at His birth (Luke 2^'), and explained thus: "For
it is He that shall save His people from their sins" (Mt. l^^).
Doubtless therefore it had the meaning of Samour: but in
fact it is used in the New Testament and subsequently as a
proper name; and when it is necessary to distinguish the
Lord Jesus from others of the same name. He is called Jesus
of Nazareth. The term Christ is a transliteration of the
Greek Xpia-TO';, a translation of the Hebrew fT'tl'D, Messiah.
This means properly one anointed by a religious ceremony to
a holy office. It came to be attached in Jewish usage to the
one predicted by the Old Testament prophets, sometimes
as Son of David, sometimes as a prophet {cf. Mt. 16*3"").
It is evident from the New Testament that the apostles
regarded Jesus as the Messiah of Prophecy.*
There can be no doubt that the early Christians at Rome,
as elsewhere, constituted a Messianic community; and that
when they said, I believe in Jesus Christ, they meant that
they believed that Jesics was the Christ, the Messiah of Old
Testament prophecy.
(2) The second item in this clause of the Creed was
orlginaUy God's Son, in accordance with the symbol of the
Fish. The order of the two words was changed from that
of the symbol of the Fish to the usual order of the New Tes-
* V. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, Messiah of the Gospels, and Mes
siah of the Apostles.

48 fundamental symbolics
tament in the Creed of the second century. The term Son of
God was primarily a Messianic title (Ex. <P'^-^; Deut. 32" seq.;
II Sam. 7""!''.* Probably it has this sense in Mark 1" and
Mt. 26^''^. But It Is evident that the term rises in the
Gospels to the higher sense of divinity, In the loglon, Luke
1022= Mt. ipr^ g^jj(j especially In the phrase Son of the Father,
characteristic of the Gospel of John.f The pre-existence
of, Christ Is plainly taught in several Epistles of St. Paul,
and Is definitely attached to the term Son of God in Col. P^.
In the Gospel of Mark, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
Revelation, the Son of God is Identified with Yahweh, the
personal name of God of the Old Testament (Mark P-';
Heb. 11 seq.; Rev. V^-^^.t
During the period of the conflict with the Modallsts the
Son of God was changed Into His Son, in order to make it
clear that Jesus Christ was the Son of the Father of the first
article, and so to exclude the Medalists.
The Church in the second and third centuries was troubled
by heretical teachers, who in their doctrine of Christ were
essentially unitarian. They are named Monarchians by Ter
tullian. He says: "They are constantly throwing out the
accusation that we preach two gods, and three gods . . . ' We
hold,' they say, 'the monarchy.'" {Adv. Prax. 3). There
were two kinds of these Monarchians, the dynamic and the
modalistic. The dynamic originated In Asia Minor, in reac
tion against the Montanlsts. The chief representatives of
these were excommunicated: Theodotus, the Currier, by
Pope Victor (c. 195 A.D.), and Artemon by Pope Zephyrl-
nus (c. 240). The ablest representative of this School was
Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antloch, excommunicated by a
Council In Antloch (c. 268). These regarded the Son of
God as simply a divinely Inhabited man.
The Medalists were much more powerful and influential;
* V. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 101 seq., 127.
t V. Briggs, Incarnation of the Lord, pp. 33 seq.
t V. Briggs, Incarnation, pp. 175 seq.; and Messiah of the Apostles,
pp. 442 seq.

the apostles' creed 49
as they were not only concerned to maintain the unity of
God, but also the divinity of Jesus Christ. According to
Tertullian, Praxeas was the first to import this heros.y Into
Rome. "He drove out the Paraclete and crucified the
Father" {Adv. Prax. 1). They were called Patripassians,
because they made Father, Son, and Spirit only different
manifestations of the One God; and so It was the Father
who suffered In the Son. The chief Medalist at the begin
ning of the third century was Sabellius, who indeed gave his
name to this form of heresy. The term Son of God In the
Creed might be interpreted by the Medalists In accordance
with these views; but it was much more difficult to so ex
plain His Son, that is, the Son of the Father of the first
article. In the Creed of the fourth century the term tov fiovoyevi],
the only begotten, appears attached to His Son. This doubt
less was inserted owing to the infiuence of Eastern Creeds,
on the basis of the Gospel of John (P*), to exclude not only
Modalism but Arianism. This designation of the Son as
tlie only begotten emphasises His uniqueness not only as the
only Son, but also as a begotten Son and therefore not an
adopted Son, or a manifestation of God as Son. It excludes
both kinds of Monarchianism. It represents that Jesus is
the Son of God in the highest sense as begotten, and not made
or created, and as having therefore the same nature, being,
and substance as the Father who begot Him. It therefore
excludes Arianism as well.*
(3) Our Lord.
This was in the Creed of the fourth century, and also in
that of the second century according to all the chief writers
on the Creed. The originality of our Lord in the Creed is
strongly favoured by the usage of the New Testament and
the chief writers of the second century, who use Lord in the
sense of Lord God for Jesus Christ, rather than for God the
Father {v. p. 102). In Latin writers, under the influence of
* V. the fuller discussion in chapter III, in the study of the Nicene
Creed; also Briggs, Fundamental Christian Faith, pp. 226 seq.

50 fundamental symbolics
Augustine (f 430) and his emphasis upon the sovereignty of
God, Lord Is seldom used for Jesus Christ, but more commonly
for God the Father. In the Athanasian Creed Lordship Is
ascribed to the three Persons of the Trinity in the same
sense. It is difficult to see what motive could have induced
the Insertion of Lord in the second article of the Creed later
than the second century. Furthermore Lord is in all the
primitive Eastern Creeds.
The term Lord is in itself an indefinite term, and has a
variety of meanings; but there can be no doubt that It is
used in the sense of divinity, when applied to Jesus In the
New Testament and early Christian writers, on the basis of
the custom of Hellenistic and Palestinian Jews alike, of using
Lord for the Yahweh of the Old Testament. We may refer
especially to the confession of St. Thomas, John. 20^8; the
words of St. Peter, Acts 2="; the teaching of St. Paul, I Cor.
8^-6, Phil. 25-11, and his salutations, Rom. V, Gal. P, Eph. P,
and to numerous other passages. The three terms advance
to a climax:
(1) The Christ, the Messiah of the Old Testament and
of Jewish expectation;
(2) The Son of God, the only begotten and pre-existent
Son of the Father of the New Testament;
(3) The Lord God, the revealer of the Father, both as the
Yahweh of the Old Testament and as the supreme Lord
of the New Testament.
§ 6. The term Saviour of the Symbol of the Fish, and pre
sumably of a very early form of the second article of the Creed,
was explained in six following articles by six successive saving
acts of the Son of God.
Articles III-VIII of the Apostles' Creed received minor
modifications in its historic use, but these six articles were
all there without doubt early in the second Christian century.
It Is altogether probable that they all came into the Creed at
the same time; for It is difficult to see how any early Chris
tian, who undertook to give a complete statement of the

THE apostles' CREED 51
redemptive acts of Jesus, could have omitted anyone of them.
It is true that one finds In the New Testament and Christian
writers of the second century not infrequently two or more of
them and seldom the entire six in any one statement; but
these writers, with the exception of Irenaeus and Tertullian,
did not give credal statements, but only used such of the
redemptive acts of Jesus as suited their purpose at the time.
Even Irenaeus {Adv. Hcer. 1 : 10), in his statement of the
Christian Faith, omits the Session at the right hand of the
Father; but that is implied between the Ascension and the
Second Advent, as usually in the New Testament. Justin
Martyr gives 1, 2, 3, and 4 together thrice In the same order
{Apology, 21, 46; Dialogue with Trypho, 63), but 5 and 6
elsewhere. Indeed emphasis upon these is characteristic of
his dialogue with Trypho throughout. There can be no
doubt that Ignatius gives all six in his epistles as essential
Christian doctrines, although only 1, 2, 3 in the order of the
Creed (Ep. Smyr. 1).
St. Peter in his preaching emphasised the resurrection of
Christ, but also 2, 4, 5, 6, all but the Virgin birth, which was
omitted for valid reasons, to be given later (Acts I21-32, 222 seq.,
520-21 j^ ^_ p 55) _ gt_ Paul also regarded the resurrection as
the fundamental principle of his teaching (I Cor. I51 seq.);
but all of the six saving acts of Christ stand out prominently
in his teaching except the Virgin birth, for which, however,
other terms are used {v. p. 56). All of them are not given
in any one passage; but there are several groups: 2, 3 (Rom.
6* seq.), 1, 2, 4, 5 (Phil. 2^ seq.; cf. I Tim. 3i« for a credal
hymn). In the writings ascribed to St. John the doctrine
of the Incarnation becomes most prominent; but the other
saving acts are given either explicitly or Implicitly, though
not combined in any single statement. The same is true of
other New Testament writings.
The six saving acts of Jesus are all given distinctly in the
teaching of the apostles; and there can be no doubt that
they would all appear in the Creed just so soon as an at
tempt was made to formulate them.

52 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
The Incarnation Implies all the others; for the entrance
of the Son of God Into the world implies His return to the
Father, after the accomplishment of His work of salvation
in the world. The first Advent imphes a second, if indeed
He was the Messiah of the Old Testament. The Death
implies the Resurrection, if there is to be a second Advent.
The Resurrection, in the usage of St. Paul, Is often used for
the whole work from the tomb to the throne. The En
thronement Is for the purpose of the Reign, and the second
Advent Is for the ultimate Judgment. These, then, are the
six successive redemptive acts or states of Jesus the Saviour:
(1) Born of Mary the Virgin,
(2) Crucified under Pontius Pilate,
(3) On the third day risen from the dead,
(4) Ascended into the heavens,
(5) Seated on the right hand of the Father,
(6) Thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
§ 7. The third section of the Creed originally expressed faith
in Jesus Christ the Son of God as " born of Mary the Virgin."
This implied a divine agency in His conception, which is later
expressed in the Creed by the addition of the phrase, at first "of
the Holy Spirit," and later "conceived by the Holy Spirit."
The Creed of the eighth century was: qui conceptus est de
Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine; that of the fourth cen
tury: qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine; that
of the second century only: tov jevvrjOevTa ex Ma/sta? t^
•7rap6evov. It is evident from the six forms of the Creed In Tertullian
and Irenaeus that their formula was, born of Mary the Virgin.
Irenaeus follows the Gospel of John and the earliest Eastern
Creeds in his terms made fiesh and becoming man, and in giv
ing the purpose: for our salvation {Adv. Hcer. I : IQi, III:
42, IV : 33'). No one can read with attention Justin's Dia
logue with Trypho, Irenaeus' Against Heresies, HIppolytus'
Refutation of All Heresies, and Tertulhan's Of the Flesh of
Christ — writings which cover the whole period from the third

THE APOSTLES CREED 53
decade of the second century to the same decade of the third
century, overlapping one another in linked succession — with
out observing that the essential argument against Jew and
heretic was just the virgin birth of our Lord. The only
sects claiming to be Christian that denied the virgin birth
were the Ebionites, who held that Jesus was only a man,
and the Gnostics, who distinguished between the man Jesus
and the Christ which descended upon him and took posses
sion of him.
There can be no doubt that the doctrine of the virgin
birth in the Creed Is based upon the statements of the Gos
pel of Luke; though Justin and Irenaeus refer to Matthew,
when they represent the virgin birth as in fulfilment of the
prophecy of Isaiah 7. Justin {Apology, 1:32; Dialogue
with Trypho, 1 : 59, 61, 76), Irenaeus {Adv. Hcer. Ill : 16^,
19^), Tertulhan {De Came Christi, 19, 24), also find It In the
Prologue of the Gospel of John (P^), which they read: 8? ovk
i^ alfiaTcov ovSe eic 6e\rjpLaT0^ aapicb<; ovSe iic OeXrjfiaTO'i avBpoi
aW iic deov i'yevvqOrj^ referring o? to Christ, and not to re
generate behevers with the reading ot of the codices of the
fourth and later centuries. The reading o?,two hundred years
earlier than the earliest preserved Greek codices, within fifty
years of the composition of the Gospel, contextually, naturally,
rhetorically, and poetically the best reading, has been adopted
byBlass {Philology of the Gospels, pp. 234 seq.), Resch {Ausser-
canonische Paralleltexte, IV: s. 57 seq.), and other critics;
and Is the best sustained, though not certain. Even with
the plural ot Zahn maintains that by implication it refers
to the virgin birth of Christ. In any case the author con
ceives of the entrance of the Logos into the world as a divine
act, the becoming fiesh as a voluntary act, and not depend
ing on the will of a human father, which therefore is best
explained by the virgin birth.
The story of the virgin birth in the Gospel of Lulce (l^e-ss)
was not original to the Gospel, but was derived by Luke
from the canticle known as the Ave Maria, or Hail Mary,
one of a series of poetic extracts used by Luke and trans-

54 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
lated by him from Hebrew originals, as the basis of his nar
rative of the infancy of Jesus. It belongs to the sources of
Luke, just as truly as the Logia of Matthew and the original
Mark; and therefore cannot be dated later than the out
break of the Jewish war, in 66 A.D. Luke tells us, in the
preface of his Gospel, that he had taken great pains to trace
the course of all things from the first, to do it accurately,
to write with orderly arrangement of the material, and to
give only facts and truths that were certain. He shows by
his Gospel and the Book of Acts that he used his sources
conscientiously; and his general accuracy is unimpeached.
He gives the genealogy of Jesus, depending for it upon records
derived from the family of Jesus. If he consulted them with
reference to the legal genealogy, it is altogether probable
that he also consulted them with reference to the accuracy
of the poetic statement of the virgin birth. The family of
Jesus was represented by James the Just, the half-brother of
our Lord, until his death (f 60-62) ; and after his death by
Simeon, his cousin (f 107), both bishops of the Church; and
one or both of these must be held responsible for the story
of the virgin birth of our Lord. The testimony of such men
is worthy of unqualified acceptance.
The story of the virgin birth in the Gospel of Matthew
(118-25) is also based on an extract from a Hebrew poem, but
a different one, written from the point of view of Joseph,
rather than of Mary. The comment of Matthew is more
elaborate than that of Luke; and, in accordance with his
method of finding a fulfilment of prophecy in events In the
life of Jesus, he regards the virgin birth as the fulfilment
of Is. 71*. This prophecy was not referred to in the original
poem, has nothing whatever to do with the story as such. Is
not referred to by Luke, but is peculiar to Matthew and his
methods (Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 318 seq.). We
thus have two Independent witnesses to the virgin birth,
neither one depending on the other, both using older poetic
sources, which they comment upon, after investigation, from
different points of view. It is probable also that the Gospel

THE apostles' CREED 55
of John gives a third independent witness from a third point
of view.
It seems at first remarkable that there is no reference to
the virgin birth In the Gospel of Mark, the Epistles, and the
Book of Acts; but that fact cannot be urged as an argument
against the reality of the virgin birth, especially as an excel
lent reason may be given for their silence. It was necessary
during the lifetime of the Virgin to keep this doctrinal fact
esoteric for the chiefs of the Christian community. In order
that she should not be exposed to such blasphemous slan
ders as did arise so soon as the virgin birth became a public
doctrine. It was said that the father of Jesus was a soldier
named Pantherus (v. Origen, c. Celsum, 28). But It is evi
dent that Pantherus or Pandera Is only a transliteration of
i<1"ti3, itself formed from the Greek irapdevo';, virgin, and is
therefore in itself an indirect evidence that Jesus was the
Virgin's son.
The earliest Gospel, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the apos
tolic preaching recorded in the Book of Acts, all represent
this period of discreet silence.
But, in fact, all of these writings, in their emphasis upon
the pre-existence and the divinity of Jesus Christ, and their
statements as to special properties of the human nature of
Christ, imply that the entrance of the Son of God Into the
world was a divine entrance and not an ordinary one with
a human father.
The Gospel of Mark gives nothing whatever as to the life
of Jesus prior to His baptism. And yet Mark was a native
of Jerusalem. The early Christians were accustomed to
meet at his mother's house (Acts 12i^). He was intimately
acquainted with St. Peter, and knew personaUy the Virgin
and the half-brothers of our Lord. It is Improbable that he
was ignorant of the virgin birth when he wrote his Gospel.
He does not mention It for prudential reasons. These may
account for his omission of everything relating to the early
life of Jesus. But Mark does, in fact, at the very beginning
of his Gospel assert the divinity of Christ; for he represents

56 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
that John the Baptist, His herald, was fulfilling the predic
tions of Isaiah and Malachi as to the advent of Yahweh,
and so identifies the Son of God with Yahweh.
St. Paul in his Epistles teaches the pre-existence of Christ
and His entrance into the world from the point of view of
His pre-existence, and therefore chiefly on the divine side.
He represents that Christ was born of a woman, but quahfies
this by sent forth by God the Father (Gal. 4*' ^) ; that He was
born of the seed of David according to the flesh, but also de
clared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit
of holiness by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. l'- *). St.
Paul also represents that Jesus was the second Adam, dif
fering from the flrst Adam In several important particulars,
as having: (1) a life-giving spirit, ¦n-vevp.a ^wottolovv (I Cor.
15*^); (2) a spirit of holiness, irvevfia dji(oavvrj<; (Rom. 1*);
(3) the likeness of sinful fiesh, with the implication of sinless
flesh (Rom. 8') ; (4) as bringing life and incorruption to light,
^a>rjv Kal acj)dapcrMV (II Tim. li").
Thus St. Paul, while he lays stress upon the real humanity
of Christ as Son of David and of Abraham, yet at the same
time makes an antithesis between Him as the second Adam
and the first Adam and all his race, not only In that he re
gards Him as a pre-existing divine being before His entrance
into the world, but also in that he represents Him In the
world as a man indeed, yet entirely separate from the inher
itance of sin and death which all other men share from the
first Adam, and as possessed of unique qualities such as con
stitute Him the head of redeemed humanity, namely: sinless,
irworruptible fiesh, and a life-giving spirit of holiness. These
qualities could not have been derived from human ancestry.
He could not have failed to inherit the sinfulness, corruption,
and death of the first Adam, just as truly as all other men,
if He had been born In the ordinary way of a human father,
according to the teaching of St. Paul (Rom. 5-7). If St.
Paul knew not the virgin birth of our Lord, he was quite
near to It — so near In the implications of his teaching that no
one has ever been able to suggest as a substitution for it

THE apostles' CREED 57
anything that would not undermine and destroy his entire
theology. The only ancient heretics who denied the virgin birth
were the Ebionites and the Gnostics. They were not troub
led about miracles or theophanles. These troubles are alto
gether modern. If the anti-Christian writers of the second
and third centuries denied the virgin birth of our Lord, It
was not that they regarded It as unscientific, or unphilosoph-
ical, or impossible, but because they had other Christolog-
ical theories to maintain. Hence, so soon as these heretics
were overcome, the virgin birth of our Lord remained un
disputed as a cardinal doctrine of the Church until quite
recent times. Indeed, it is easy to show that modern ob
jections do not really arise from scientific or philosophical
reasons, but are just as truly speculative as those of the
ancient heretics. Modern forms of Ebionitism and Gnosti
cism are no more respectable than the ancient forms.
It is necessary. In order to understand the virgin birth of
our Lord, to look at it from the divine side. It was not the
birth of a man to whom God subsequently united Himself
(that Is what Gnosticism contended for) : It was the entrance
of God Into the world In the way of birth from a virgin. It
is a priori probable that, if God were to become man In the
womb of a woman. He would become man, not In an ordinary
human way, but in an extraordinary divine way, appropriate
to the nature and character of the divine Being. There is
something more than the processes of conception and child
birth in this case; there was a divine presence and a divine
activity in the production of the humanity. As Justin says:
" not of the seed of man, but of the wIU of God." * Induc
tive Science can say nothing here, because the fact is unique
beyond Its knowledge and testing. It is a question of fact,
depending upon evidence which Is sufficient and abundant,
such as no one can reasonably refuse.
That which Influences the objectors is not anything that
science has to offer. The very ablest scientists hold to the
* Apology, 1:32.

58 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
virgin birth, not as scientists but as Christians. St. Luke,
who is especially responsible for the doctrine, was the be
loved physician of St. Paul; and doubtless knew all concern
ing the processes of generation and childbirth that was
known to Hippocrates, and Aristotle, and the best medical
and scientific writers of the time. Our moderns know more
of science and medicine than he did, but St. Luke knew as
much as they do of the biological processes with which this
doctrine has to do. If he found no difficulty, why should
they? The only difference that at all affects this question
Is that Luke accepted the presence and power of God In
nature and human affairs, and therefore the supernatural
and the miraculous; while modern objectors are agnostics,
or sceptics. In this regard. We may fairly ask them to state
their objections honestly from the standpoint of agnosticism,
and not hide their agnosticism behind scientific and critical
pretences. The Incarnation, and Indeed by virgin birth, was the
initial saving act of the Son of God, upon which the whole
process of salvation depends. As the first Adam summed
up In himself all his descendants, the whole human race, who
share with their first father the consequences of sin (Rom.
5), just so Jesus Christ recapitulates in Himself this same
human race in order to redeem it. Jesus was more than an
individual man. If He had been no more than that, His
incarnation could not have had redemptive significance.
God did not take to Himself a man, Jesus, born of Mary, as
the ancient Gnostics held, and their modern representatives
among the Ritschllans now hold. This would give only a
divinely inhabited man, not a God-man. This would
make Jesus nothing more than John the Baptist, who was
just such a divinely inhabited man, "filled with the Holy
Ghost even from his mother's womb" (Luke P^). It was
God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, the pre-
existent Son of God, who became man by entering the
Virgin's womb, being conceived by her and being born of
her. God, by this conception and birth, took to Himself

THE apostles' CREED 59
human nature in its entireness, completeness, and Integrity;
yet He became thereby not merely such an individual man
as John the Baptist; but, to use the term of the older theo
logians, a common man in whom all men have a share, a man
who sums up in Himself all that Is characteristic of perfect
humanity. Jesus Christ did not share in the inheritance
of sin and guilt, otherwise He Himself would have needed
salvation. He made, as it were, a new beginning In humanity,
taking to Himself the old humanity without its inheritance
of evil, and introducing into humanity a spirit of holiness,
incorruptible flesh, and an Innocent sinlessness, in original,
uninterrupted communion with the Father. This involves
the perfection of humanity. It is just because God the Son
thus identifies Himself, not with an individual man, but
with humanity as such, that He is able to save the human
race. In all His activities He acts as the second Adam,
the Head of redeemed humanity. His incarnation united
humanity to God and made human salvation realisable,
because of the pulsations of the divine life in the humanity
of Jesus Christ, and through Him in all who are united to
Him in a regenerate life. St. Paul repeatedly represents
that in all the saving acts of Christ all Christians are in
volved, because of their mystic union with Him as the second
Adam, the God-man: so that His incarnation Is In fact a re
generation of mankind. Just as there was In Adam the
original birth of mankind, so all who are united to Christ by
regeneration are crucified with Him, die with Him, are en
tombed with Him, rise from the dead in Him, are enthroned
with Him, and their eternal salvation is assured in Him, the
Incarnation having made all this union and communion
possible, and actual, and eternal. What Christ began in
humanity. In the Incarnation, and carried on step by step
in His successive redemptive acts. He guarantees that He
will eventually complete and perfectly accomplish.
The Christian faith as expressed in this article of the
Creed embraces these elements :
(1) That Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost;

60 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
that is, that Mary conceived the Son of God not through
human agency, but by the power of the Holy Spirit of God.
(2) Mary was before this conception, in the conception,
and subsequent thereto In the birth of Jesus, a Virgin.
(3) By this conception and birth the Son of God received
from the Virgin a complete human nature.
(4) The pre-existent Son of the Father was conceived and
was born with the flesh and nature of man; and so God
became the God-man, uniting humanity with deity in eter
nal union.
(5) The birth of the Virgin was the first act of salvation
of the Son of the Father for the regeneration of mankind.
§ 8. The fourth article of the Creed represents the death of
Christ by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, as the second great
act of Christ for our salvation. He was entombed and His body
preserved from corruption. This article was enlarged in its
later forms to comprehend the sufferings that preceded the cru
cifixion, and to make explicit the death and the descent into
Hades for the salvation of the dead.
The Roman Creed of the fourth century has: tov eirl
Tlovrlov HikaTOv aTavpaiOevTa koI Ta(f>evTa. The Creed of
the second century was probably the same. But the later
Creed was enlarged to passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus,
mortuus, et sepultus; and descendit ad inferna was added,
sometimes affixed to this article, sometimes prefixed to the
next article, sometimes as an independent article. Tertullian
gives in his first form: crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, in his
second: hunc passum, hunc mortuum, et sepultum, secundum
scripturas, in his third: fixum cruci. Irenaeus gives In his first
form: to Trct^o?, in his second: et passus sub Pontio Pilato.
Thus Irenaeus follows the Eastern form, which is usually
iradovTa, as Origen, Luclan, Eusebius, Arius, Epiphanius,
the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan Creeds. The for
mula of exorcism of Justin {Apol. 11:6; Dial. Trypho, 30,
85) confirms the form of the second century as crucified
under Pontius Pilate.

THE apostles' CREED 61
(1) Under Pontius Pilate. There was especial reason for
the mention of the Roman Governor in the Roman Creed,
as indicating both the date of the crucifixion, and its execu
tion by authority of the Roman Governor.
(2) Crucified. The specific term crucified, Instead of the
more general term suffered, was doubtless due to the influence
of the Epistles of St. Paul upon the Roman community.
The mode of death, by crucifixion, is an essential feature
In St. Paul's theology.
St. Paul's teaching is that: (1) the crucifixion of Christ
Is the power of God unto salvation (I Cor. 123-24^ 2^; Gal. 6");
(2) by It Christ became a curse for us, and redeemed us
from the curse of the Law (Rom. 6^; Gal. 21^-20, 31^ Col. 2i*);
(3) by it Christ reconciled us to God (Eph. 2"; Col. li'-^");
(4) by it Christ completed His state of humiliation and
earned His reward for us in His exaltation (Phil. 28-ii). All
these passages of St. Paul were well known to the Roman
Church, and were undoubtedly used by them In Interpreting
this article of the Symbol.
We must bear In mind that the One who was crucified
was not an ordinary man. If He had been such, even
though a prophet and a hero, the greatest of all men. His
crucifixion could not have had saving significance. He
might have been an example of self-sacrifice and heroic de
votion; but that could not have had any real value in effect
ing the salvation of mankind.
The Creed has already expressed the faith that He who
was thus crucified was the Messiah of the Old Testament,
the suffering, interposing Servant of Yahweh, of Is. 53, that
He was the Son of the Father, Lord God. It is therefore
belief In the crucifixion of a God-man that is professed in the
Creed, and it is the union of God and man in the incarna
tion and birth from a Virgin's womb that gave the crucifix
ion a universal significance. It was the world crucifying
the mediatorial Creator, Sovereign and Saviour, incarnate
in human flesh. This supreme act of love in suffering cru
cifixion at the hands of the world, while It made the guilt

62 fundamental symbolics
of the world supreme, yet showed the love of God In its
supreme expression, triumphing over the supreme sin of the
world. This is sublimely expressed In John's Gospel:
"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." (John 3i«.)
Thenceforth the supreme sin became the deliberate re
jection of the Saviour, as salvation is only by personal
union with the Saviour; and It Is doubtful, to say the least,
whether any other sin will incur the supreme penalty of
everlasting death.
(3) And buried. Crucifixion ended in death, but not
usually In burial. The dead bodies were left on the cross
to birds of prey, or cast aside as carcasses for beasts of prey.
Even when for some special reason the bodies were given
over to friends, they were usually burned and only their
ashes preserved. It was to comply with Jewish custom
that the dead body of Jesus was taken down from the cross,
and after suitable preparation placed In a rock tomb (Mt.
2767-60. Mark 1542-46. Luke 235''-5«; John W^-^).
Jesus was not buried in the ground, but entombed, as
was the custom among the Jews and the early Christians
in Rome and elsewhere. It was important to state in the
Creed that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, in order
to the resurrection that followed. The entombment was
part of Christ's work of salvation; because, as St. Paul tells
us. Christians are by vital union with Him entombed with
Him, in order to resurrection with Him (Rom. 6'"*; Col. 212).
(4) Suffered. This came into the Roman Creed, prob
ably by assimilation, from the Nicene Creed and other
Eastern Creeds. It was probably in Eastern forms of the
Apostles' Creed in the second century {v. p. 88). It was
meant to include all the sufferings of Christ prior to the cru
cifixion. The verb Trdayw is not used by St. Paul for the suf
ferings of Christ; but it is characteristic of St. Peter (I Pet.
221, 23^ 318^ 41)^ of St. Luke (Gospel 17^^ 221^, 2426- *6j Acts

THE apostles' CREED 63
1^ 318, I71'), and of the Epistle to the Hebrews (2i8, 5^, 9^
131^). The noun TrdOv/Ma Is used in I Pet. 1", 4i3, 51; Heb.
2^- 1°; II Cor. P; Phil. SI". The sufferings of Christ were
shared by His people through their vital union with Him,
and realised especially in the period of martyrdom (Mark
1035-*5; II Cor. 15; Phil. 31"; Col. 1=*).
(5) Dead. This Insertion seems unnecessary, as death
was implied In the crucifixion and burial; yet Ignatius,
Origen, and even Tertullian use it, the last two without
crucifi-xion, Ignatius with crucifixion, but without burial.
It was probably inserted merely for completeness and ful
ness of statement.
Death is especially the term of the Gospel of John, in
antithesis with life (lO"- 1^' "• 18, 1233, 1513. i John 3");
though it is used as a general term with reference to the
crucifixion of Christ throughout the New Testament. It
is quite possible that when the practice of crucifixion had
passed away, and long been forgotten, ignorant people did
not understand what crucifixion meant; and that It became
important to make it plain to them that Christ died by an
explicit statement in the Creed.
(6) Descended into hell. This phrase appears in a creed
first in the Creed of Aquileia (c. 390). But it Is found in
three synodlcal declarations: those of SIrmium, Nice, and
Constantinople (359-360).
Sirmium: Kal et? ¦:& xaTax96via jcaTeXOfivra, nal t4 Ixecue o!xovo[i-noavTa' Sv
TcuXupol §Sou iS6v't€? iqjptiav.
Nice: Kal -caif ivza xal elq idi xataxOdvia xaireXOivca- 8v aizhz h qcSijc; lTp6[iaae.
Constantinople: Kal taip^vca xal ei? t& xaxax^Avia xateXijXuBdTa' iSv xcva xal
aitbc; 6 lySiQ? exTiQ^ev.
The words of Sirmium, 8v icuXtopol ?Sou iHrzeq eippiiav, depend upon
Job 38", through Athanasius {fragm. in Luc. X : 22; or. c. Arian.
Ill : 57) ; and Cyril of Jerusalem, who makes the descent one of the
necessary doctrines {Catech. IV : 11).*
Rufinus says (§ 18) : "Sciendum sane est quod in Ecclesiae Romanae
symbolo non habetur additum 'Descendit ad inferna'; sed neque in
* Cf. especially Swete, Apostles' Creed, pp. 56 seq. and Kattenbusch,
Apost. Symbol, II, s. 895 seq.

64 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
Orientis Ecclesiis habetur hie sermo: vis tamen verbi eadem videtur
esse in eo quod 'sepultus' dicitur."
Some modern scholars, who have been opposed to the
doctrine of an intermediate state, have urged, on the basis
of these words of Rufinus, that hell, inferna, and even Hades
were only synonyms of the grave: but that is impossible in
view of Biblical statements as to Hades and the views of
the early Fathers. What Rufinus evidently means is that
the descent into Hades was really Implied in the term en
tombed of the Roman Creed; for it was the universal opinion
in ancient times that when the body was entombed the spirit
departed from it to Hades.
The Athanasian Creed (early fifth century) has this clause.
It Is In the Creeds of Venantius Fortunatus (c. 570 A. D.)
and the fourth Council of Toledo (633).*
The most important passages of Scripture, on which the
doctrine of the Creed is founded, are:
(1) Acts 2", where St. Peter quotes the sixteenth Psalm
and applies It to Christ:
"Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades;
Neither wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption." (R. V.)t
(2) Jesus also refers to Hades (Luke W^-^\ 23*^). Hades
was the general name for the abode of the dead. It might
be used for the whole or for a part. There were the two
parts: Abraham's bosom or Paradise, the abode of the right
eous, and the Pit or Destruction, the place of punishment.^
* The Old Testament usage of '^ixiy is given in my article on that
word in the new Robinson-Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon, BDB; the New
Testament usage of ^Stjs in Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testa
ment. t The original is:
"Thou wilt not leave me to Sheol;
Thou wilt not suffer Thy pious one to see the Pit."
{V. Briggs, Commentary on the Psalms, in loco.)
Luke follows the LXX in making nni^ abstract, rather than the con
crete Pit of Sheol.
t nna', -in, tn^N, <i%<iiXeta,yisvvix: v. Hebrew and Greek lexicons, espe
cially my articles in new edition Robinson-Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon,BT)B.

THE apostles' CREED 65
(3) St. Paul refers to the descent of Jesus to Hades (Eph.
49-10) _ Usage makes it evident that to, KaTcoTepa /le'pr) t^? 7^?
refers to Hades, and indeed the deeper, gloomier regions of
punishment* (Ezek. 26^", 3218-2*; Pgalms 63^ 86i3, 88^ 139«);
and this is the interpretation of most of the ancients and the
best moderns. The captives were rescued from the enemy
{cf. Psalms 6818; Ju. 51^), and brought with Him by Jesus in
His ascent from Hades {cf. Mt. 27^2-3; John 5^0.
(4) The 1 most important passage is I Pet. 318-20. The
ancients were well-nigh unanimous in referring it to Christ's
descent to Hades and His preaching to the antediluvians. f
Jesus' statement to the dying robber, and St. Peter's
words on the day of Pentecost, Imply that Jesus went to
the paradise of Hades. St. Paul's statement Implies that
He went to Hades to rescue prisoners. St. Peter teaches
that Jesus went to the prison of Hades to preach to the
wicked antediluvians. If the Gospel was preached to them,
then certainly to others less wicked than they, and certainly
not in vain; especially as St. Paul tells us that He did rescue
captives. It is also evident from Heb. 2i* seq.. Rev. II8, that
Jesus has authority over Hades, and triumphed over death
and Satan there. This is the background of the mission of
Christ to the underworld. It was Indeed just as Important
that Jesus should preach to the dead as to the living, if
there is salvation in no other (Acts 412), and He is to be the
Judge of the dead as well as the living.
There were different opinions among the ancients as to the
work of Christ in Hades. The Creed undoubtedly means that
Jesus Christ descended to Hades as an Important part of His
work of salvation; for all the acts mentioned in the Creed
are saving acts. It meant to the early Christians certainly:
(1) That Christ thereby became the conqueror of Death,
Hades, and the devil, and took all believers from under
their authority and control.
(2) It also meant that He preached His Gospel to all the
* V. Briggs, Comm. Pss., in loco; Messiah of Apostles, p. 202.
f V. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 56 seq.

66 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
pious dead of the old dispensation, who there believed on
Him and shared in Christian salvation.
(3) It is uncertain how far the pious dead were removed
from Hades to Heaven in the resurrection of Jesus. The
New Testament teaches that some of the pious dead, the
saints and martyrs, accompanied Jesus in His resurrection
(Mt. 2782-53; Rev. 6^); and that was the consensus of the
early fathers of the Church (Ignatius, Magn. 9; Eusebius,
H. E. 1:131^ Justin, Tryph. 72; Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. Ill:
20*, IV: 272, V:31i'2; HIppolytus, de antichristo, 26; Ter
tulhan, de anima, 55), and of the Church itself until the
present time.
The fathers and doctors of the Church generally ignore
the question whether Christ preached to the wicked dead
and saved any of them. The tendency of scholastic theo
logians was to draw the line of salvation strictly by sacra
mental tests, and limit salvation to those for whom it had
been begun in this world by baptism, either In fact or through
the baptism of desire; but they all recognised that for such
the processes of salvation continued in Hades until they were
completed. But the early fathers either represent that
Christ preached to and saved some of the wicked dead, or
else do not mention them at all.
Hermas {Sim. 91") says that the Apostles and teachers of
the Church continued their work in Hades and baptised
converts there. So Clement of Alexandria {Strom. VI : 6),
and Origen (c. Celsum, II : 43), extend the preaching among
the dead to the pious heathen. HIppolytus represents that
John the Baptist heralded the advent of Christ in Hades
as well as in Palestine {de antichristo, 45). This opinion is
reasonable and probable, but not certain.
There are three modern interpretations of the descent of
Christ into Hell that have no support in Scripture or in
the ancient fathers: (1) that it means nothing more than
descent into the grave; (2) that Christ suffered in hell the
penalties of the damned; (3) that He descended to triumph
over the devil in his own dominion.

THE apostles' CREED 67
None of these theories can explain the Insertion of this
clause In the Creed; and they are altogether inconsistent
with the purpose of all the acts of Jesus mentioned In the
Creed, which was salvation. The common ignoring of
Hades altogether, among Protestants, as an intermediate
state of salvation, and the opinion that all those who are
to be saved at all immediately at death ascend to heaven,
are altogether unscrlptural, unhistorical, and unreason
able. § 9. The fifth article of the Apostles' Creed represents the
resurrection of Christ from among the dead, on the third day, as
His third great act of salvation, securing thereby the resurrection
of mankind and the justification of all believers.
The fifth article of the Old Roman Creed was: Ty Tpkri
fjiiepa avacTTavTa i/c veKp&v.
The Creed of the fourth century was the same, except for
the substitution of the indicative for the participle of the
same verb : tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.
The Creed has always remained the same in this article
since the second century.
The exact words of the Creed are not found in the New
Testament, nor among the apostolic fathers.
Ignatius has: a\??^w? ¦^yepdr] airo veicpStv.
Irenaeus has in his first form: t7]v eyepatv iic veicpwv; in
his second form: resurgens.
Tertullian has in his first form: tertia die resuscitatum a
mortuis; in his second form: resuscitatum a Patre; in his
third form: tertia die resurrexisse.
The Creeds of Cyril, Eusebius, and Nicaea have: avaaTavTa
Trj TpcTTj ¦^fjtepa.
It seems probable from the usage of these Eastern Creeds,
that underlying the Creed of the second century there was a
still earlier form without eK veicpSiv, and that the original
form of the Roman Creed was that of the Oriental Creeds,
so far as this article is concerned.
The whole phrase in these early Creeds is primarily based

68 fundamental symbolics
on the words of Jesus Himself, predicting His resurrec
tion.* The Lukan Gospel, here as elsewhere, was at the basis of
the Roman Creed, the original being based on the words of
Jesus, Luke 9^^ 18'^; later enlarged by the addition of eic
veicpSiv from Luke 24**.
(1) On the third day. This phrase was doubtless used
because of its significance in the words of Jesus Himself, ful-
ffiled as they were by the .event, as represented in I Cor. 15.
The significance of the third day was: (a) To make suf
ficiently evident the reality of the death, burial, and descent
into Hades. There was sufficient time for all these. (6) To
prevent an extension of the time during which the Redeemer
would be subjected to Death and Hades, (c) To make the
resurrection more distinct and definite as an event which
happened at a particular time and after a predicted interval.
Doubtless the prediction of Jesus and its fulfflment were in
the minds of the authors of the Creed.
(2) avaa-TavTa, risen. This aorist participle is connected,
as all the other terms, with Jesus Christ, God's Son, our Lord.
The verb Is here active, as Implying that the resurrection was
an act of the Lord Himself.
St. Luke (9^^ 183^ 24*«) follows Mark (8^1, 9^1, 10'*) in
regarding the Son as active in the resurrection, quoting in
all cases words of Jesus, and using aviaTrjfu (intransitive),
rise up, stand up, doubtless because of the Aramaic of Jesus
and the Hebrew of Mark.f Luke in Acts usually has
avL<TTr)iAi, but uses also er^eipm (10*" +). Matthew (16^i, 17^',
201^) agrees with St. Paul in using iyeipco, arouse from the
sleep of death =Y''p'^, the Old Testament term of Is. 26i',
Dan. 12^. In the Gospel of John, so far as the resurrection
comes into view, the Son Is active. He has life in Himself as
the Father hath. Usually the resurrection is combined with
the ascension, in the return to the Father and the ascending
to where He was before.
* Mark 8=1 = Mt. 16^1 = Luke Q^; Mark 9=' = Mt. IT^'; Mark 10=*
= Mt. 2019 = Luke IS^^. Luke 24«.
t DeUtzsch, Hebrew New Testament, uses aip here.

the apostles' creed 69
St. Paul regards the resurrection of Christ as the cardinal
principle of his theology. "If Christ hath not been raised,
then Is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor.
151*). The same is true also of St. Peter and the other early
Christian preachers. The apostles were especially wit
nesses of Christ's resurrection. That was an essential requi
site for the choice of the one who was to supply the place
of Judas in the coflege of the Twelve (Acts 1^^).
The original story of the resurrection of Jesus has not been
preserved in the existing text of Mark; and therefore we
cannot be sure how far Luke and Matthew depend upon
It. Mark gives four predictions of the resurrection by our
Lord Himself (8", 9^- ^\ 10'*), which imply their fulfilment
in the narrative. It is probable, however, that the reports
of Luke and Matthew, as well as those in the Appendix to
Mark, are based upon Mark's original. There are eleven
appearances of Jesus after His resurrection. Three are
common to St. Paul and the Synoptlsts: {a) to St. Peter
(I Cor. 155; Luke 243*); (6) to the eleven (I Cor. 15=; Mark
161*; John 20^''-^^ Acts li-^^); (c) to all the apostles (I Cor.
15^; Mark 161'; Luke 245»-6i; Acts 1"-"). Three are pecuhar
to St. Paul: {d) to the five hundred; (e) to St. James; (/)
to St. Paul himself (I Cor. 15''"8). Four are given only in
the Synoptic Gospels: {g) to the Magdalene and other
women (Mark 16«-ii; Mt. 28«-i<'; John 2011-18); {h) to the
two disciples at Emmaus (Mark 16i^-i''; Luke 24i3-^3); {i)
to the Ten in the upper chamber (Luke 2436-*'; John 201''-^*);
{j) to the Eleven on a mountain in Gahlee (Mt. 28i*"i'';
Mark 16^^'^^). The Appendix to John gives an additional
one (John 21i"^3),* Jesus appeared to St. Paul once on the
way to Damascus (Acts 9l-l^ 226-i6, 2610-18; cf. Gal. li' i^-i*;
I Cor. 91; II Cor. IP, 1211- 12), once to an aggregate of 500
disciples, to the Eleven at least thrice, to ten of them at
least four times, to seven of them at least five times, and
to St. Peter no less than six times, besides the theophanies
* V. Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 110 seg.

70 fundamental symbolics
to St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John reported elsewhere in
the New Testament (Acts lO'-i*, 2218-^1, 23"; II Cor. 12i-*;
Rev.P seq. -\-). Thus the evidence for the resurrection is
varied, cumulative, and consistent, and all that could rea
sonably be expected.
(3) eic veicp&v, from the dead. This term was derived
from Luke 24**. It was probably not in the earhest Creeds.
It is, however, usually attached to the resurrection In the
New Testament, and so would naturaUy come Into the
Creed. Ne/t/sot, m. pl.= dead persons, those who have died,
and whose spirits are in Hades. The statement therefore is
that Jesus rose from among the dead, from the realm of the
dead, His Spirit from Hades, His body from the tomb.
The resurrection, as the third great act of salvation, is
attached by St. Paul to the act of justfficatlon: "He was
delivered up for our trespasses and was raised for our jus
tification" (Rom. 4's).
§ 10. The sixth article of the Creed presents the ascension
of the Son of the Father into heaven, as His fourth act of salva
tion, securing to His people likewise access to the Father in
heaven through Him, during their earthly life in prayer and
communion, eventually in reality of personal presence.
The sixth article of the Creed is: ava^dma et? tou?
ovpavow. This has remained essentially the same, only the
Latin and modern translations substitute the indicative for
the participle.
Ignatius has: avekrj^6r) Trpo? tov iruTepa; the verb as in
Mark 16i'; I Tim. 31*; c/. Acts 1"; the tt/jo? 701; iraTepa a
paraphrase of the return to the Father of John's Gospel.
Irenaeus, in his first form, has : ttjv evaapicov et? toi;? ovpa.
vov^ aXdXrj'^iv to£) ¦^yaTrrjfji.ivov lZ.ptcrTOv 'Irjaov etc.; In his
second form: et in claritate receptus.
Tertullian varies his verb, in the first form receptum, in
the second resumptum, in the third ereptum, In all into heaven.
The Nicene and other Eastern Creeds use avekOovTa with
either into heaven or unto the Father.

THE apostles' CREED 71
The ascension Intervenes between the resurrection and
the session at the right hand of the Father, and in itself
is involved in these two redemptive acts of Christ. It is
imphed, sometimes in the resurrection, sometimes in the
session, the former usually In St. Paul's Epistles. Indeed,
the resurrection implies the ascent from Hades and the ascent
to heaven; and so the whole may be considered as a resur
rection, and often is by St. Paul {cf. Eph. P"). If the ascen
sion is seldom mentioned in the New Testament, it is implied,
both in the resurrection and in the session. Indeed, there
could be no session at the right hand of God without the
enthronement, which is itself the goal of the ascension. The
ascension is specifically mentioned in Mark 16"; Luke 24'i;
Acts P- 9-11, and foretold in John 6*^, 20".
All the passages which report Christ as coming from heaven
in a second Advent imply the ascension to heaven. The
ascent is frequently implied in the Pauline Epistles, though
seldom stated {cf. Eph. 48-1°; possibly I Tim. 31").
St. Peter says : " Him did God exalt at His right hand (to
be) a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel
and remission of sins" (Acts 5'i).
Revelation 5 gives the scene: the ascending Lord appear
ing in heaven before the throne, and welcomed with the
worship of all heaven and the new song.
The ascension of Christ begins the reign of Christ over
His Messianic kingdom. Upon that ascension depends the
advent of the divine Spirit at Pentecost, which may be re
garded as His coronation gift to His kingdom. It is just
because Jesus Christ is the second Adam, Incorporating a
new humanity in Himself, that His ascension is their ascen
sion, giving them a sure title to their heavenly inheritance.*
§ 11. The seventh article of the Creed represents the session
at the right hand of the Father, as the fifth redemptive act of the
Son of God. He there reigns as Prophet, Priest, and King, over
the Church and the universe. His people share in all the ben-
* Cf. Eph. V, 2* seq.; Col. S'-^; I Pet. I'-s.

72 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
efits of His reign, and in its service in the use of the talents
committed to them.
The seventh article of the Creed of the second and fourth
centuries was: ical Kadrjfjievov ev Sefia tov iraTpo^, sedet ad
dexteram Patris.
Irenaeus does not give this clause, but combines it with
the previous one. TertuUian, in his three forms, has essen
tially the same phrase, varying only in forms of the same
verb: sedentem, sedere, sedisse.
The original Nicene Creed, like the Creed of Eusebius,
has it not; but the Constantinopolitan has it. The received
form of the Apostles' Creed has been enlarged so as to be:
Sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. It is
evident that God the Father Almighty has simply been taken
over from article I, and has exactly the same force and
meaning here as there.
The Biblical passages at the back of this article of the
Creed are the words of Jesus (Mt. 26^ 28i8; Mark 14«^ 16";
Luke 22*^). St. Paul is especially rich in references to the
Messianic reign (I Cor. 15^5; Phil. 29-ii; Eph. 12»-23; Col.
31; cf. Heb. P-*, 7^ », 12^2-29).
It Is probable that the earhest form in the Apostles' Creed
was, at the right hand of God, as usual in the New Testament.
The change to the right hand of the Father was probably made
to assimilate this article to the first and second articles of
the Creed.
(1) The right hand of the Father was the place of highest
honour and rank, the place of the Crown Prince, to whom all
authority has been given, the place next to that of the
Father. (2) The sitting is in the pregnant sense of sitting
enthroned, in accordance with the usage of the Messianic
Psalms 2 and 110. The doctrine is that Christ is enthroned
with supreme dominion over heaven, earth, and hades. He
reigns as Prophet, Priest, and King. As Prophet, He sends
the divine Spirit to be the teacher, counsellor, and guide
of the Church. As King He is the head of the Church as
the kingdom of redemption, subduing all enemies and sav-

THE APOSTLES CREED 73
ing His people. As Priest He offers up perpetual sacrifice
and sums up the universal worship, Interceding and interpos
ing for His people. The capital of the kingdom of God Is
with Christ In heaven, where the New Jerusalem takes the
place of the old, with all Its sacred typical institutions, which
are now centred and summed up In Christ.
St. Paul, especially in the Epistles of the Imprisonment,
lays great stress upon the reign of Christ (Eph. 411-13, 525-2V;
Phil. 3^''; Col. 23). The reign of Christ is also the reign of
His Church, which is regnant on the earth (Rev. 5^-^°, 20*).
According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is at once
the great High Priest, and the one great eternal sacrifice,
once offered, but of eternal validity with the Father, and to
His people on earth through their fellowship with Him in
His priesthood and sacrifice {cf. I Tim. 2'-*).
Because of the unity of Christ with His people the Church
is His body, and shares with Him in His conquest of the
world and His subjugation of all enemies.
§ 12. The eighth article of the Creed represents the second
advent of Christ as His sixth and final redemptive act. This
advent is in order to a judgment of final salvation to His people,
and of final condemnation to all others.
The Creed of the fourth century was: inde venturus judi
care vivos et mortuos. The Creed of the second century seems
to have been the same. This article has remained unchanged
from the beginning.
Irenaeus enlarges upon this theme. His first form has:
And His Parousia from heaven in the glory of the Father to
comprehend all things under one head. His second form has:
Shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the
Judge of those who are judged; and sending into eternal fire the
perverters of the truth and the despisers of His Father and His
Advent. Tertullian has in his first and second forms: Venturum
judicare vivos et mortuos; in his third form: Venturum cum
claritate ad sumendos sanctos in vitae ceternae et promissorum

74 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
coelestium fructum, et ad profanos adjudicandos igni per-
petuo. There are two items In this article: (1) the coming, and
(2) the purpose of It, judgment; both common New Testa
ment ideas.
(1) The Coming. There are several New Testament
terms for this: {a) irapovaia, presence, advent (Mt. 24' seq.;
I Thes. 2", 313, 415, 5^3; II Thes. 2i'8; I Cor. 15^3. jag. 57,8.
II Pet. 11*, 3*); the second presence of Christ, being in
antithesis with His first presence. (6) aTroicd\ir\]rK , revela
tion (II Thes. P; I Cor. P; I Pet. P'i3, 4i3). (c) ein^dveia,
epiphany, appearance, used In the Pastorals (I Tim. 6";
II Tim. P", 41' 8; Titus 213).
None of these technical terms of the New Testament are
used In the Creed, but only the simple one, comes, com
ing, ep^eTai^ ip^o/jievov. This is to be explained from the
watchword of the early Christians: Our Lord cometh. The
Aramaic form of this, nnx HJIQ = fiapav aOd, Is preserved
in I Cor. 16^^- Varied forms of ep^ofiai, are used in the Greek
text by Jesus Himself and His apostles for the Second Ad
vent. Thus Jesus Himself predicts His own advent: When
He cometh in the glory of Himself and of the Father and of the
holy angels (Luke 9^*); and again: And then shall they see the
Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory.*
Undoubtedly the early Christians expected the speedy
advent of the Lord, and In times of persecution ardently
longed for It. So Christians In all ages, at some times more
than others, have looked and prayed for the return of Christ
in the spirit of Rev. 222".
(2) The judgment. Kpiveiv fwyra? ical veicpoik is common
to all the Creeds, and is based on Acts 10*^; II Tim. 41; I Pet.
4^ The purpose of the Second Advent Is judgment in the
comprehensive sense; a judgment of all mankind, justifying
and rewarding the righteous, condemning and punishing
the wicked. Both the living and the dead are to be judged.
* Luke 21" {cf also Mt. lO^^, 16^, 25»; Mark 8^8; Luke 23"; Acts
I"; I Cor. 46, 112«; I Thes. d''; II Thes. !">).

THE apostles' CREED 75
This is in accord with the doctrine of the Descent Into Hades
to preach the Gospel to the dead and to save the dead. All
alike are to have the offer of the Gospel; all alike are to be
judged by the Gospel.
§ 13. The ninth article of the Creed, the first of the third
trinitarian section, expresses faith in the Holy Spirit as the
third Person of the Holy Trinity.
The received form of this article is: I believe in the Holy
Spirit — Credo in Spiritum Sanctum. The Creed of the fourth
century, and so also the primitive form of the Creed, was
without the Credo; and connected this article, as all the
previous ones, with the credo of the first article by the con
junction and, as did Irenaeus, Rufinus, Marcellus, and others
in the West, the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds In
the East, and the Creeds of Eusebius and Epiphanius, upon
which they depend.
The Holy Spirit is given in the third original article of the
Creed as the third Person of the Trinity of the baptismal
formula. The doctrine of the Divine Spirit pervades the
Bible. In the Old Testament the divine Spirit is the energy,
the active power of God: (1) as a spirit stimulating the proph
ets and directing them in their teaching (Hos. 9^; Zech. 7i^;
Is. 481*) ; (2) as a power taking effective part in the creation
of the world (Gen. 1^), in theophanles (Ezek. 1", IQi^), and in
transformations of nature (Is. 32i^); (3) as an ethical In
fluence in the moral development of Israel (Is. 30i, 63^"")
and of individuals (Psalms 5P3, 143i»; Prov. 1^).*
These same characteristics appear in the New Testament
with more emphasis and a more extensive working: (1)
The divine Spirit Is the power in the virgin birth of our
Lord {v. p. 52). (2) The divine Spirit descends in the form
of a dove upon Jesus at His baptism (Mark po-"; cf. Is. IP
seq.). (3) The divine Spirit descends in theophany on the
day of Pentecost, and takes possession of the disciples of
* V. Briggs, Use of nn in the Old Testament, Journ. Bib. Lit. XIX,
and Hebrew Lexicon BDB, suh voce.

76 fundamental symbolics
Jesus in accordance with His promises (Acts 2i-*) and also
of Samaritan and Gentile converts at a later time (Acts
815-20^ 10**-*', 1115-17, 158-9^ 192-6). (4) The divine Spirit
inhabits the Church and the Christian (I Cor. 3", 6i^ Rom.
81*; Eph. 218-22). (5) The Holy Spirit is the active agent
of regeneration in connection with baptism (John 3^'^). (6)
The Holy Spirit distributes the charlsms of Christian serv
ice (I Cor. 12*-i3). (7) The Holy Spirit is the intellectual
and moral guide of behevers (Mark 13"; John 7^'''^^, 14^*;
Acts P-8; Gal. 5i*-i8. ¦^¦, I Thes. 4'-8; Rom. 8^). (8) The
Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity of God: (a)
The Father and the Son will come in the Spirit and abide
in the faithful (John W>-''). (b) He proceedeth from the
Father, and is sent by the Son (John 15^*). (c) He is dis
tinguished at the baptism of Jesus as a third with Father
and Son. {d) He is joined with Father and Son in the
name of the baptismal formula (Mt. 28i'). (e) The Three
are associated in the work of redemption (I Pet. l^). (/)
with the same charlsms (I Cor. 12*-") . {g) in the benedic
tion (II Cor. 131*). {h) His personality seems to be taught
(Rom. 82*-"; Eph. 218-22, 43-*' 30). Irenaeus {Adv. Hcer. I : lOS
IV: 33') and Tertullian {Adv. Prax. 2; Prcescrip. Hcer. 13)
teach the divinity and personality of the Spirit and His
activity as the source of inspiration of the prophets, the in
tellectual and moral guide of the Church and Christians, the
agent of regeneration, the Paraclete, and the ever-present
and indwelling Spirit of the Church and the individual
Christian. The Creed limited itself at first to the statement of the
divinity, personality, and holiness of the Spirit; then it
added the three chief saving works of the Holy Spirit in
three following articles, just as the six saving acts of Christ
were added to the second article, probably about the same
time. § 14. The tenth article of the Creed, and the first of the
articles on the work of the Holy Spirit, expresses faith in the

THE apostles' CREED 77
Church as Holy, having the same attribute as the Holy Spirit,
who originates and inhabits it. In later forms of the Creed
the attributes of Catholic and Apostolic were added, and the
Communion of Saints.
The received form of this article is: sanctam ecclesiam
catholicam, sanctorum communionem. The Creed of the
fourth century had sanctam ecclesiam, and this was without
doubt the original In the old Roman Creed.
Cyril's Creed of Jerusalem has: one holy catholic Church;
the Creed of Epiphanius and the Constantinopolitan: one
holy catholic and apostolic Church.
(1) Church, ecclesia, iKKXrja-ia, Is a term of the New Testa
ment, used for a local congregation and also for the whole
body of Christians. The latter sense is that of the Creed.
The Church embraces all who have been baptised into union
with Christ. The Church as the body of Christ Is only
one, and can only be one. This was implied in the name
church. Later, when syncretic religious organisations were
estabhshed as rivals of the Church, the term one was added,
as in the Creed of Jerusalem and the Constantinopolitan,
to emphasise the unity of the Church. The division of the
Church into separate and Independent, and even conflicting
jurisdictions impairs the unity of the Church, but cannot
destroy the vital unity of faith in Christ or the organic
unity effected by baptism into the name of the holy Trinity.
(2) ajic;, holy, is applied to the Church, as the plural, dyioi,
to Christians, In the sense not of perfection but of consecra
tion, as sacred, hallowed. This consecration of the Church
was made on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit
came upon the assembled disciples of Jesus and took posses
sion of them, in order to inhabit them as a sacred temple
{cf. Eph. 21^-22).
(3) The term catholic is not a New Testament term, but
seems, like church, to have originated In Antloch. It is used,
however, by the early Fathers,* for the Church throughout
* Ignatius, Ep. Smyr. 1, 8; Martyrdom of Polycarp, 1, 8, 19; Irenaeus,
Adv. Hem-. 1 : 10^.

78 ¦ FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
the world, the universal Church. The term did not get into
the Roman creed until after the fourth century, probably
owing to Eastern influence; but it was imphed from the
beginning in the term Church as used in the New Testament
and the Fathers.
(4) Apostolic. This term Is also implied in the meaning
of Church; for the Church can be no other than that body
which was organised and trained by the apostles of Jesus
Christ, and which has unbroken apostolic succession. The
term came into the Creed through Eastern influence, in
order to exclude from the Church the more distinctly every
thing that departed from the apostolic foundations. Apos
tolic was used primarily of doctrine, and only secondarily
of institution {cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. Ill: 22).
(5) Communion of saints. This term came into the Creed
probably through the influence of Niceta, from whom it
passed over Into the Galilean Creeds. This clause is the
enlargement of the Idea of the unity of the Church, rather
than of the diversity of privileges contained in it. The
usage of the New Testament favours the meaning of share in,
participation in the saints. This is also the interpretation
of Niceta, who gives the earliest form of the Creed that
uses it.
"What is the Church but the congregation of all saints?
Patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, all the just who
have been, are, or shall be, are one Church, because, sanc
tified by one faith and life, marked by One Spirit, they
constitute one body. Believe, then, that in this one Church
you will attain the communion of saints. " *
This Interpretation has come down by overwhelming tra
dition as the correct one. It is furthermore favoured by the
fact that it is an additional predicate of the Church, as a
Church in which there is a communion of saints.
§ 15. The eleventh article of the Creed teaches the doctrine
of remission of sins in connection with the Holy Spirit and
* V. Caspari, Anecdota, I, pp. 355 seq.

THE apostles' CREED 79
baptism, which unite the individual with the Church, and give
him a share in all its benefits.
The eleventh article of the Creed Is simply remission of
sins, remissionem peccatorum. This article has remained un
changed from the beginning.
This phrase is absent from the forms of Irenaeus and Ter
tullian, but Is given by Cyprian and the Eastern Creeds.
The longer Creed of Jerusalem has in one baptism of repent
ance for the remission of sins ; the Constantinopolitan in one
baptism for the remission of sins. The connection of the
remission of sins with repentance and baptism Is based on
the Gospels (Mark 1*; Luke 1", 3', 24**-*'; Mt. 2628), and
the Book of Acts (238, 531^ 10*3). The term remission of sins
is only used twice by St. Paul (Eph. P; Col. P*); because
he usually emphasises the positive side of salvation by justi
fication. The two are combined, however. In his preaching,
according to Acts 1338-39. The connection of remission of
sins with baptism makes It appropriate as a subordinate
article to that of the Holy Spirit.
(1) Remission of sins was a doctrine of the Old Testament,
expressed in the term Nt^J, with its synonyms n^D and 1''DJ?n;
literally, to take away, remove. The New Testament equiv
alent is a(j}ir]/ju,, to send away, remit. The fundamental Idea
is the removal of sins away from the divine presence, so that
they may no longer obstruct union and communion with God.
The English equivalent is usually forgiveness, like the Ger
man vergeben, and the French pardonner, pardon; literally,
give away. This is the earliest, simplest, and most pervasive
conception of the getting rid of sin, and therefore it appears
with propriety In the baptismal Creed.
(2) Repentance is involved with the remission of sins as
its indispensable condition, as is evident from the teaching
of Jesus and the preaching of the apostles. The New Testa
ment term is p,eTdvota, change of mind, corresponding with
the Old Testament Jjlty, turn about, return. Such a change
of mind has its positive and Its negative sides. It in
volves a turning away from sin and a turning unto God.

80 fundamental symbolics
The ceremony of baptism represents this change. It is a
bath of regeneration, a death to the old life of sin, a rebirth,
or resurrection, into the new hfe of the divine Spirit.
(3) The Holy Spirit is the agent of this regeneration,
which alone makes repentance effective and secures the re
mission of sins. The repenting sinner Is by the divine
Spirit regenerated, and raised from the death of sin into
the life which he henceforth lives under the guidance of the
Spirit, who dwells within him, leads him, and gradually
transforms him.
§ 16. The last article of the Creed teaches the resurrection
of the body of the Christian at the second advent of the Lord, by
the power of the Holy Spirit, and implies an eternal life, in the
body as well as in the spirit, with Christ and His Church.
Subsequently this ivas made explicit by the addition of the
phrase: Life Eternal.
The received form of the Creed has: resurrection of the
flesh, life eternal. The Creed of the fourth century had only
carnis resurrectionem. The early Roman Creed had capiccK
avdcTTacTLV, The phrase Is not a New Testament phrase. We have
rather: avdaTaaK {tmv) veicp&v (Mt. 223i; Acts 1732, 236,
2421, 2623; I Cor. 1512 seq., 2i' *2; Heb. 62; cf. Acts 24i*). So
the Constantinopolitan Creed has veicpuv without the article.
But it is quite evident that <rapic6^, carnis, had come into
usage in the Creed; for that phrase Is familiar to Irenaeus,
TertuUian, Justin, and others. Thus Irenaeus {Adv. Hasr.
I : 101) . fQ raise up all fiesh of all mankind; Tertullian :
per carnis etiam resurrectionem {de virg. vel. 1); cum carnis
restitutione {de press, hcer. 13).
Cyril has in his longer form: et? a-apico'i avda-Taaiv.
The motive for the change was to make it impossible to
think only of the resurrection of a disembodied spirit, and
to show that the resurrection was of the whole man, body
and soul.
It is altogether probable that capf, flesh, came Into the

THE apostles' CREED 81
Creed from Psalm lO*, quoted by St. Peter, Acts 22*-2'.3i,
where it certainly means body, and not the fiesh of the body.
'l^l in the Old Testament and its equivalent crdp^ in the New
Testament sometimes mean the flesh of the body; but they
commonly have the meaning of body, as in the passages
given above.*
There can be no doubt that the meaning in the Creed Is
body, and not flesh of the body. St. Paul uses crSip^a of the
body of the resurrection in I Cor. 15, and on that account
gives a-dp^ the more specific sense of the fleshly substance
of the body. He there affirms that the resurrection body
will not have the flesh and blood characteristic of the
earthly body, corruptible and mortal; but will be heavenly,
incorruptible, Immortal, and glorious hke the body of Christ,
composed of a heavenly substance, into which it has been
transubstantiated. The attempt to show a contradiction
between St. Paul and the Creed In the doctrine of the
Resurrection ignores the usage of the terms for flesh in the
Old and New Testaments, and especially that of the pas
sage upon which the doctrine is founded.
Opinions as to the nature of the body of the resurrection
have varied in the Church; and such variations are permis
sible, so long as they recognise the reality of the body.
Eternal life was added to the Creed, probably through
the Influence of the Creed of Niceta and the longer Creed of
Jerusalem. This eternal life is that which follows the resur
rection of the body and the ultimate judgment; to be dis
tinguished from the eternal life, which begins, according to
the Gospel of John, with the new birth in this world, or from
that which begins immediately after death in the interme
diate state of Hades.
The Apostles' Creed Is based on the New Testament,
especially upon the Teaching of Jesus and His Apostles as
recorded in the Gospels and Book of Acts; and to a great
extent is Lukan, as would naturally be the case In the prim-
* V. Briggs, Comm. Psalms, I, p. 126.

82 fundamental symbolics
itive Roman Creed, which is the basis of that form of the
Creed which has prevailed until the present time. The
several articles of the Creed have had varied interpreta
tion from time to time in detail, in logical deduction, and
through changes in the usage of technical terms; but these
variations have never affected the substance and essential
meaning of the Creed. The ancient interpretations of some
of the articles were too gross for acceptance in modern times:
but gross interpretations do not impair the essential mean
ings of a Creed; they err by exaggeration. Such exaggera
tions do not justify the other extreme of minimising the
Creed, which destroys its essential Biblical and historical
meaning. The Biblical meaning of the Creed has always
been maintained by the Church throughout history until
the present day, and we may safely say that it always will
be maintained.

CHAPTER III
THE NICENE CREED
§ 1. The Nicene Creed has three forms: (1) The original
Nicene Creed, prepared by the Council of Nice in 325; (2) the
official Eastern form, approved by the Council of Constantinople
in 381, and finally adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in 451;
(3) the official Western form, finally adopted by Rome in the
ninth century.
The Apostles' Creed set forth In simple, graphic language
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and the saving acts
of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. The Creed received
various modifications in the different local churches. East
and West, to rule out various heresies, such as the Gnostic
and Docetic syncretisms and the various forms of Mon
archianism. Monarchianism still persisted, and by misin
terpretation of the Creed managed to evade it. The
Monarchians insisted on the unity and monarchy of God
and the subordination of Christ and the Holy Spirit, teaching
a modal or a dynamic Trinity. The chief representative of
modalism in the third century was Sabelhus, condemned
by Pope Calixtus in 220; the chief representative of the
dynamic theory was Paul of Samosata, condemned at An
tloch by three provincial councils, and deposed at the last
one In 269.
The Medalist preserved the divinity of Christ at the ex
pense of His humanity; the Dynamist maintained His hu
manity at the expense of His divinity. The Church had
expelled Monarchianism of both types In the East and the
West, but had not thus far made any definition of the Faith
that reconciled the divinity with the humanity of Christ,
83

84 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
and a Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit with the Unity of
God. Such a definition was made necessary by the rise
and spread of Arianism.
Arius was a Monarchlan and Subordinationlst of a new
and higher type. He rejected Sabellianism with its Modal
Trinity. He also rejected the doctrine of Paul of Samosata
with his conception of a divinely Inhabited and deified man.
He recognised the divinity of Christ; but only as a subordi
nate ministerial God, prior in existence to all creatures,
supreme in rank, and yet a creature. It was possible to
hold this opinion on the basis of the n03n of Proverbs 8, the
a-o(f}M of the Book of Wisdom, the Xo'70? of Philo, and the
familiar distinction between God as transcendent and God
as immanent; and a number of plausible texts of the Old
and New Testaments might be cited in its favour.
But all these passages of Scripture were misinterpreted;
and other passages, upon which the Christian Faith was
built, were Ignored. And this reduction of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, to the rank of a secondary God, differing in
no appreciable degree from an angehc being, was a reaction
toward Polytheism, or at least to an angelology nearly akin
to it.
Arius was excommunicated by Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria, in 321; but he found sympathising friends in
Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Asia, some of whom agreed
with him more or less, while others regarded his opinions as
tolerable. Thus a most serious situation became evident,
one which ushered in a bitter and prolonged conflict that had
to be dealt with. Accordingly Constantine, the first Chris
tian Emperor, anxious to maintain the peace and unity of
the Church, summoned a Council at Nice, in Bithynia,
June 19, 325, to dehberate upon the matter and to decide
the questions in dispute.
Three hundred and eighteen Bishops assembled, all but
one, Hosius of Cordova, Spain, being from the East. The
chief supporter of Arius in the Council was Eusebius of
Nicomedia, but there were few that adhered to him. There

THE NICENE CREED 85
was, however, a large party that assumed a mediating posi
tion; but the great majority were zealous against the
Arians and determined to exclude them from the Church.
Eusebius of Caesarea, the chief representative of the inter
mediate party, presented to the Council the Creed of his
Church, which, it was hoped, would be sufficient. It was
a Caesarean form of the Apostles' Creed, of which he said
that he had learned it as a catechumen, professed it at his
baptism, and taught it in turn as presbyter and bishop;
and that it was derived from our Lord's baptismal formula.
The Council accepted the Creed, so far as it went; but they
deemed it insufficient to rule out Arianism, as the Arians
themselves professed similar creeds, interpreting them In
their own way. Accordingly the Council inserted In the
Caesarean form of the Apostles' Creed a number of phrases,
which the Arians could not misinterpret or evade. These
additions were not altogether satisfactory to the interme
diate party, which wished to conserve the Faith of the
Church and not to add to it, and which was especially in
dread of Sabellianism; but they were obliged to accept the
definitions of the majority, explaining these in their own way.
The Nicene Creed did not promote the peace and unity
of the Church. As Duchesne says:
"It only resulted in a short suspension of hostilities, followed by a
war, abominable and fratricidal, which divided the whole of Christen
dom from Arabia as far as Spain, and was only quieted after sixty years
of scandal that bequeathed to succeeding generations the germs of
schisms from which the Church still suffers." — {Histoire Ancienne de
VEglise, II, p. 157.)
Synods and provincial councils were summoned by the
different parties in which these condemned and excommu
nicated each other. Political and national questions be
came Involved with those that were religious and doctrinal;
and Christianity became so distracted that it could not have
survived, if it had not been for the divine energy of the
Holy Spirit, which guided it safely through a multitude

86 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
of disasters. During this strife and confusion a number of
different parties arose, taking several different positions with
reference to the questions at issue. The most important of
these were the following:
(1) The Eunomians, or Anomoeans, who held to the
anomoion of Christ; that is, that He was "not like to the
Father in essence," but simply a creature. These may be
regarded as extreme Arians.
(2) The Arians proper, or Eudoxlans, who asserted that
the Son was "like the Father" with the implication that it
was only a moral likeness.
(3) The Semi-Arians, or Macedonians, also called Pneu-
matomachi, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
(4) The Sabellians, or Medalists {v. p. 49).
(5) The Marcellians, who regarded the kingdom of Christ
as only temporary and not eternal, and the incarnation of
Christ as only provisional.
(6) The Photinians, who asserted, like Paul of Samosata,
that Christ was a man possessed of the Logos in exceptional
fulness. (7) The Apollinarians, who denied that Christ had a
rational soul, its place having been taken by the Logos, the
divine Son. This last raised an entirely new issue, which
will be considered later on {v. pp. 105 seq.).
These seven heresies were chiefly new forms of Modalism
on the one hand, or Arianism on the other, already con
demned by the Church implicitly, now needing exphcit
rejection. The Council of Constantinople was convoked by the
Emperor Theodoslus in May, 381, to determine the ques
tions In dispute. It was composed of one hundred and fifty
Bishops, all Eastern. It seemed best to the Council not to
make a new Creed or additional dogmatic statements, but
simply to reaffirm the Nicene Creed and to reject the seven
heresies mentioned above as inconsistent with it. Accord
ingly this was their action in their first canon.
At this Council several bishops were challenged, the most

THE NICENE CREED 87
revered of whom was Cyril of Jerusalem. He had always
been a mediating theologian, who had gradually accepted the
Nicene terminology and Introduced the most important part
of it into a revision of the Creed of Jerusalem. This revised
Creed of Jerusalem was used by Epiphanius in 374. Cyril
seems to have presented this Creed to the Council in justi
fication of himself. It was approved, and so seems to have
become known as the special Creed of this Council.* The
Council of Chalcedon recognised it as the Symbol of the One
Hundred and Fifty alongside of the Nicene Symbol of the
Three Hundred and Eighteen, both of which the Council of
Chalcedon adopted In 451. The Constantinopolitan, being
a combination of the Apostles' Creed with the Nicene, has
taken the place of both in the usage of the Eastern Church,
for baptism as well as for the Eucharist.
The received form of the Western Church differs from the
Constantinopolitan chiefly in the clause "and the Son,"
added to the Procession of the Spirit from the Father, and
in the restoration of the clause "God of God," which had
been omitted by the Constantinopolitan. Both of these
appear for the first time in the Creed as recited by the Coun
cil of Toledo in 589, though both are found In earlier docu
ments. The original Nicene Creed and the later form of the
Constantinopolitan are given below. The original is in
ordinary type, the Constantinopolitan in italics, the Western
additions are in small capitals, and omissions or substitutions
in parentheses.
The Nicene Creed
We (I) believe
1. In one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth, and of all things visible and Invisible :
2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten
of the Father before all worlds, the only begotten
(that Is, of the substance of the Father), God of
* Hort, Two Dissertations, pp. 94 seq.

OO FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begot
ten not made, being of one substance with the
Father, by whom all things were made (both in
heaven and on earth) ;
3. Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from
heaven, and was Incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the
Virgin Mary, and was made man;
4. And was crucified (also) for us under Pontius Pilate and
(He) suffered and was buried;
5. And risen (He rose) again on the third day according
to the Scriptures,
6. And ascended Into heaven,
7. And sitteth on the right hand of the Father:
8. And is coming (From thence He shall come) again
with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end;
9. And (I believe) In the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the (and)
Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and
the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets;
10. (And I believe) {in) one holy catholic and apostolic
Church :
11. We (I) acknowledge one baptism for the remission of
sins:
12. We (and Ij look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come.
§ 2. The Son of God is the only begotten of the Father, begot
ten before all the worlds, consubstantial with the Father, ver
itable God, the Mediator of the creation.
It is only important here to consider the additions to the
Apostles' Creed made to exclude the Arians.
(1) Begotten of the Father. This phrase was derived from
the Creed of Caesarea. It means a real birth from God the
Father, and so excludes merely figurative senses of sonship,
such as the creation of the world, of Israel as a nation, of
the dynasty of David, or of men in general. This, with the

the nicene creed 89
phrase only begotten Son, also in the Creed of Caesarea, im
plies the unique relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father
as the only Son, the only Begotten.
The Creed of Caesarea also had before all worlds, which
represents that the only begotten Son was begotten prior
to all things. This was left out of the Nicene Creed, prob
ably to avoid temporal relations, and the clause, that is, of
the substance of the Father, substituted for it. However, the
revised Creed of Jerusalem of Cyril had it; and the Con
stantinopolitan follows that Creed in this regard. Begotten
of the Father before all worlds does not explicitly exclude the
temporal origin of the Son as prior to all other beings and
things; but it implies of the svistance of the Father: for If the
birth was a real birth of the Son of God from His Father
God, it implies begotten from the substance of the Father, as
truly In the case of the Son of God as In that of all other real
sons. In the stress of controversy the Nicene fathers were
determined to make exphcit what was implied, and to leave
no loophole for Arians to escape by.
(2) God of God. This was also in the Creed of Caesarea,
but preceded by the Word of God. The Word of God was
omitted because of the misuse of this term by the Arians as
implying an immanent mediatorial God, and so a subordi
nate God. At the same time in the context of the Creed
of Caesarea, it was not open to that interpretation; because
the Word was identical with the Son, and God of God was a
parallel expression to begotten of the Father, so that the origin
of the Son is clearly by birth and not by creation. This
phrase God of God was not used in the Creeds of Cyril, or of
Epiphanius, and so does not appear in the Constantinopol
itan, as it was more fully expressed in the term Very God of
Very God. The term God of God, however, was restored in
Western forms of the Creed.
(3) Light of Light. This was also derived from the Creed
of Caesarea. It was not in the Jerusalem Creed of Cyril;
but was taken up into that of Epiphanius, and so appears
in the Constantinopohtan and Western forms. The Creed

90 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
of Caesarea also had Life of Life, which was not used in the
Nicene Creed In any of its forms, although it has a Biblical
basis and a most important meaning. Both of these terms
were doubtless derived from the Prologue of the Gospel of
John (1*' 9, 812; ^f I John P' B; Heb. P). The conception is
that the Son of God, as the Light of the world, came forth
from the Father as the original source of light; light being
conceived, not in the physical sense, but in the religious, of
the divine glory.
(4) True God of True God. This was not in the Creed of
Eusebius. It is a stronger expression than God of God.
Cyril's Creed used True God for Christ; the revision of
Epiphanius added of True God from the Nicene Creed;
and so the whole phrase appears in the Constantinopolitan
and Western forms of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene fathers
by adding the phrase of John 17*, aXrjOivov @e6v, used of God
the Father,* both for the Father and for the Son, ruled out
the Arians, who could not subscribe to this: for while they
might say God of God, meaning that the real and true God
created the subordinate God as His Son, they could hardly
say that the Son was the true veritable God, born of the true
veritable God.
(5) Begotten, not made. This was another addition to the
Creed of Eusebius, designed to rule out the Arians more
distinctly. It was inserted in the revised Creed of Jerusa
lem of Epiphanius, and so appears in the Constantinopol
itan and Western forms of the Creed. This phrase empha
sises what was said before in begotten of the Father. The
Arians held that the Son was made, or created. The Creed
of Eusebius had the Biblical term irpcoTOToicov Tracr?;? KTia-em';
(Col. PO, which in some respects is better; but this phrase
had been evaded by the Arians, and so a phrase was sub
stituted that could not be evaded.
(6) By whom all things were made, both in heaven and on
earth. The first part of this was taken from the Creed of
Caesarea, and was enlarged by the addition of the second
* Cf I Thes. 1^

THE NICENE CREED 91
clause. But only the first part was taken into the Creed
of Jerusalem, and the Constantinopolitan and Western
forms of the Creed. The second part Is of no real Impor
tance, as It was not contested. The doctrine that the Son
is the Mediator of Creation is plain in I Cor. 8*; Col. P*;
John P.
Thus far the additions to the Creed of Caesarea were only
such as to make its statements more emphatic and explicit.
Certainly Eusebius and the intermediate party could hardly
have objected to any of them; and they seemed to be ex
plicit enough to exclude the Arians. The Nicene Fathers,
however, were not satisfied with these additions to the
Creed. They were determined to make a definition of the re
lation of the Son to the Father, which would express the
Faith of the Church, and which the Arians could not evade;
and accordingly they Inserted the phrase ofioovaLov toj iraTpi.
This then became the term about which the subsequent
confficts centred. It appears in the revised Creed of Jerusa
lem of Epiphanius, and was taken up Into the Constanti
nopolitan and Western forms of the Creed. This insertion
in the Creed was made by the majority against the remon
strances of Eusebius of Caesarea, and the great body of the
bishops of Syria and Palestine; and was only accepted by
them with their own explanations, which did not altogether
satisfy the Alexandrians and the Westerns.
The term o/Moovaio^ Is not a Biblical term, but a philosoph
ical, with meanings which had not yet been strictly defined
by theological authority and usage; and therefore many
conservative divines objected to it, all the more that it was
understood during the controversy in different senses.
Ova-ia strictly means being, actual being, real existerwe. It
comprehends what is essential to the existence of being.
It received in the philosophy of Aristotle the place of the
first of the categories; that essential being to which all
qualities are attached, and in which all attributes inhere.
The Latin equivalent In usage was substantia, although that
word had a different origin from oia-ia. Ovcria corresponded

92 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
more properly with essentia, and substantia with vtroaToa-vi^
but the usage was still fluctuating.
There can be no doubt that the Western Hosius of Cordova,
the chief representative of the Emperor at the Council, was
responsible for the insertion of this phrase in the Creed.
The Latin substantia was in his mind, and he used ovaia as
its equivalent in meaning. Accordingly ofwovaio'; meant con-
substantialis, of one and the same substance.
The terms substantia and consubstantialis had become
fixed in meaning in the West in the conffict with SabeUianism,
and therefore could not be interpreted in a Sabellian way.
But in the East op.oovaio'i had been discredited in the con
flict with Paul of Samosata, and to the Easterns suggested
Monarchianism. This difference of usage between the East
and the West stood In the way of the full acceptance of the
term by those who were not Arians, yet wished to be faith
ful to their local Creeds and their traditional opinions, and
were afraid of the Monarchlan tendencies of the new phrase
ology. The conflict in the East made it evident that o/jioovmoi
was in fact capable, not only of the interpretation given to
it by Paul of Samosata, that it involved a supreme Being
from whom both Father and Son were derived; but also of
the Sabellian interpretation, that the Son was Identically
the same with the Father, the only difference being nom
inal or modal. These and other misinterpretations were
recognised as possible not only by the conservative oppo
nents of the phrase, but also by the orthodox advocates
of it.*
The Eastern misunderstandings and misinterpretations
of 6fj,oova-io<; had to be overcome before the Nicene Creed
could be cordially adopted. Unfortunately the Creed was
forced upon the East by imperial authority, and the East
ern conscience rebelled. Subsequently the imperial author
ity vacillated, taking now one side and then another, thus
promoting confusion; and physical violence too often as-
* V. Hilary, de Synodis, 68; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, pp. 42
seq.

THE NICENE CREED 93
sumed the place of learned arguments and conscientious
convictions. Some of the intermediate party, who were
dissatisfied with the term ofioovcno';, proposed the term
ofioioiKna, of like substance. But It soon became evident
that this term by its indefiniteness opened a door to various
interpretations; for it must be asked: in what respect or to
what extent is the likeness of substance between the Father
and the Son, and is it really meant that the likeness Is that
of a real son by generation, or of a figurative son by creation,
or a legal son by adoption?
Several attempts at explanation were made, the most
Important of which were: op.oio'i icaTCL iravTa, like in all things;
6/j,oio<i KaT ovaiav, like in substance, and aTTapaXKatcTOK ofioio';,
like without variation. But all these also had to be ex
plained, and they were capable of more misinterpretation
and evasion than the Nicene oiMoxxnof. Gradually it be
came plain that oiwiovaio'i was no proper substitute for
d/Liooi5a-to?; for while o/ioouo-to? was subject to misinterpreta
tion, all the other terms that had been proposed were sub
ject to still greater misunderstanding. Accordingly, so soon
as there was a general agreement to rule out all these mis
interpretations, the term onoovaio'; began to assume a
technical meaning, acceptable to all but the Arians and the
Monarchians. This agreement was not reached, however, until a term
was proposed to set forth clearly and distinctly the differ
ences of Father, Son, and Spirit. The Westerns had an
appropriate term persona, but the Easterns had not. This
had from the beginning made it easier for the Westerns than
for the Easterns to accept the Nicene terminology. Per
sona had long been in use in the West in the sense of char
acter, function, preserved in the Enghsh personate; and so
personal is in theological usage functional, and not individual.
The Greek term ultimately selected for the Trinitarian dis
tinction was vT76a-Tacn<s. This Greek word had a variety of
meanings which might be misleading, and which for a long
time prevented the use of it for Trinitarian relations. In

94 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
fact etymologically and in common usage It is the exact
equivalent of substantia.* Athanasius recognised that those
who said r/aet? VTroaTaaeu;, and those who said M"* viroa-Tacri/i^
differed only In terminology, and not in reahty; and that
therefore the terms should be avoided. Athanasius was not
a stickler for words. He did not battle for terminology,
but for the doctrine itself; and he recognised, and stated
more than once, that the theologians were really agreed,
though they used different terms to express the same mean
ing. However, it was necessary to find a term upon which
the Church could agree. It was the merit of the great
Cappadoclans, Basil (f 379), Gregory of Nyssa (f 394), and
Gregory Nazlanzen (f 390), that they used vTro'o-Tao-t? for
the Trinitarian distinctions In such a definite and convinc
ing way as to win general consent.
Ovaia is the common term for Father, Son, and Spirit;
vTToa-Taa-K is the particular term for the special property of
each of the Three. 'TiroaTaa-c?, as thus used, was not Inserted
in the Creed; but It became the recognised traditional term
for the East, for the different functions of the Trinity, as
persona for the West.
This is one of many instances in the History of Doctrine,
in which the consensus of the Church has been more easily
gained by general discussion and unofficial action than by
official decisions, which are often premature. The technical
terms now became: One divine Substance in three Hypostases,
or Persons, that is, in three functional subsistences with three
special properties. This is more fully expressed and care
fully stated In the Athanasian Creed, 3-28 {v. pp. 102 seq.).
It is evident that this terminology is inadequate. The
terms are open to misconception and misinterpretation. It
is as easy for moderns to object to them as it was for the
ancients. Some of the ancients objected to them because
they were Arians, or other similar heretics, who were ruled
out by them from orthodoxy; others objected because they
were conservatives and disliked any additions to the Creed,
* Cf. Heb. 1', and Hilary, de Synodis, 84.

THE NICENE CREED 95
especially such as were of doubtful meaning, and might be
interpreted in the sense of Monarchianism in its various
forms, which the Church had long since rejected. When
it became evident that some terms must be used, they ear
nestly sought and zealously contended for other and, as they
thought, better terms. The modern objectors, however,
content themselves with an easy criticism of the terminology,
and ignore the historic consensus of the Church as to their
definite meaning. They do not propose any other termi
nology, and it is quite evident that they cannot Invent one.
The Nicene divines were fully aware that they had not
solved the mystery of the Holy Trinity. They were content
for the time to rule out Arianism as a dangerous heresy, and
to maintain the unity of God, the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, over against a reaction toward Polytheism. The
peril of a reaction toward Monarchianism, which the Con
servatives feared and dreaded, was provided against by the
distinction between the properties of the Father, Son, and
Spirit, in the three great sections of the Creed; and when
this was found insufficient, by an Interpretation of the dif
ferences by the use of vTroa-Taa-i'?, or persona, for the functions
and characteristic properties of the Three — terms Inadequate,
it is true, yet having definite historic meanings in the con
sensus of the Church. These terms must be explained anew
to each generation by the doctors of the Church, both to
the ministry and to the people, as the only way of avoiding
the antithetical errors of Arianism and Monarchianism, to
which different minds tend in accordance with circum
stances and education.
§ 3. The Incarnation of the Son of God is deflned as a com
ing down from heaven, and a becoming flesh and man, for the
salvation of men.
The third article of the Nicene Creed is based on the third
article of the Apostles' Creed in its Eastern forms. The
Nicene Creed reads: Who for us men and for our salvation
came down, and was incarnate, and made man.

yb FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
(1) The phrase who for our salvation was taken from the
Creed of Caesarea. It corresponds with the term Saviour,
which was originally in the Apostles' Creed, in the second
article, as In the Symbol of the Fish, and was subsequently
omitted in the Old Roman Creed when the six acts of salva
tion were specified {v. p. 46). The Nicene Creed prefers
for us men. This was possibly suggested by the final
clause, made man, for us men made man. Both of these
clauses were taken up into the revised Creed of Jerusalem,
and are in the Constantinopolitan and Western forms of the
Creed. (2) Came down, that is, from heaven, as the Creed of Epi
phanius and the Constantinopolitan have it. This was not
in the Creed of Caesarea, but was inserted by the Nicene
Fathers, in order probably to emphasise the fact that the
incarnation was a voluntary act of the Son of God Himself,
in accordance with the usage of the Gospel of John and over
against the subordinationism of the Arians.
(3) "^apiccodevTa, was made flesh, incarnate.
This was taken from the Creed of Caesarea. It is based on
John 11*.* Flesh here means, not the flesh of the body, but
man as flesh In antithesis to God {v. p. 80). The Creed of
Epiphanius has here of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Vir
gin; and so this appears also in the Constantinopolitan
and Western forms. The Creed of Caesarea and other East
ern Creeds omit the Virgin birth; because their statement of
the Incarnation is based on the prologue of John's Gospel,
and not on Luke, as are the Roman Creed and most of the
other forms of the Apostles' Creed {v. p. 81).
(4) ''EivavOpwrrricravTa, made man. This is a Nicene sub
stitute for the ev avOpdyjroi'i iroXiTeva-dfievov of the Eusebian
Creed, which was not sufficiently definite to emphasise the
humanity itself. The Creed of Jerusalem of Cyril has this
term, which is used also in the revised Creed of Jerusalem
of Epiphanius, and the Constantinopolitan.
The remaining Christological articles of the Nicene and
* Cf. Irenseus, Adv. Hcer. 1 : 10.

THE NICENE CREED 97
Constantinopolitan Creeds differ from the Apostles' Creed
only in certain phrases and In no important particular, with
the exception of the article as to the Second Advent, which Is
enlarged from the usual term of the Nicene Creed, coming
to judge the living and the dead, into coming again with
glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have
no end; at first in the revised Creed of Jerusalem of Epi
phanius, and then in the Constantinopolitan. The addi
tional clause was probably intended to rule out Marcellus,
who misinterpreted I Cor. 15'* to the effect that the reign of
Christ would cease when He delivered up the kingdom to the
Father. § 4. The article on the Holy Spirit is enlarged in the Con
stantinopolitan Creed so as to state that He is Lord, the Giver
of Life, who inspired the prophets, who proceedeth from the
Father, and is to be glorified jointly with Father and Son.
The Creed of Caesarea had simply: also in one Holy Spirit,
followed by the Nicene Creed: and in the Holy Spirit {v.
p. 75). The Creed of Jerusalem of Cyril had: and in one
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets. This
was enlarged in the Creed of Epiphanius by the addition of
the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who
with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorifled,
who spake by the prophets. The words One and Paraclete
were omitted. These additions were due to the contro
versy with the Pneumatomachians, or Macedonians, who
denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
(1) The Lord. The same lordship is here ascribed to the
Holy Spirit as to the Son of God, and in the same sense, as
divine, just as in the Athanasian Creed {v. p. 104).
(2) The Giver of Life. The Holy Spirit is life-giving in
the creation of the world (Gen. 1), and in the regeneration
of Christians (John 3). He is the Spirit of life (Rom. 82).
(3) Who proceedeth from the Father. The Holy Spirit Is
from the Father just as truly as the Son, but not In the same
sense. The Holy Spirit was not Son and therefore not be-

98 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
gotten. The term proceedeth was used to express the rela
tion of the Spirit to the Father, on the basis of John I52*.
The influence of the Athanasian Creed eventually effected
the insertion of the fllioque in the Western form of the Nicene
Creed; and so it became the official doctrine of the West
that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son.
The Orientals have always objected to this insertion, both
as unauthorised by the consensus of the Church and as in
correct. The consideration of this addition must be reserved
for our study of the Athanasian Creed and the subsequent
concihar decisions of the Western Church. The same gen
eral questions arise with reference to the relation of the
Spirit to the Father, as to that of the Son. The Constanti
nopolitan Creed does not state this exphcltly, but implies
it. Accordingly the Holy Spirit also is true God of true God,
nx)t made, consubstantial with the Father.
The Spirit could no more be a third God than the Son a
second. The Spirit could no more be a creature than could
the Son. The Procession of the Spirit from the Father was
as truly eternal as the generation of the Son. And so the
Athanasian Creed states that the Holy Spirit is of the Father
and of the Son, rwt made, nor created, nor begotten; but pro
ceeding {v. p. 104).
(4) Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped
and glorifled.
The worship of the Holy Spirit and the ascription of glory
to Him as God is here avowed, just as truly as the worship
and ascription of glory to the Father and the Son.
(5) Who spake by the prophets. This identifies the Holy
Spirit, not only with the divine Spirit who inspired the
prophets of the Old Testament, but also with the Holy Spirit
who inspired the apostles and prophets of the Church in
accordance with the promise and gift of Christ Himself.
The original Nicene Creed gives nothing of the work of
the Holy Spirit; but the Creed of Epiphanius, as based on
the Creed of Jerusalem, gives the same three activities as
the Apostles' Creed, in most of its forms, though in shghtly

THE NICENE CREED 99
different language. The Creed of Cyril declares belief:
{a) in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
(b) in one holy catholic Church, and (c) in the resurrection of
the flesh and in life everlasting. The Creed of Epiphanius
changes the order to the usual one: (a) one holy catholic
and apostolic Church, (6) one baptism for the remission of
sins, (c) the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world
to come. The Constantinopohtan follows the Creed as given
by Epiphanius.
Thus the Nicene Creed in its Constantinopolitan and
Western forms embraces, like the Apostles' Creed, the
Trinitarian formula and the twelve articles of the Christian
Faith. The articles on the divinity of Christ and the Holy
Spirit are richer and fuller, to rule out the Arian and Mace
donian heresies, which threatened to destroy Christianity
no less than their predecessors, Ebionitism, and Gnosticism,
and Monarchianism in its modal and dynamic forms.
All Christian Churches hold to this Creed as the ecumen
ical Creed of the Church. The great Protestant Churches,
no less than the Greek and Roman, reject all those heresies
condemned once for all in the accepted form of the Nicene
Creed; and they cannot tolerate the dynamic Monarch
ianism of Paul of Samosata in its modern representations,
any more than the modal form of Sabellius, or the Arian
and Semi-Arian heresies.

CHAPTER IV
THE ATHANASIAN CREED
§ 1. The Athanasian Creed was probably composed in the
flfth century as two separate treatises for use in the School of
Lerins, the one deflning the Catholic Faith in the Trinity, the
other the Right Faith in the Incarnation. These were subse
quently combined, enlarged, and given an official character by
the addition of the damnatory clauses.
The name Athanasius is by tradition attached to the
Creed, originally with the meaning that it set forth the doc
trine of Athanasius, just as the doctrine of the Apostles'
Creed was the doctrine of the Apostles; later with the mean
ing of authorship. But only the doctrine of the Trinity In
the first part of the Creed can be said to be Athanasian, and
even that Is Augustinian. The doctrine of Incarnation of
the second part is certainly later than Augustine. The
origin of this Creed is shrouded in mystery, and there are
several theories about it.
The Athanasian Creed, like the Apostles' Creed and the
Nicene Creed, had an original nucleus, which grew by revi
sion into its present form. The original Creed gave only
the Catholic Faith in the Holy Trinity (3-11, 13-18, 21-27).
This presents the Athanasian doctrine in an Augustinian
form, and was doubtless composed by one of the theologians
of the School of Lerins, in Gaul, as a manual of instruc
tion for the monastic Schools — either Honoratus (f 429) or
Hilary (f 450) or Vincent (f 450), all able and distinguished
theologians. This section presupposes the heresy of the
Macedonians or Pneumatomachi, condemned by the Coun-
100

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 101
cIl of Constantinople in 381, and could not have been com
posed much earlier. This section of the Creed received In
course of time the additions 12, 19-20, which betray an
other hand. The damnatory clauses at the beginning and
the end (1-2, 28) evidently came from another author. They
were not appropriate to a manual of instruction, but only
to a pubhc and official statement of the Faith over against
dangerous heresies; and it is improbable that they were
attached to the Creed Vi^hen it was simply a manual of In
struction, or until it had become a recognised official docu
ment of the Church.
The second section, giving the Right Faith in the Incar
nation (30-37), was originally issued separately; but the
sections have essentially the same style, form, and mode of
thought, and doubtless were composed by the same author.
The second section was modelled after the first, and there
fore must be somewhat later. This section shows no traces
of the Nestorian or Eutychian controversies, or of the deci
sions of the Council of Chalcedon; and therefore must have
been composed before the Commonitorium of Vincent (c.
432-4). But it distinctly rejects Apolllnarlanism; and
therefore must be later than 377 and 382, when Roman
Synods declared against that heresy.
This section also received additions in 38-40. These
additions were made to complete the Christological state
ments, for the same reason that similar additions were made
to the Nicene Creed in the Constantinopolitan form. They
are based on a form of the Apostles' Creed later than that of
the fourth century and earlier than that of the seventh.
The clauses 41-43 are an enlargement of the article of
the Resurrection of the Dead, in the same spirit as the dam
natory clauses, which were placed at the beginning and end
of this section, 29, 44. These clauses, however, were added
when the two sections were combined; because 29 is of the
nature of a seam, and the term Catholic Faith of 44 Is the
term of the first section, and not that of the second, which
is Right Faith.

102 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
§ 2. The flrst portion of the Creed sets forth the Nicene Faith
in an Augustinian form. It abandons the ancient Trinitarian
division of the Creed; and in order to rule out the Pneumato
machi, treats of the three Persons of the Trinity in the same
articles, in their common possession of the essential attributes of
Deity, and at the same time distinguishes their separate functions.
The first part of the Athanasian Creed sets forth the
Nicene Faith in the Augustinian form as follows:
3. The Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance {Es
sence). 5. For there is one Person of the Father ; another of the Son : and another
of the Holy Ghost.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
is all one : the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost.
8. The Father uncreate {uncreated): the Son uncreate {uncreated): and
the Holy Ghost uncreate {uncreated).
9. The Father incomprehensible {unlimited): the Son incomprehensible
{unlimited): and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible {unlimited, or infinite).
10. The Father eternal: the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated, nor three incompre
hensible {infinite): but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible
{infinite).
13. So likewise the Father is Almighty: the Son Almighty: and the
Holy Ghost Almighty.
14. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty.
15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.
16. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost
Lord. 18. And yet not three Lords : but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity : to ac
knowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion : to say. There
be three Gods, or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.
22. The Son is of tlte Father alone : not made, nor created : but begotten.
23. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor
created, nor begotten: but proceeding.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 103
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons:
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another: none is greater,
or less than another {there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less).
26. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid : the Unity in Trinity, and the
Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.
The distinctive features are the following:
(1) The doctrine of the divine Spirit is not given in a
third part of the Creed, as in the earlier Creeds, but is given
with the doctrine of the Father and the Son, in one part
together. The Holy Spirit, accordingly, has the same pred
icates as the Son and the Father, except that the special
properties of each are distinguished. This doctrine of the
Holy Spirit presupposes the heresy of the Macedonians, or
Pneumatomachi, condemned by the first Council of Con
stantinople. (2) The term persona is used for the definition of the three
Trinitarian distinctions, as In Augustine, and in accord with
the hypostasis of the Cappadoclans, implying the contro
versies as to the Nicene Creed with the Semi-Arians, result
ing in the reconciliation of practically all of them but the
Macedonians. The brief statement of the Constantinopol
itan as to the Holy Spirit is thus greatly enlarged. The
Constantinopolitan had: and in the Holy Spirit, {a) the Lord
and Giver of Life; {b) who proceedeth from the Father; (c)
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and
glorifled. The Athanasian begins and ends with the asser
tion of the worship of the Spirit together with the Father
and the Son (3, 27). So also it ascribes to the Spirit equality
In glory with the Father and Son (6). The Constantino
politan procession of the Spirit from the Father Is enlarged
into The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither
made, nor created, nor begotten : but proceeding.
The Lord and Giver of Life of the Constantinopolitan is
enlarged into sections 13-18 and later into 19-20.
The Athanasian now goes beyond the Constantinopolitan

104 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
In attributing to the Spirit the divine characteristics of the
Son, according to the Nicene Creed, thus: not made, uncreated
(8, 23), eternal (6, 26). To these It adds: incomprehensible
{immensus) (9, 12). The consubstantiality of the Son with
the Father is extended to the Holy Spirit in the terms:
Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing
the substance (3, 4); such as the Father is: such is the Son: and
such is the Holy Ghost (7); and in the repeated assertions
of unity: And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated: nor three incompre
hensible: but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible (11-
12); And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Al
mighty (14); And yet they are not three Gods: but one God (16);
And yet not three Lords: but one Lord (18).
The personal distinctions are also clearly stated in the
Athanasian Creed, and that which Is Implied In the Con
stantinopolitan becomes explicit. Thus, after the asser
tion of the worship of the Trinity in Unity, the first thing
that is said is: neither confounding the Persons (4). For there
is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and an
other of the Holy Ghost (5). The personal distinctions are
finally stated as follows: The Father is made of none:
neither created, nor begotten (21). The Son is of the Father
alone: not made, nor created: but begotten (22). The Holy
Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created,
nor begotten: but proceeding (23). So there is one Father,
not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not
three Holy Ghosts (24). And in this Trinity none is afore,
or after another: none is greater, or less than another (25).
But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal (26).
It is thus evident that the Athanasian Creed is an impor
tant advance on the Nicene-Constantinopolltan, In making
explicit what the Creed implied, and so ruling out the errors
as to the divine Spirit, and explaining the Trinity in such a
way as to remove any possibility of interpreting the Nicene
Faith In a Sabellian direction, as was at first the fear of the
Semi-Arians.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 105
§ 3. The second part of the Creed defines the Right Faith
in the Incarnation over against the Apollinarians. The two
natures of Christ are carefully distinguished, and any kind
of confusion of the two repudiated. The completeness of the
human nature is maintained, especially its possession of a
rational soul.
The second part of the Creed Is as follows:
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that
he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. [For] the Right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
31. God, of the Substance {Essence) of the Father: begotten before the
worlds : and Man, of the Substance {Essence) of His Mother, born in the
world. 32. Perfect God: and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human
flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead : and inferior to the
Father, as touching His Manhood.
34. Who although He be God and Man: yet He is not two, but one
Christ. 35. One : not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh : but by assumption
of the Manhood into God.
36. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance {Essence): but by
unity of Person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man : so God and Man
is one Christ.
This section defines the Right Faith; and it is summed up
in the term Incarnation (29), as distinguished from the first
part of the Creed, which was defined as the Catholic Faith
in the Holy Trinity. This Right Faith presupposes a wrong
Faith, and the conffict between the two, which began with
Apolllnarlanism. The statements of the Creed are so framed
as to exclude the ApoUinarian heresies; but there is noth
ing in them that Implies a knowledge of Nestorianism or
Monophysitism. The two natures of Christ, the divine and
the human, are carefully distinguished; but the interest
of the Creed is to define the human nature, and to avoid
any confusion of it with the divine in the Apolhnarian fash-

106 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
ion. As to the divine nature, this Creed simply adheres to
the statement of the Constantinopolitan.
The statement begins with the general definition of the
Right Faith in the Incarnation:
The Right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man (30).
Christ is both divine and human, in accordance with the
Nicene Faith. The divine nature is now defined as of the
Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds (31), both
Nicene terms; and as perfect God (32), equal to the Father
(33), which may be regarded as the equivalent of the Nicene:
God of God, Very God of Very God.
The definition of the human nature of Christ Is, however,
an advance upon the NIcene-Constantinopolitan statements;
as the human nature is brought into sharp antithesis with the
divine in the several clauses. Thus: Man of the substance
of His Mother, born in the world (31); Perfect Man, of a
reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting (32).
These terms are not in the Constantinopolitan Creed,
and their doctrine is there only by implication in the terms:
Was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and
was made man. It was necessary to affirm over against
the Apollinarians that the substance of the human nature
did not descend with the Logos from pre-existence in heaven,
but was derived from the human mother; and that the
human nature was perfect, having a rational soul as well
as human flesh, and not imperfect as Apollinaris would
have it, without a rational soul, whose place in the human
nature was taken by the pre-existing Logos. It is signif
icant that the technical term of the Nestorian controversy,
Mother of God, Is missing here. It could hardly have been
left out after the Nestorian controversy had been deter
mined by the Council of Chalcedon, whose decision had
undisputed ecumenical authority in the West, and was
opposed only In the East.
The Creed now proceeds to assert the unity of the divine
natures without confusion. In this section it approaches

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 107
nearer to the Chalcedonian rejection of Eutychianism : yet
it does not go beyond the Tome of Leo and the doctrine of
Augustine, which represented the Faith of the Church before
the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies; and the terms
that are used are such as to reject these heresies Implicitly,
though not so explicitly as the formula of Chalcedon. The
unity of natures is thus expressed:
Who although He be God and Man: yet is He not two but
one Christ (34). One; not by conversion of the Godhead into
flesh: but by assumption of the Manhood into God (35). One
altogether: not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of
Person (36). For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man:
so God and Man is one Christ (37).
This is a simple assertion of the two natures in the one
Christ, and that there Is no confusion of the two sub
stances by the union. The only term here that Is Involved
in the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies Is non confu-
sione, which appears in the Chalcedonian formula as incon-
fuse (do-u7;^;uT(»?). The other technical terms, immutabiliter,
indivise, inseparabiliter {aTpeiTTWi ^ aSiaipeTa^, a'xwpicrTay;) ,
do not appear, as would undoubtedly have been the case
if the Creed had been composed after Chalcedon; because
these three terms, much more than the one used, were
the essential ones in the Nestorian and Eutychian con
troversies. The Monophysites, indeed, could have sub
scribed without hesitation to the Athanasian: not by con
fusion of substance. The confusion here thought of is that
of Apollinaris, as the intermediate statement shows: One
not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, because of the
coming of the pre-existing heavenly Man into human flesh;
but by assumption of the manhood into God. It is true that
the latter statement is Inconsistent with Nestorianism, as
is still more the use of the term person in this connection:
by unity of person. But the use of the term person here
is a Western usage prior to Chalcedon, which does not
therefore imply Chalcedonian Influence. On the other hand,
the phrase assumption of the manhood into God might be

108 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
interpreted in favour of Monophysitism. We must, there
fore, conclude that these statements of the Athanasian Creed
were made without regard to the Nestorian and Mono-
physite controversies, but only to exclude the earlier errors as
to the human nature of Christ. It is also noteworthy that
the confusion here rejected is a confusion of substance;
whereas the Monophysite controversy and the Chalcedonian
formula have to do with a confusion of natures.
The final clause of this section, in its comparison of the
union of God and Man in Christ to the union of the rational
soul and the flesh in man, is open to misinterpretation in a
Nestorian direction. It would later have been regarded as
incautious. The very language shows that it was directed
against Apolhnarlanism.

CHAPTER V
THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON
§ 1. The Christological controversies, begun by Apollinaris
and continued by Nestorius and Cyril, Eutyches and Leo, and
other lesser theologians, made it necessary to summon the Coun
cil of Chalcedon to determine them in 451.
The Trinitarian controversies were finally settled at the
Council of Constantinople. Apollinaris made the transi
tion from the Trinitarian to the Christological period. His
heresy was rejected by the Council of Constantinople, but
no definition of the Faith was made over against him. How
ever, the Athanasian Creed in the West, In its statement of
the right Faith in the Incarnation, ruled out Apolllnarlan
ism. All the world now became Involved in Christological
controversies, with Constantinople as the centre of conflict,
as Alexandria had been during the struggle with Arianism.
In 428 Nestorius was consecrated Bishop of Constanti
nople. Soon after his accession he objected to the term
Theotokos as applied to the Virgin Mary, and endeavoured
to distinguish between the man Jesus, born of Mary, and
the Son of God united to him. Nestorius does not seem to
have denied the personality of the Word, or Son of God;
but he distinguished too sharply between the two natures,
and, to say the least, did not clearly recognise their unity
in one person. This greatly excited the Church In all parts,
especially in Alexandria and Rome; and Pope Ccelestlne
and Cyril of Alexandria united In opposition.
Cyril wrote a letter to Nestorius in 429, remonstrating,
and urging him to restore peace by using the term Theotokos,
to which Nestorius replied in an unsatisfactory manner.
109

110 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
In 430 Cyril wrote a second letter. In which he explained
the right doctrine of the Incarnation, and asked Nestorius
whether he held it and taught it. Nestorius was still more
unsatisfactory in his reply. Cyril then informed Pope
Ccelestlne of Nestorius' position; and a Council, held in
Rome in August, condemned Nestorius, giving him ten days
in which to recant. This Council committed the discipline
of Nestorius to Cyril. He held a provincial Council In
Alexandria, which agreed to a third letter to Nestorius with
twelve anathemas, which Nestorius was required to sub
scribe. This letter, together with that of the Pope, was sent
to Constantinople In charge of four bishops, who thus took
with them the authority of these two great apostolical sees.
Nestorius, however, would not yield; but Instead Issued
twelve anathemas In response, to which he secured the sup
port of John of Antloch, Andrew of Samosata, and others.
A Council was assembled at Ephesus In June, 431, which
approved Cyril's second letter, and condemned and deposed
Nestorius. When John of Antloch and other Eastern prel
ates arrived, they organised a separate council and de
posed Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus, not for heresy but for
violation of concihar rights. This brought on a bitter con
test, which continued until 433, when John of Antloch and
Cyril of Alexandria were reconciled, and Nestorius was re
jected by all.
The Nestorian heresy, which exaggerated the difference
of the two natures of Christ, naturally brought about the
antithetical heresy of underrating the difference. In 448
Eutyches, an archimandrite of Constantinople, was charged
by Eusebius of Dorylaeum before a Synod of Constantinople
under the presidency of Bishop Flavian with denying the
reality of the human nature of Christ after the Incarnation.
He admitted that there was a union of two natures, the
divine and the human, in the Incarnation; but he denied
that these remained two after the Incarnation, asserting
that the two natures were united Into one nature.
Eutyches was condemned by the Synod. He then ap-

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 111
pealed to Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. DIoscurus,
Bishop of Alexandria, espoused his cause; and a Council was
held at Ephesus (449), under his presidency, which acted in
such a rude, unjust, and tyrannical manner that it has ever
since been known as the Robber Synod. Its authority was not
recognised by the leading sees. It restored Eutyches, and
excommunicated Flavian of Constantinople and other rep
resentatives of orthodoxy.
Leo had sent his opinion by delegates in a document known
as the Tome. This the Council would not hear, and they
treated his representatives with disrespect and violence.
The death of the Emperor Theodoslus in 450 brought a
change of policy. Another Council was called, which met
at Chalcedon in 451.
§ 2. The Council of Chalcedon condemned Nestorianism
and Monophysitism; and defined the Faith in the Person of
Christ as composed of tivo natures, the divine and the human,
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the dis
tinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union,
but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved
and concurring in one Person and one Hypostasis.
The Council condemned Eutyches and DIoscurus, sub
scribed the tome of Leo, the second letter of Cyril to Nes
torius, and his letter to John of Antloch. It then issued Its
own definition of the Faith, as follows:
"Following the holy fathers we teach with one voice that the Son
[of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the
same [Person], that He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood,
very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body con
sisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching His Godhead, and
consubstantial with us as touching His manhood; made in all things
like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of His Father before the
worlds according to His Godhead; but in these last days for us men and
for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother
of God according to His manhood. This one and the same Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two
natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united].

112 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such
union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved
and being united in one Person and Hypostasis, not separated or di
vided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only Begotten,
God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old time have
spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us,
and as the Creed of the fathers hath deUvered to us."
Nestorianism and Eutychianism are explicitly refuted.
Nestorianism so emphasised the difference of the two na
tures as to make the unity an ethical one of two different
persons. Eutychianism so emphasised the unity of nature
as to do away with the two natures after the Incarnation.
It makes of them only one nature, containing human and
divine attributes and characteristics. Hence the Chalce
donian formula insists, over against Nestorianism, that the
one Hypostasis, the divine Christ, was born of the Virgin,
and not merely that the human nature of Christ was thus
born; and that the two natures were indivisibly and in
separably united in the one Christ. It insists over against
Eutychianism that the human nature remained after the
union distinct from the divine nature, inconfused and un
changeable: the distinction of natures being by no means
taken away by the union, "but rather the pecuhar property
of each nature being preserved and concurring in one Person
and one Hypostasis."
Many questions remained still undetermined at Chalce
don. Nestorianism was driven from the Roman Empire,
and sought refuge In Persia. But the Monophysites con
tinued to disturb the Church In the Empire for a long time,
and subsequently divided into many warring parties.
These Monophysites did not agree with the extrava
gances of Eutyches, which were rejected by the definitions of
Chalcedon. They were rather like the Semi-Arians in their
attitude toward the Nicene Faith. Many of them were
willing to accept the Chalcedonian formula, if they could
interpret it in their own way; but they were not willing to
accept the interpretation of their opponents. They regarded

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 113
these as reacting toward Nestorianism. The fundamental
question in dispute was as to the real meaning of the Chalce
donian formula. There is a variation of reading: the one
of two natures, eic Svo <])v(Te(ov; the other in two natures,
ev Svo ^vaeaiv. The present Greek text reads the former;
all Latin translations, in duabus naturis, but with editorial
recognition of variation. There is a difference among scholars
as to which is the original. Baur and Dorner are the chief
among those who think the former original, and It seems to
me that they are correct. It agrees better with the context,
especially with the verb yvcopi^eiv. It is also favoured by the
well-known principle of criticism that the more difficult read
ing is more likely to be correct.* In the context it is sufficiently
clear as rejecting Eutychianism, but apart from the context
might be interpreted in its favour. There was no sufficient
reason to change ev into eic; but there was a strong reason
to change iic into ev, in order to deprive the Monophysites
of a seeming support to their views. Gleseler, Neander,
Hefele, and Schaff are the chiefs of a majority of scholars
who favour an original ev, on the ground that the change to
iic was made in the interest of the Monophysites. But this
seems improbable in view of the constant conflict with them
from the Council of Chalcedon until their final separation
from the Church. This might account for the Insertion of
iic in some texts of the formula, but not in the official texts
recognised by the Greek Church as valid. The several
parties would have watched over this terminology with the
greatest care. The difference is really only one between
the Greek original and the Latin translation.
The symbol does not say one nature from two natures, but
one and the same Christ from two natures, and this Is essen
tially the same as in two natures. The unity of Christ and
the two distinct natures are taught equally in both cases.
The difficulty to the Monophysites was that the unity
did not seem to be sufficiently recognised by their opponents.
The Monophysites did not in fact take any position contrary
* V. Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, p. 89.

114 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
to the distinction of natures inconfusedly and unchangeably;
they rather emphasised indivisibly and inseparably. They
recognised the distinction, and yet emphasised the unity.
They could agree to the union of two natures In one and the
same Christ, and it might have been wiser if the Council had
not in its subsequent clause asserted that the unity was in
the one hypostasis. They did not object to the one person;
they maintained It vigorously against the Nestorians; but
they thought the unity was something more than hypo
static, and so indeed It was.
If the contest of the theologians had continued within the
Church, distinctions made later by Leontius of Byzantium
and John of Damascus might have reconciled the Mono
physites to the Chalcedonian formula; for both the Greeks
and the Latins were compelled to reckon with certain differ
ences between the human nature of Christ and the human
nature of other men, due to the union of the human nature
with the divine in the one and the same Christ.
(1) It was agreed by all that Christ was without sin,
whether original or actual; and that He was from birth In
nocent, and In His life perfect In holiness. He was in the
likeness of sinful flesh, but His flesh was not sinful. It was
agreed by orthodox theologians that the human nature of
Christ must have some special quahties because of the union.
The human nature was not that of an individual united to
the Logos, which would be Nestorianism. It was that of a
man who gained his individuality first by union with the
Logos, Who assumed human nature, not the nature of an
individual. It was for the integrity and completeness of
Christ's human nature that the Church stood; not that His
nature had not its own special characteristics as suitable for
union with the divine nature. His nature was normal and
not abnormal; having completeness as the ideal of humani
ty, not according to the reality of fallen humanity.
(2) There were controversies among the Monophysites as
to whether the human nature of Christ had other special
quahties, such as: whether Christ's human nature was

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 115
limited in knowledge, or was a sharer in the complete and
perfect knowledge of the divine mind. The debate raged es
pecially about the words of Christ: "But of that day or that
hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither
the Son, but the Father" (Mark 13*2). Was this saying ex
actly true, or only economically true: that is, true relatively
to its communication to others, not true in itself?
(3) Were the miracles of Christ wrought by His omnipo
tence as God, or by virtue of His prophetic possession of the
divine Spirit as Man?
(4) As to His body, was it incorruptible, or corruptible?
The Monophysites raised this question, and divided upon
it into Severians, (^dapToXuTpai, and Juhanists, 'A(f>Oap-
ToSo/CTjTttt; the latter insisting upon the incorruptibility of
the flesh of Christ as well as upon its life-giving property, in
accordance with II Tim. li". This, indeed, seems to be
logically involved In the life-giving property taught by Cyril
in his letter to Nestorius, which has semi-symbolical charac
ter; although the weight of theological opinion is against It.
The chief difficulty with the Chalcedonian decision, one
that was deeply felt in ancient times and is at present re
garded as most serious, is the seeming limitation of the unity
to the hypostasis, or person of the Logos. There is certainly
an ambiguity in the use of the term person that is disturb
ing; for person, as used in connection with the distinctions
of the Holy Trinity, has a different meaning from person
as used in the Chalcedonian formula, as the point of union
of the human and divine natures of Christ. The latter Is
certainly something more than the hypostasis of the Second
Person of the Trinity, which did not include individuality.
Individuality can be predicated of the one God only, not of
the three Trinitarian hypostases. How much more the per
sonality, that united the natures, was than the hypostasis
of the Logos, has not been defined by the Church. As
Dorner shows, the Chalcedonian formula does not deny hu
man personality to the Man Jesus. It simply denies that
there is a human personality separate and distinct from the

116 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, and asserts
the unity In the one person of Christ.
Leontius of Byzantium was the great theologian, who was
able to speak the reconcihng word, solving this the chief
difficulty in the Chalcedonian formula. He represented that
the human nature was not without a hypostasis, but was
enhypostatlsed In the Logos. John of Damascus, the great
Greek scholastic, subsequently taught that the hypostasis
was composite ; and that there was a communication of at
tributes. The difficulty Involved In such an entire separation of na
tures, as seemed to the Monophysites to be involved in the
Chalcedonian formula, was overcome by the doctrine of
avTt'Socrt? ISim/jLaTcov, an exchange or communication of prop
erties of the one nature to the other. From the very nature
of the case this communication is on the divine side and
not on the human. This communication of properties of
the divine nature to the human nature of Christ, while it
refers chiefly to His state of exaltation and especially to the
eucharlstic presence, also refers in part to the state of humili
ation and explains those special characteristics of the human
nature of Christ upon which the Monophysites insisted, and
which seem to be based on the New Testament.
Another term was also useful, especially in John of Da
mascus, namely, TrepL'^wprjaL'; , which, as interpreted, repre
sents that the divine nature of Christ interpenetrated and
pervaded the human nature. The two natures were not
merely in external juxtaposition. On the other hand, this
exchange of attributes and interpenetration of natures
threatens a confusion of the two natures of Christ, and tends
in the direction of Monophysitism, especially if referred to
the act of Incarnation. This certainly was not designed by
Leontius or John of Damascus, who maintained the Chalce
donian formula, and who guarded themselves sufficiently
from the peril of Monophysitism. They were explaining
the Chalcedonian doctrine, and not changing it or modify
ing it. The Chalcedonian formula is not responsible for

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 117
their doctrinal explanations: but it Is not inconsistent with
them; and the Doctors of the Church, East and West, have
regarded their explanations as normal and correct. It Is
altogether probable that, if the Monophysites had remained
in the Roman Empire, they would have been reconciled by
these explanations, which gained a semi-official character.
§ 3. The efforts to reconcile the Monophysites by the Hen
oticon of the Emperor Zeno (482), distinguishing between the
Chalcedon definition of Faith and the opinion of the Council,
and by the unjust condemnation of the three Chapters of the
great Antiochian divines, long deceased, by edict of Justinian and
the Fifth Ecumenical Council, deservedly failed.
The controversy with the Monophysites pursued its weary
way for several centuries, from the Council of Chalcedon
until the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 680,
when it was finally overcome in the Greek Church.
In 482 the Emperor Zeno, under the advice of Acaclus,
Patriarch of Constantinople, Issued his Henoticon, which re
duced the questions at issue to a minimum, and sought by a
general formula to reconcile the Monophysites. It reaffirmed
the rejection of Nestorius and Eutyches, condemned those
who divide or confuse the two natures, and maintained the
entire oneness of Christ, without using either hypostasis or
nature. But it then goes on to anathematise all who judge
otherwise, "whether at Chalcedon or any other Synod what
ever." Thus it reaffirms the doctrine of Chalcedon, but dis
credits the Council. This was evidently unfair, and a dis
honourable yielding to partisan prejudices. The Henoticon
was accepted by the Patriarch of Alexandria; but he did not
succeed in the reconciliation of the Egyptian Monophysites.
It was adopted by the Armenians and gained symbolical
authority In that country, which separated from the Greek
Empire under the Persian rule. The Church in Armenia has
remained Independent under Its own patriarch until the pres
ent time. The Henoticon gained partial acceptance in other
parts of the East, apparently in Constantinople itself. But

118 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
Rome could not accept it; for it discredited the Council of
Chalcedon, and that was to discredit Rome herself, as she
especially prided herself upon her pre-eminence there, both
in doctrine and In authority. The Henoticon therefore did
not relieve the situation, but made it still more difficult.
The Emperor Justinian (527-565) also endeavoured to rec
oncile the Monophysites. At first he adopted severe meas
ures against them, but afterward tried milder ones. He
arranged a conference between the Chalcedonian and Mono
physite bishops, but could not accomphsh anything. He
then gave his approval to the Monophysite watchword
" God was crucified," which might be orthodox, or not, accord
ing as it was explained. He also favoured the Aphthar-
docetae, who also could not be regarded as Inconsistent with
Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian divines had opposed both of
these; but they had no call to do so, as far as the formula of
Chalcedon itself was concerned.
The chief measure of Justinian was, however, the con
demnation by edict of the "Three Chapters," that is, the
writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, of Theodoret against
Cyril, and of Ibas to Maris. This action was urged by Theo-
dorus of Caesarea as the best way of reconciling the Mono
physites. The divines thus condemned were regarded by
the Monophysites as really Nestorians. Theodore's writings
were not approved by the Council of Chalcedon; but those
of Theodoret and Ibas were not disapproved, although for
a while both these divines, with John of Antloch, had been
hostile to Cyril. But they had been reconciled before Chal
cedon and had agreed to the Chalcedonian formula. Rome
hesitated; not that she approved of these three divines, but
for fear that their condemnation was another attempt to dis
credit the Council of Chalcedon. Yet, finally, when the Fifth
Ecumenical Council at Constantinople condemned them,
Rome assented. But this action did not succeed with the
Monophysites, any more than did the others. The most of
the Egyptians separated from the Greek patriarch of Alex
andria, chose their own patriarch, and under the name of

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 119
the Copts have remained separate till the present day.
They associated themselves with the Ethiopian Church,
which had always been loosely attached to the Church of the
Roman Empire.
§ 4. The Sixth Ecumenical Council rejected Monothel-
itism and asserted that Christ had two wills, divine and human,
the luill being regarded as belonging to a complete nature, and
not as belonging to the person.
Another attempt to reconcile the Monophysites was made
by the Emperor Heraclius, under the advice of Serglus, Pa
triarch of Constantinople, by the assertion that the two
natures were united In one will, /Jn'a OeavSpiicf} ivepjeia.
Serglus received the support of Honorius of Rome, who did
not regard the question as important. He was not opposed
to either one energy or two. He thought the question a
triffing one, fit only for grammarians. However, he was will
ing to say: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ."
But there was great opposition to this doctrine all over both
East and West. Finally Heraclius, in the interest of peace,
issued an edict (638) composed by Serglus, who thought he
had the support of Rome. It was called the eicdea-K, or
Exposition of the Faith, and It forbade the use of the expres
sions: one or two operations.
But the place of Honorius had been taken by another pope,
who repudiated the Ecthesis; and he was followed generally
throughout the Church, partly because the doctrine of a
single will seemed another attempt to undermine the Faith
of Chalcedon, and partly because of a resentment of imperial
authority in matters of faith. The Emperor Constans II
tried to enforce the decision of his predecessor by a decree
called the Typos (648 A. D.), enjoining silence as to the
matter in dispute. But the pope the more determinedly op
posed it. Martin I, In a Synod at the Lateran (649) ,
anathematised the doctrine of the one Will as inconsistent
with Chalcedon, and condemned both Ecthesis and Typos.
The controversy continued until the reign of Constantine

120 FUNDAMENTAL SYMBOLICS
Pogonatus. He invited Pope Agatho to give his judgment
on the doctrine. This was done In an official letter, communi
cated to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople
(680), which decided for two Wills, and condemned Honorius
as a heretic. This is the decision:
"For as His flesh is called, and is, the flesh of God the Word; so also
the natural will of His flesh is called, and is, the proper (will) of God
the Word. . . . For as His most holy and immaculate animated flesh was
not destroyed because deified, but continued in its own state and nature;
so also His human will, though deified, was not destroyed."
The question whether Christ had two Wills, or one, de
pends upon whether the will is to be attached to the person
or to the nature; if to the former, there can be but one will;
if to the latter, two. The definition of the Council is based on
the psychological opinion that the wills go with the natures,
and are therefore two.
These questions of detail as to the two natures of Christ
in the unity of His person are difficult. It cannot be said
that they have all been solved. They depend upon various
psychological opinions concerning which modern philosophy
has much to say, though little of any great value. All of
these are open questions, so far as they do not involve a de
parture from the fundamental Faith of the Church. The
statements of the Creeds and the Councils are simple, exclud
ing only the most dangerous errors, and, so far as they are
positive, departing but slightly from the explicit teachings of
Holy Scripture, and then only in defining their implicit teach
ings. These statements were made necessarily in the terms
of ancient philosophy and psychology. They do not at all
stand in the way of Modern Thought; nor do they prevent
restatement in terms of modern psychology and philosophy,
so long as the Biblical substance and the official historical
Faith of the Church is not impaired.

PAET II
PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Particular Symbohcs studies the symbols of the various
branches of the Church of Christ in their origin and history,
and interprets them apart, by themselves, in the light of
their history and their relation to the particular Christian
church which produced them.
Particular Symbohcs begins with the division of the Church
between the East and the West, each of these two great
divisions of Christendom going Its own independent way
from the time of the final separation until the present time.
During the Middle Ages the Roman Church produced sev
eral important symbols, determining several doctrines, and
ruling out several heresies which arose in the West.
During this period the Greek Church adhered to the fun
damental symbols of the Church, and made no other sym-
bohc statements.
The great Reformation of the sixteenth century resulted
in the separation of the Protestant Churches into three great
divisions, the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the Anghcan.
Each of these divisions produced its own particular symbols,
and over against them the Roman and Greek Churches
issued additional symbols.
These symbols of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
differ from the fundamental symbols of the ancient Church
and the particular symbols of the mediaeval Western Church,
121

122

INTRODUCTION

in that these define certain specific doctrines, in response
to the necessities of the time, to overrule and reject certain
heresies. Some symbols of the sixteenth and seventeenth'
centuries do this; but the most of them are elaborate trea
tises of theology. It is quite impracticable to consider ade
quately the symbols of the Middle Ages In a volume like this.
It is also impracticable to do so with the symbols of the
particular Churches that have originated since the Reforma
tion, for each one would require a volume by itself. The
only thing that is practicable, or Indeed important, In this
volume is to give the origin and historic importance of each
of these symbols under Particular Symbolics, and to pre
suppose the interpretation of the doctrines of the particular
symbols in the comparative study of them under Com
parative Symbohcs.

CHAPTER II
SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH
The Middle Ages began, according to my estimation,
with the crowning of Charlemagne, December 25, 800, by
Pope Leo III. As in all beginnings, a definite central event
is in the midst of a number of minor beginnings shortly
before and afterward.
The Middle Ages may be subdivided Into three periods:
(l) The preparatory one, which ended with the reforming
Synod of Sutri, 1046. This introduced (2) the Hllde-
brandian reform and the German period of the Papacy,
the age of Scholastic Theology and Canon Law in their
highest development, and of the revivals connected with the
great mendicant orders. This period closed with the de
cline of the papacy and its removal to Avignon, June 5, 1304.
(3) The third period begins with the so-called Babylonian
captivity of the Church, when it was more or less under
the influence of France and was struggling for independence.
The whole Church was seething with corruption, in its
division under the authority of rival popes. This period,
when no supreme authority existed to overcome these evils,
came to an end with the overthrow of all the rival popes,
the triumph of the papacy over councils and nations, and
the reunion of the whole Church under Nicholas V, cel
ebrated by the Jubilee of 1450.
The crowning of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III, as em
peror of the western Roman empire, involved the separa
tion of East and West, ecclesiastically as well as politically;
123

124 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
although the final ecclesiastical separation did not take place
till some time afterward.
There had been a long struggle between the Patriarchs
of Constantinople and the Popes of Rome.
This was due not to jealousy of new Rome on the part
of old Rome, or to an eager grasping after authority to which
Rome was not entitled, as Protestant writers usually repre
sent, but to the necessity of maintaining the ancient
rights of the apostolic see, the foundation of St. Peter and
St. Paul as recognised from the most ancient times, and the
primacy of St. Peter, given to him by the Saviour and trans
mitted to his successors in the see of Rome. At least that
has always been the doctrine of the Roman Church, as well
as of other large sections of the Christian Church from
the most ancient times. This was a doctrine, the mainte
nance of which was a matter of conscience in the Western
Church, and of obligation to the Lord and His apostles.
The struggle between Constantinople and Rome had four
stages. (1) The Council of Nice, 325, recognised the four apos
tolic sees of Jerusalem, Antloch, Alexandria, and Rome as
supreme in their respective districts. It also gave a place
beside them to Constantinople, because it had become the
capital of the empire in the East. The primacy of Rome
was, however, distinctly stated in the canon law of the Coun
cil, although not defined in its nature or extent.
(2) The Council of Constantinople, 381, made the chief
bishops of the imperial dioceses supreme over all the eccle
siastical sees In their dioceses. This raised the dignity of
Ephesus In Asia and Caesarea of Cappadocia, but depre
ciated Jerusalem. It also gave the Patriarch of Constan
tinople rank next to Rome. This arrangement was never
acceptable to Rome, and was not agreeable to the older
apostolic sees of Jerusalem, Antloch, and Alexandria. Their
dissatisfaction, as we have seen, complicated and imbit-
tered the doctrinal controversies which divided these sees.
(3) The Council of Chalcedon, 451, made the situation

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 125
worse by reducing the Patriarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea
under the Patriarch of Constantinople, thus greatly increas
ing his importance by giving him an extent of jurisdiction
second only to that of Rome.
(4) The chmax was reached when Constantinople In
truded into the jurisdiction of Rome, supported by Imperial
authority, and subordinated Illyria, Macedonia, and Greece
to itself.
This conflict of the popes with Constantinople for their
primacy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, both over particular
sees and, in a more comprehensive sense, over the whole
Christian Church, became involved with disputes over minor
doctrinal and institutional questions, whose importance was
greatly exaggerated In the heat of controversy. The most
important of these was the addition to the Nicene Creed of
the filioque.
The age-long conflict culminated in the contest between
Pope Nicholas and Photius, 861-880, when the two Churches
separated. Then came a succession of reunions and sep
arations until the final separation as the result of the con
flict between Pope Leo IX and Michael Caerularlus in
1053. The last ecumenical Council recognised by both the
Greek and the Roman Church was the Council of Nice in
787. This Council condemned the Iconoclasts and gave
sanction to the use of images in worship, distinguishing be
tween the true worship due to God alone (XaTpeia) and a
secondary worship of veneration and honour in the use of
sacred images {'irpoa-icvvtja-i'; = adoratio, later doulia). The
controversy over the use of images was chiefly in the Greek
Church, and, like all controversies over institutions, became
exceedingly bitter, especially with the common people, but
with only an echo In the West. The decision of the Council,
though accepted universally in East and West during the
Middle Ages, was productive of so much superstition and
so many abuses, that the worship of images became one of

126 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the most Important questions of reform in the Age of the
Reformation. It was, however, an institutional rather than
a doctrinal question.
After the separation the Greek Church remained sta
tionary on the seven ecumenical Councils as to their deci
sions on both doctrine and institution.
The Roman Church adhered to the doctrinal decisions of
these councils, but dissented from those canons that did
not come up to the full measure of the papal claims. After
the separation the Roman Church continued to hold coun
cils which claimed to be ecumenical though not recog
nised by the Greek Church. Questions of doctrine and
institution were also decided by provincial synods, and by
the pope himself, whose consent was regarded as necessary
even to give the acts of provincial synods and ecumenical
councils vahdity.
During the Middle Ages there were ten ecumenical Coun
cils recognised by the Western Church but not by the
Eastern. In the first period only one was held, that of Con
stantinople In 869 against Photius in connection with the
separation of the Greek Church from the Latin. In the
second period there were six Councils : four held in the Lat
eran at Rome, 1123, 1139, 1179, 1215, and two at Lyons,
1245, 1274. In the third period three councils were held: at
Vienne, 1311-12; at Constance, 1414-18; at Basel-Ferrara-
Florence, 1431-42. The most of these dealt with questions
of government and discipline, and so enlarged the Canon
Law of the Church. Some of them dealt with schismatics.
Only four of them dealt with dogmatic questions: the third
Lateran, 1179, with NIhlhanIsm; the fourth Lateran, 1215,
with the Eucharist; the second Lyons, 1274, with the pro
cession of the Spirit; and that of Florence, 1439, with mat
ters in dispute with the Greeks and Orientals.
Prior to the first ecumenical Council held in the West
there were two general synods, whose decisions were ap
proved by the popes, which would have been regarded as
ecumenical if held at a later period, and which have ever

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 127
since been regarded by the Western Church as authoritative:
(1) the Synod of Frankfort, 794, which decided against
Adoptlonism; and (2) the Synod of Rome, 1079, which de
termined the controversy as to the Eucharist.
We shall also have to consider under Particular Symbolics
the Synod of Orange of 529, which rejected Pelagianlsm and
Seml-Pelaglanism; for, while this council was held a con
siderable time before the Middle Ages began, it yet decided
a purely Western controversy in which the Greek Church
had no part, and its decisions have never been regarded as
symbolical by the Greek Church.
§ 1. The Synod of Orange in 529 rejected Pelagianism
and Semi-Pelagianism; and defined a mild Augustinianism.
Original sin was defined on its negative rather than on its pos
itive side. The necessity of divine grace was maintained, but
the sufficiency of its provision was asserted. The divine sover
eignty was recognised, but no absolute decree.
In the Western Church Pelagianlsm raised a great con
troversy by assertions of the innocency of human nature,
which contradicted the Pauline doctrine of original sin and
guilt and the absolute need of divine grace for salvation^
xA.ugustine, the great theologian of the West, undertook the
defence of the Pauline doctrine of sin and grace, but pushed
his doctrine to an extreme.
Pelagius was condemned with Nestorius by the Council
of Ephesus in 431, but without any consideration of the
questions at issue. The Eastern Church did not then take,
and never since has taken, any interest in these questions.
At the same time the Eastern Church has maintained the
BIbhcal position and does not. In fact, differ from the Roman
Church on the question. It was a Western controversy.
The errors of Pelagius were rejected by Pope Innocent I
and the Synod of Mllevius in 416, then more fully in eight
canons by the Synod of Carthage In 418, and by Pope Zosi-
mus in his epistola tractoria, 418. These official decisions of
the Church did not adopt the Augustinian doctrines of sin

128 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
and grace in their entirety, but only In general in a mild
form, to the exclusion of Pelagian errors.
The chief phases of the doctrine decided were: (1) that
Adam became mortal because of his sin and subsequent to
his fall; (2) that all Infants inherit original sin, and therefore
must be baptised in order to receive the grace of salvation;
(3) that the divine grace imparts both remission of sin and
ability to overcome sin.
The views of Augustine as to sin and grace were pressed
to exaggerations by Augustine himself and his disciples, and
these were combated by many distinguished theologians, es
pecially in Gaul, who sought an intermediate position, but In
doing so really reacted too far In the direction of Pelagianism,
so that they have been in modern times called Semi-Pela
gians, yet not in strict propriety.
They are more properly called Massilians, because their
chief centre was the monastery of Lerins and the sees in the
vicinity of Marseilles. These theologians accepted the de
cisions already made by the Church, but were unwilling to
accept other Augustinian positions. They maintained that,
notwithstanding original sin, there remained in man a rudi
ment of good-will and moral ability to co-operate with the
divine grace in his salvation; and that all mankind were
included in the plan of salvation, the failure being due to
man's fault alone.
After a long controversy the most serious questions in dis
pute were determined by the Synod of Orange, in 529, In
favour of a mild Augustinianism. Pelagianism and the
errors of the Massilians were condemned, but High Augustin
ianism was not indorsed.
(1) Original sin was asserted as inherited by the entire
posterity of Adam, and as total in soul and body; but Its
negative side of moral inability, rather than its positive side,
was emphasised.
(2) The absolute need of prevenlent divine grace was as
serted; but also that sufficient grace was imparted in the sacra
ments of the Church, and it was not regarded as irresistible.

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 129
(3) The sovereignty of God was recognised, and the elec
tion of grace; but predestination to evil was repudiated.
The positive and essential parts of the decree are the fol
lowing: Ac sic secundum supra scriptas sanctarum Scripturarum sententias,
vel antiquorum Patrum definitiones, hoc Deo propitiante et prasdicare
debemus et credere, quod per peccatum primi hominis ita inclinatum et
attenuatum fuerit liberum arbitrium, ut nullus postea aut diligere Deum
sicut oportuit, aut credere in Deum, aut operari propter Deum quod bonum
est, possit, nisi gratia eum et misericordia divina prcevenerit. Unde Abel
ju^to, et Noe, et Abraham, et Isaac, et Jacob, et omni antiquorum sanc
torum multitudini illam prceclaram fidem, quam in ipsorum laude prosdi-
cat apostolus Paulus, non per bonum naturae, quod prius in Adam datum
fuerat, sed per gratiam Dei credimus fuisse collatam: quam gratiam etiam
post adventum Domini omnibus, qui baptizari desiderant, non in libera
arbitrio haberi, sed Christi novimus simul et credimus largitate conferri. . . .
Hoc etiam secundum fidem catholicam credimus, quod accepta per bap-
tismum gratia omnes baptizati {Christo auxiliante et cooperante), quae
ad salutem pertinent, possint et debeant {si fideliter laborare voluerint)
adimplere. Aliquos vera ad malum divina potestate prcedestinatos esse, non
solum non credimus, sed etiam si sunt, qui tantum malum credere velint,
cum omni detestatione illis anathema dicimus. Hoc etiam salubriter
profitemur et credimus, quod in omni opere bono non nos incipimus, et
postea per Dei misericordiam adjuvamur, sed ipse nobis nullis prcece-
dentilms bonis meritis et fidem et amorem sui prius inspirat, ut et bap-
tismi sacramenta fideliter requiramus, et post baptismum {cum ipsius
adjutorio) ea, quae sibi sunt placita, implere possimus {Canon 25).
These statements of the Synod of Orange are the official
doctrine of the Church by which all doctrines of sin and
grace are to be tested. Those who make the theology of
Augustine the test, exalt him above the Church, make his
opinions more important than official symbolic decisions, and
neglect to make the proper distinctions between private
theory and public doctrine.
This mild Augustinianism was commonly held In the
Church until the Reformation; although there were occa
sional conflicts with those who reproduced the High Augus
tinianism of Augustine himself. This could hardly be oth
erwise, because of the veneration for Augustine and his

130 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
writings as the great doctor of the Western Church. Never
theless, though High Augustinianism persisted and con
stantly reappeared in scholars here and there, it was
always discredited until the Reformation, when High Augus
tinianism was revived by the Reformers over against the
mild Augustinianism of the Catholic Church. This involved
conflicts still more serious than those of the sixth century,
which have continued to disturb the Church until the pres
ent time. If only the Reformers had been content with
the decisions of the Synod of Orange, a multitude of evils
would have been averted. This will have to be considered
more fully In our study of the Confessions of Faith of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
§ 2. The Synod of Frankfort, 794, rejected the Adoptionists,
ivho held that Christ, as the Second Person of the Trinity, was the
natural Son of God, but as the Son of Mary was the adopted
Son, refusing this distinction as tending toward Nestorianism.
The Adoptionlst controversy is usually discussed as a re
flection of the Monophysite controversies. But in fact it
was purely a Western question. Adoptlonism arose in Spain
in antithesis to a phase of Sabellianism, which was taught by
MIgetius. At the provincial Synod of Seville, 782, he was
condemned. But Ellpandus incautiously went to the other
extreme, and distinguished between the two natures of
Christ so sharply that he regarded the Son of Mary as only
the adopted Son of God, and as such to be distinguished from
the Second Person of the Trinity, the natural Son.
The opinion of Ellpandus was taken up by a number of
Spanish bishops, and especially by Felix, Bishop of Urgel,
in Gaul, who brought it to the attention of the theologians of
the court of Charlemagne and before the Pope.
These Adoptionists refused the charge of Nestorianism,
and denied that they taught two distinct Persons in Christ:
but it Is difficult to see how they could avoid this logical im
plication; especially as Felix claimed that Christ as the
adopted Son of God was only nominally, not really, God, and

SYMBOLS OP THE LATIN CHURCH 131
that as servant of God He had not authority over His own
life, but was subject to death and needed Himself redemption
as other men.
Schwane well says: "The Adoptionists stand In the same
relation to Nestorians, that the Monothelites do to the Mono
physites." *
The least we can say about them is that they emphasised
the separation of the two natures of Christ in a perilous way,
with implications that were certainly contrary to the Chrls-
tology of Chalcedon.
The Adoptionists were attacked by many divines in Spain
and Gaul, the chief of whom was the learned Alculn, the great
theologian of the court of Charlemagne. Several synods pro
nounced against them, the most Important of which was the
Synod of Frankfort, 794, presided over by the legates of the
Pope, and composed of representative bishops from all parts
of the Western Church. At a later date It would have been
regarded as ecumenical : but at this time, before the separa
tion of East and West, it could not be so regarded; for the
East was absent, and the question was purely a Western
one. Adoptlonism was rejected as heretical, and the Faith
of the Church was thus stated:
"With the heart we believe unto righteousness, but with the mouth
confess unto salvation: that our Lord Jesus Christ is true Son of
God, not putative, proper in both natures, not adoptive, equal and
coeternal with the Father and Holy Spirit." t
§ 3. The Synod of Rome, in 1079, defined the doctrine of
the Eucharist in a confession of faith required of Berengarius.
The real presence was asserted by way of a conversion of the ele
ments into the body and blood of the Lord, and the symbolical as
well as the Capernaitical theories tvere rejected.
The most important doctrinal decision of the Church in
the Middle Ages was that of the Synod of Rome, in 1079,
approved by the Pope, respecting the Eucharist.
This question was raised by certain extravagant state-
* Dogmengeschichte, III, p. 228. f V. Schwane, III, p. 239.

132 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
ments of Radbertus Paschasius, a monk of Corbie, in Gaul
(831-3), which were controverted by an anonymous writing,
de corpore et sanguine Domini (875-7), usually attributed to
Ratramnus, also a monk of the same order, but by the Synod
of Vercelli in 1050, by Schwane and others, to John Scotus
Erigena, who in any case agreed with it. This conffict did
not, however, result in a dogmatic definition by the Church.
The discussion was renewed by Berengarius of Tours, who
wrote a letter to Lanfranc, a monk of Bee (1050), sustaining
Erigena's views as he thought, but really expanding them to
the length of heresy. He was condemned through the influ
ence of Lanfranc, at first at Rome and Vercelli in 1050, then
at Florence in 1055, at Rome in 1059, and by Gregory VII in
two Councils at Rome (1078-9), when he was compelled to
subscribe to an orthodox profession of Faith, which thus be
came symbohcal.*
"Ego Berengarius corde credo et ore confiteor, panem et vinum,
quae ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrae orationis et verba nostri
Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram et propriam ac vivifica-
tricem carnem et sanguinem Jesu Christi Domini nostri et post con-
secrationem esse verum Christi corpus, quod natum est de Virgine et
quod pro salute mundi oblatum in cruce pependit, et quod sedet ad
dexteram Patris, et verum sanguinem Christi, qui de latere ejus
effusus est, non tantum per signum et virtutem sacramenti, sed in pro-
prietate naturae et veritate substantiae."
This Confession of Faith asserts positively (1) that the
body of Christ present in the Eucharist is the Identical body
that was born of the Virgin, crucified as a sacrifice for the
salvation of the world, and enthroned at the right hand of the
Father; (2) that the blood of Christ of the Eucharist is the
same blood as that which flowed from the side of the Cruci
fied; (3) that the substance of the bread and wine placed
upon the altar was converted into the substance of the body
and blood of Christ; (4) that this conversion was made by
means of the words of institution of the Redeemer pro
nounced by the priest at the time of consecration.
* V. Denzinger, p. 105.

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 133
This confession also rejects negatively the two extreme
opinions: (1) the symbolical theory, that the body and blood
of Christ are present only by sign and by virtue of the sacra
ment, asserting that they are present by property of nature
and truth of substance; (2) the gross theory, that the
eucharlstic body is the flesh and blood offered on the cross
with its carnal and physical properties, which is cannibal
istic. On the other hand, the confession asserts that it is the
identical body of Christ, which persists in all the changes
from the birth of the Virgin to the heavenly reign; and so
independent of carnal and earthly properties and conditions.
This definition of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist
continued to be the consensus of the Church until the Lat
eran Council of 1215, when, over against the Albigenses, who
had adopted the symbolical theory, the Council asserted
the real substantial presence in terms of the scholastic
philosophy. "Una vero est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus
omnino salvatur, in qua idem ipse sacerdos est sacrificium Jesus
Christus, cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus
panis et vini veraciter continentur, transsubstantiatis pane in corpus,
et vino in sanguinem potestate divina; ut ad perficiendum mysterium
unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro. Et hoc
utique sacramentum nemo potest conficere, nisi sacerdos, qui rite
fuerit ordinatus, secundum claves Ecclesiae, quas ipse concessit Apos-
tolis eorumque successoribus Jesus Christus."
This definition does not differ from the previous one,
except in terminology and in putting the Eucharist In
its relation to the Church and the priesthood of the Church.
(1) The term transubstantiation takes the place of con
version; and the doctrine is, that the bread and wine are
transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, their
substance having been made over by the divine power into
His substance.
(2) The substance of the bread and wine no longer remain
in the Eucharist, but only their species; that is, those qual
ities that they have, which appeal to our senses. The senses

134 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
perceive bread and wine; but faith sees the body and blood
of Christ.
(3) Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice in the Church,
offering Himself In the Eucharist as the one great sacrifice
to God for the one Church.
(4) No one but a priest rightly ordained according to
Christ's institution, with the keys of the Church, can cel
ebrate the Eucharist.
These definitions of the Roman Councils only outhne the
Faith of the Church, which was filled up by the consensus
of the great Scholastics.
The Scholastic terminology of transubstantiation, sub
stance, and species, depends upon the Aristotelian philoso
phy, which the Scholastics used for their definitions. The
doctrine which underlies this terminology does not depend
upon the terminology; especially as the doctrine was formu
lated prior to its use. Therefore the Council of Trent,
when this terminology was challenged in the sixteenth centu
ry, did not defend it as essential, but only as suitable and
proper, when they said:
" By the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is
made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body
of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the sub
stance of His blood; which conversion is, by the Holy Catholic Church,
suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." (13^.)
This definition asserts the priesthood and sacrifice of
Christ, in that the Eucharist is His sacrifice. He offers It
as priest; and He is the sacrifice which He offers. The
priests of the Church minister in His name, by His authority,
and as His representatives. They have no authority over
Him, His priesthood, or sacrifice. He has the supreme au
thority over them, and they are simply His agents. The
definition simply asserts that the Eucharist Is Christ's
sacrifice. It does not define the nature or kind of the
sacrifice. The definition of nature and kind made by the
theologians brought on the controversies of the sixteenth

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 135
century. But the Mediaeval Church itself was not re
sponsible for more than it defined, and the consensus it had
reached on this subject.
§ 4. The Council of the Lateran, 1179, condemned Nihil-
ianism, which regarded the human nature of Christ as having
only a phenomenal, and no substantial, existence.
The mediaeval theologians, in their use of dialectics for
the explanation of the mysteries of theology, involved them
selves at times in serious errors as regards both the Trinity
and the Person of Christ. It was especially Abelard who
fell into error as to the Trinity, and was condemned by the
Council of Sens In 1141. The great Scholastic Peter Lom
bard originated a new heresy as to the Person of Christ.
He proposed three different explanations of the mystery of
the Incarnation, the last of which was that the Logos as
sumed human nature, body and soul, merely as a garment.
The Logos clothed Himself with manhood, without involving
any change in Himself. He was not made anything that He
was not before; and so this theory was called Nihilianism.
This view was not definitely adopted by the Lombard, and
did not become the basis for an heretical party; but as it
was proposed in a text-book almost universally used, it was
necessary for the Church to condemn it. This was done at
a Synod in Tours, 1163, and finally by Pope Alexander III
and the Lateran Council, in 1179. The proposition anathema
tised was that Christus non est aliquid secundum quod homo.
This conception of the Incarnation made It nothing more
than theophanic. The human nature was not real humanity,
and therefore Christ did not Identify Himself with mankind.
His union with mankind was not organic. He did not save
human nature from within, but from without. This theory
not only threatened the doctrine of the Incarnation but also
that of human salvation.
§ 5. The Western Church attached "and the Son" to the
doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father. This

136 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
crept into the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds without authority,
and it was resented by the Greek Church. After centuries of
confiict the Western Church defined the doctrine at the Council
of Lyons, 1274, as a single spiration of Father and Son. It
was still further defined at the Council of Florence, 1439, as not
inconsistent with the Greek formula: from the Father through
the Son.
The doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Son
as well as from the Father probably came first into the
Athanasian Creed, then from that Into the Nicene Creed
in the sixth century.* So soon as the Greeks became aware
of It, they objected to it as an unauthorised addition to the
Creed. But the controversy on this subject did not become
acute until the conflict between Pope Nicholas and Photius
in the ninth century, when it was, as it has ever since re
mained, the great doctrinal dispute between the Greeks and
Romans; although, in fact, the difference has been magnified
far beyond Its intrinsic merits, for the real difference is not
so great after all.f
We have to distinguish between the temporal and the
eternal mission of the divine Spirit. There is no difference
as to the temporal mission but only as to the eternal mis
sion. The Greeks recognise the mission of the Spirit through
the Son, but insist that the Father alone, as root and foun
tain of deity, sends forth the Spirit originally.
The Council of Lyons, In 1274, tried to overcome the dif
ference by the following definition :
Fideli ac devota professione fatemur, quod Spiritus Sanctus
aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, rwn tanquam ex duobus principiis,
sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed
unica spiratione procedit.
The Council of Florence, 1439, recognises that there is no
real difference between the Greek and the Roman formula:
"Quod Spiritus Sanctus ex Patre et Filio aeternaliter est, et essentiam
suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et exutroque
* Y. p. 98. t V- Briggs, Fundamental Christian Faith, pp. 257 seq.

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 137
aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit;
declarantes, quod id, quod sancti doctores et patres dicunt, ex Patre
per Filium procedere Spiritum Sanctum, ad banc intelligentiam tendit."
§ 6. The Anselmic doctrine of the Atonement was generally
accepted by the Mediceval Church in its main features, but with
out any official determination of the doctrine.
It is a remarkable fact that the great characteristic doc
trine of the Middle Ages, the atonement wrought upon the
cross, especially as formulated by Anselm (f 1109), Ber
nard (t 1153), Thomas Aquinas (f 1274), and Bonaventura
(t 1274), the four great doctors of the Church, did not re
ceive the official definition of the Church. It is not surpris
ing, therefore, that the many problems connected therewith
came down to the Reformation unsolved, although there
was a general consensus In the doctrine as stated by Anselm.
This doctrine played an important part, not only in the time
of the Reformation, but also In the seventeenth century, in
the Confessions of Faith.
The Incarnation was considered, in the ancient Church
more especially, with reference to the assumption of human
nature in order to redeem it. And salvation was attached
in the Creeds to the several great acts of Christ from His
Incarnation unto His Advent. Various circumstances in
the Middle Ages led to an emphasis upon the death of Christ
upon the cross as the chief purpose of the Incarnation. This
emphasis was due to the Augustinian emphasis upon the
Pauline doctrine of sin and grace, and the necessity therein
Involved of Christologlsing the doctrine of sin. This was
done chiefly by Anselm, who first gave shape to the doctrine
of the atonement. He asks the question: Cur deus homo?
and answers it by saying, that the Incarnation was the vol
untary act of the Son of God in order to die upon the cross,
that He might thereby satisfy the divine Majesty and merit
the divine grace on behalf of the sinful world.
The emphasis upon the divine sovereignty in the teach
ing of the Church since Augustine, and the exaggeration of
the conception of majesty in the feudal system, furnished

138 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Anselm the mould for his doctrine. Sin was essentially an
offence against the divine Majesty, which involved the pen
alty of death. The sinner must either suffer the penalty
himself, or render adequate satisfaction to God.
No man could do this. Therefore it was necessary that
the Son of God should become man by Incarnation.
He alone could render adequate satisfaction for the sins
of the world, and merit the divine grace for mankind; be
cause He alone needed nothing for Himself, and by the union
of divinity with His humanity His satisfaction and His merit
were made of Infinite worth.
This view of Anselm is mingled with peculiarities which
have not persisted In theology; especially his opinion that
the salvation of mankind was to supply the place of the
fallen angels, in which the honour of God was involved.
In the older inadequate conceptions of the atonement It
had been the common opinion that the devil had a claim
upon the sinner, and that he had to be satisfied by some
kind of compensation.
St. Bernard held this view, and battled for it against
Abelard. But Anselm rightly avoided this opinion, and
urged that It was the divine Majesty that was offended, and
that must be satisfied. Later theologians narrowed the con
ception by substituting the divine justice for the divine
Majesty, but this was a great and serious mistake.
St. Bernard also makes the mistake of putting the divine
attributes in antithesis in the matter of salvation. He
graphically represents the divine attributes as pleading
before the divine Majesty. Justice and Truth demand the
death of the sinner. Mercy and Peace urge his forgiveness.
The Incarnation of the Son of God reconciles the divine at
tributes; because it satisfies the claims of Justice and Truth,
and secures the forgiveness of sinners in accordance with
the pleas of Mercy and Peace. Such an antithesis is poetic
and mystic. It graphically shows the difficulties In the way
of an atonement In the mind of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, but it is not sound theology.

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 139
Anselm represents that the way of the cross was the only
possible way of salvation. But this seemed to Thomas
Aquinas and still more to Duns Scotus an encroachment upon
the divine freedom. We may say that it was the best way
because chosen by the divine love and wisdom, but not that
it was the only possible way. In fact, though Anselm as
serts the voluntariness of the sacrifice of Christ, that goes
into the background of his thought. It Is the divine majesty
and honour that so fill his mind, that everything must be
explained in their Interest.
The Anselmic doctrine of the atonement, especially in the
form given It by Thomas Aquinas, became the common prop
erty of the Church in all essential particulars, and was
adopted by the Protestant world at the Reformation as well
as by the Roman Catholic. About the year 1190 a Greek
theologian, NIcolaus of Methone, stated a doctrine of the
atonement essentiaUy the same as Anselm's.* Undoubtedly
Protestantism gave the Anselmic doctrine a new shaping In
connection with the doctrine of Justification by Faith,
and in so far departed from the more general and less
definite doctrine which the Roman Catholic Church still
maintained. But both stand alike on the same general prin
ciple of the doctrine of Anselm, which was not questioned
until the conflict with the Soclnians in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, when several different theories of the
atonement emerged, which continue in the field of theological
discussion until the present day.
The Anselmic doctrine exaggerates the work of the cross,
and does not sufficiently estimate the work of the risen and
glorified Redeemer as the heavenly Priest and King; so that
these essential parts of the redemptive work of Christ have
remained In the background until the present day, and the
full proportion of salvation as outlined in the primitive
Creeds has commonly not been understood. This exag
geration also reacted upon the doctrine of the Eucharist In
* V. Ullmann, Die Dogmatik in der griech. Kirche, sac. 12. Stud, und
Krit. 1833; Dorner, I. A., Christliche Glaubenslehre, II, s. 549.

140 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
an undue emphasis upon the death of Christ and expiation in
connection with the sacrifice, all of which made trouble at the
Reformation and subsequently.
The Anselmic doctrine of the atonement, so far as It be
came universal as the consensus of the Church, may be thus
defined: (1) Christ, the Son of God, by His Incarnation as the
God-man, rendered to God by His death on the cross the
satisfaction that the divine Majesty required for all mankind.
(2) Christ, by His full obedience and voluntary self-
sacrificing love, won Infinite merit for His Church.
§ 7. One may say that the chief work of the Middle Ages
was the unfolding of the doctrine of the Church and its institu
tions, and yet no symbolical definition was made of the doc
trine of the Church.
The doctrine of the Church underlies that of the sacra
ments. The doctrine of the sacraments is simply the un
folding of the doctrine of the Church; for the sacraments
are her sacraments, and the grace that they convey is the
grace committed to her by Jesus Christ Himself. The chief
work of the Middle Ages, indeed, was the building up of the
Church as an organisation, her ministry, sacraments, and
other sacred things; and yet there was not, during the
Middle Ages, any symbohcal definition of the Church by
Council or Synod. This was due to the following reason.
The doctrine of the Church was stated In the two ancient
Creeds, the Apostles' and the Nicene, in connection with the
Holy Spirit as one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. The
Mediaeval Church found no occasion to go beyond that, save
to claim that the Western Roman Church was that Church.
It was implied that the Church was Christ's own, and no one
questioned this. The only question that was raised, was as
to the holy Church; whether it could include the unholy and
unfaithful, and whether it was proper to separate from such
a mixed Church, and organise separate Churches of the
saints. Such attempts were made from time to time in the

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 141
ancient and mediaeval, as In the modern age. One sect after
another arose with this ideal of a holy Church In mind, which
they strove in vain to realise. The Christian Church has
always opposed these schisms by appealing to the necessity
of unity, catholicity, and apostolicity, as well as of holiness.
And it has further appealed to the Pauline doctrine of the
Church as the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the king
dom of Christ; all of which demand unity, and are altogether
inconsistent with schism.
The great Scholastics of the Middle Ages emphasised the
doctrine of the Church, the ministry, and sacraments; and
elaborated them into minute details, which sometimes led
far away from Christ in the emphasis upon the external
authority of the hierarchy and the objective use of the sacred
institutions of the Church. At the same time they did not
forget or overlook the fundamental Biblical doctrine of the
Church. We may indeed define a consensus on this subject so far
as the relation of the Church to Christ is concerned, which
was not questioned, but adhered to by all parties In the
sixteenth century except the Anabaptist sects, which simply
revived the older schismatic movements in behalf of a holy
separated Church. All agreed to the Biblical doctrine:
(1) That Christ is the head of His body, the Church.
(2) That the Church is the bride of Christ.
(3) That the Church is His kingdom.
(4) That the Church is the administrator of His salvation,
out of which there is no ordinary possibihty of salvation.
(5) That unto the Church Christ has given the ministry
with the authority of the keys.
(6) That Christ's own presence is in and with the Church
from the beginning until the consummation of the world.
(7) That Christ, as Prophet, Priest, and King, is the head
of a royal priesthood with a mediating priesthood, represent
ing both Christ and the Church.
(8) That Christ is the one sacrificial victim, at once on the
altar-table of the Church and on the heavenly altar.

142 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
These two great doctrines of the atonement and the
Church, which attained no symbolic determination by the
Church of the Middle Ages, and which yet attained well-
nigh universal consent, suggest two important lessons.
(1) It needs no symbolic definition of a doctrine to win
the consensus of the Church to it. Consensus may be best
attained by general discussion, without the heat of con
troversy generated by charges of heresy, ecclesiastical dis
cipline, and authoritative decisions.
(2) On the other hand, while there was general consent to
these doctrines in the items mentioned above, there were
still open many difficult questions that troubled the Church
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It might be said
that. If the Church had decided these questions symbolic
ally during the Middle Ages, even at the cost that such de
cisions always involve, it might have saved the Church from
the still more serious evils of later controversies and divisions.
' The Middle Ages closed from a political point of view with
the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, 1453. But so
far as the Church and theology are concerned, it closed with
the Council of Florence in 1442. At this Council several
Oriental Churches were brought into the scheme of union,
and the degrees of union of that Council have been the basis
of all the relations of Rome to the Eastern Churches until
the present day. At that same Council the relation of popes
to councils was determined, which question had been in dis
pute for a long time in the controversies of the Popes with
the Councils of Constance and Basel, whose antipapal de
crees were rejected by the Popes.
The schism In the Western Church and the conflict between
rival popes was brought to an end by the irenic measures of
Nicholas V In 1449-50, the latter being a Jubilee year in
which was celebrated the reunion of the entire Christian
world under the Pope.
The rejoicings of the Jubilee year were well founded
but superficial. The reunion with the Greek and Oriental

SYMBOLS OF THE LATIN CHURCH 143
Churches was only apparently and not really consummated,
and soon resulted in the schism of fragments from these
Churches to Rome, leaving the main bodies even more hos
tile to the papacy than ever before.
The questions In dispute In Western Christendom were
decided in favour of papal prerogative, but in other respects
were not settled at all, and a profound discontent with the
decision was felt all over Europe. The decisions of the Coun
cil of Florence and the irenic attitude of Pope Nicholas
really prepared the way for the Reformation by making it
impossible to reform the Church in any other way than by
papal initiative or by revolution. This was now the only
alternative. Therefore so soon as Popes of a different char
acter ascended the papal throne, reformation by revolution
became inevitable.

CHAPTER III
THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION
The Reformation of the sixteenth century was a wide
spread movement in Western Europe. It had been prepared
for by many reforming movements in the previous centuries,
which had all failed In removing the evils complained of,
and had rather increased them. This reform succeeded be
cause of the birth of certain great principles, which not only
removed evils but solved essential problems of Christian life
and thought. The evils complained of were multitudinous,
and many reformers appeared with many different plans of
reform. The Reformation worked Itself out simultaneously
in the different countries of Western Europe, assuming dif
ferent forms in the different nations, resulting in the organi
sation of national Churches with national types of Chris
tianity. § 1. The evils in the Church from which Western Europe
suffered were comprehensive and all-pervading in character.
They were civil, social, and economic more than religious, doc
trinal, and ethical. They were rooted in the absolute despotism
of the Pope and the greed, arrogance, and tyranny of the Roman
Curia. In the civil sphere the Popes had become absolute mon-
archs of a dominion known as the States of the Church,
comprehending a good part of central Italy.
The interests of Church and State were so entwined at
Rome that they could not be separated In practice, even If
they could be distinguished in theory. The inevitable conse
quence was that the Pope was constantly injuring the civil
144

THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION 145
Interests of all other States in the interests of his own State.
Civil and religious interests were constantly in conflict in the
mind of the Pope himself, and not infrequently the civil
prevailed. The authority of the Pope, which was universally
recognised as supreme in the Church, had gradually Intruded
into the prerogative of the State; so that the Pope was a
perpetual troubler to all nations. The Popes claimed juris
diction over all ecclesiastical persons and all ecclesiastical
property, as well as over all ecclesiastical relations of all
people, from the king on his throne to the peasant In his
humble abode.
There were constant conflicts between the papal court
and all other courts of Europe. The only possible way of
getting on was by treaties or concordats between the Popes
and the monarchs, making temporary settlements of the
questions in dispute.
(1) The Popes were almost always at war with one nation
or another; and a large part of their work was in making al
liances to balance one nation over against another. This
made Italy the battle-ground of Europe, resulting in crushing
for centuries the Italian national aspirations, and in wide
spread demoralisation in all spheres of life. A fearful retri
bution fell upon Pope Clement VII in 1527, when the troops
of Charles V captured Rome, and It suffered the worst sack
In its history. Even the Pope had to submit to cruel in
dignities. (2) There was constant trouble between the Church and
the State, because ecclesiastics, especially mendicant monks,
when caught in criminal or any Illegal acts, were at once
taken out of the jurisdiction of civil courts and taken under
the protection of ecclesiastical courts. The whole body of
ecclesiastics were subjects of the Pope, and not subject to the
civil law. This conffict of jurisdiction often brought about
intolerable situations in which the civil authorities had to
run the risk of sacrilege, with its ecclesiastical penalties, for
the sake of their king and country.
(3) It is probable that economic questions were the most

146 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
troublesome of all. The political and ecclesiastical state at
Rome could only be maintained by the support of the whole
Christian world. It was but fair and right that all Christian
people should pay a fair share of tax for the support of the
central Church government of the Pope. But when the
Pope and his cardinals lived in luxury and extravagance
greater than that of any monarch, and when the revenues
derived from the nations went in large measure to sustain
the armies of the Pope, waging war at times on the very
nations from which the revenues were received, the iniquity
of the system became evident and intolerable.
John XXII (1316-34) established for the first time the
oppressive machinery of papal taxation of the nations.
(a) The Pope claimed a tithe of all ecclesiastical incomes,
whenever he needed It for his own purposes. These were
originally given only on special occasions, for the Crusades
or other special purposes; but the occasions were so multi
plied that this claim became a standing oppression, frequently
resisted, in spite of excommunication, by clergy and people.
{b) The Annates {fructus primi anni), or First-fruits.
From the thirteenth century onward the incumbent had to
pay his first year's income for repairs and the sustenance of
the heirs of his predecessor. John XXII began to appro
priate this for the papacy. At the time of the Reformation
it was generally claimed by the Pope.
(c) Procurations were charges for the personal expenses of
bishops and archdeacons in their tours of visitation. The
Popes began by demanding a share, and then often claimed
the whole.
{d) Pope John XXII was the first to demand the income of
vacant benefices. It became a great temptation to keep
them vacant.
(e) The Popes also claimed the right of demanding special
payments or subsidies from the clergy, when they needed
funds. (/) Besides these sources of Income from the nations,
every ecclesiastical process was conducted through an inter-

THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION 147
mlnable series of courts, and with an endless amount of
technicality, every step requiring fees. This made litiga
tion of great profit to the Roman courts. With It went the
temptation to remove every case possible from local and
national courts to Rome.
{g) When to all these exactions was added the sale of
indulgences to the common people by ecclesiastical peddlers,
there is little wonder that for economic reasons, If for no
other, all Europe was ready to rebel against the tyranny of
Rome. Luther describes the court of Rome as a place where vows
are annulled; where the monk gets leave to quit his order;
where priests can enter the married life for money; where bas
tards can become legitimate; and dishonour and shame may
arrive at high honours; and all evil repute and disgrace is
knighted and ennobled. . . . There is a buying and a selling, a
changing, blustering and bargaining, cheating and lying, rob
bing and stealing, debauchery and villany, and all kinds of
contempt of God, that Antichrist himself could not rule worse.
{To the Christian Nobility.)
As much, and In some respects more, was said by Erasmus,
and many others before him, in a witty, satirical, and sarcas
tic way; but not in such violent and unqualified language.
§ 2. It was not so much the official religion and doctrine of
the Church as the traditional and vulgar errors and superstitions
which were at fault. To these were added the exaggerations of
the Scholastic Theology and the Caywn Law, which in their
elaborations had no official consent from the Church.
The religious and doctrinal evils were also very great.
These were due in large measure to Ignorance and supersti
tion, and to the frivolity and immorality of the clergy, sec
ular and regular. The higher clergy were usually taken from
the higher classes of the people or the nobility, and that not
from religious motives but from mercenary motives, In order
to secure the income of the chief benefices for the younger
sons or relatives of princely families. It is not surprising

148 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
under such circumstances that so large a proportion of the
higher clergy should be no better, if not worse, in character
than the nobles whose company they kept.
The lower secular clergy were chiefly peasants and shared
with the peasants their ignorance and superstition. They
on the average knew little more than the common usages
of the church, sufficient for them to perform the necessary
ceremonies of the Catholic religion. The people usually pre
ferred the ministrations of the regulars, whenever they could
secure them, because these averaged a much higher grade
of character, knowledge, and ability.
But even the regulars had become. In too many quarters,
lazy, ignorant, and corrupt. They, also, were largely recruited
from the lowest classes, and especially from boys given by
their poor or vicious parents to the monasteries to save the
expense of their maintenance. A large proportion of them,
at that time, grew up into the monastic life without any real
call to it, and without the religious character adapted to it.
On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that the orders
were the refuge of the greater part of the most devout and
noble-minded men of the age. It was indeed chiefly the
religious orders that gave the reformers who led in the
Reformation of the sixteenth century.
The ignorance and superstition of the clergy had warped
and misrepresented to themselves and to the people the
doctrines and institutions of the Church. It was not the
official religion and doctrine of the Church that the reformers
at first attacked so much as the popular, traditional, and
common teaching of the Church. They proposed to defend
the Church against errors and abuses that had crept Into it.
The monastic Ideal of religion had become the ideal for
the entire ministry and also for Christendom as a whole.
The members of religious orders were the regular clergy,
the parish priests were the secular; although they also made
the same vows of obedience and chastity as the regulars,
and only differed from them by not being obliged to the vow
of poverty and the conventual life. So far as the vow of

THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION 149
poverty is concerned, there can be no doubt that the regulars
in their convents lived a much more comfortable life than
the parish priests In the midst of their peasant flocks. As
for those people that did not belong to the clergy, and had
not attached themselves to the orders as lay brethren or
sisters, they were regarded as entirely dependent upon the
ministrations of the religious for their salvation. Thus the
monastic ideal, pressed as It was into exaggerations even by
the earlier reformers like Savonarola, overlooked the basal
BIbhcal and early Christian doctrine that the Church as an
organism was a kingdom of priests, and that there could
not therefore be any such gulf between the clergy and the
people as the common religion of the closing Middle Ages
presupposed. The monastic ideal of Christianity, worked out on the
principles of the Counsels of Perfection, while theoretically
making the ancient Christian distinction between good
works required by Law and voluntary good works of a higher
order leading on to Christian perfection, yet in practice did
away with the distinction so soon as these Counsels were
undertaken in the form of vows, which then required the
most implicit obedience under the severest ecclesiastical
penalties. Obedience to superiors became the greatest
Christian virtue, to the destruction of freedom of conscience
and liberty of thought and action. The norm of thinking
and of conduct for the individual, the family, the society,
the nation, was not the conscience, or the Bible, or even the
Church in its official teaching and Institutions, but the eccle
siastical superior, and In Its last analysis what the Pope
thought and what the Pope commanded; and so the law of
the Pope assumed the place of the Law of God; and eccle
siastical works, after the monastic Ideal, displaced the good
works that Jesus taught and the early Christians practised.
Christian Theology had become a vast system of Scho
lasticism, with hair-splitting distinctions and subtleties,
which transcended those of the ancient Jewish Pharisees
in the time of Jesus. The charge that Jesus made against

150 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
them in Mt. 23, in His series of Woes, fits almost exactly
the lawyers and scribes of the Church at the close of the
fifteenth century. It is undoubtedly true that they made
void the Word of God by their traditions. They buried the
Gospel under a mass of speculation. Aristotle was the mas
ter rather than Christ.
However, the Scholastic Theology had not as yet become
the official doctrine of the Church. It had not been taken
up into any Creed, or Confession, or Articles of Religion, or
decrees of Councils or Popes. The official teachings of the
Church were much more limited than those of Cathohc or
Protestant Confessions of the sixteenth century; and there
was greater liberty of thought before the Reformation than
after it, so long as that liberty did not come into conflict
with the authorities of the Church.
Hausser well says, speaking of the Council of Trent:
"The great achievement of the Council for the unity of the Catholic
Church was this: it formed into a code of laws, on one consistent
principle, that which in ancient times had been variable and uncertain,
and which had been almost lost sight of in the last great revolution.
Controverted questions were replaced by dogmas, doubtful traditions
by definite doctrines; a uniformity was established in matters of faith
and discipline which had never existed before, and an impregnable bul
wark was thus erected against the sectarian spirit and the tendency to
innovation." — {Period of the Reformation, p. 263.)
That which is true of the Council of Trent is true also of
the Confessions of all the Churches of the Reformation.
They, one and all, restricted the liberty and variety of
opinion and practice, which had existed on the questions at
issue, before they were officially decided by the different
Churches in two or more different ways.
At the same time, then as ever, In the Christian Church,
it was not so much the official theology as the current common
opinion of the authorities of the Church which determined
orthodoxy or heterodoxy; and It was just this common
opinion, which dominated especially the monastic orders,

THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION 151
and made them the heresy hunters of the Church. It was
temerity to question this common opinion, as is evident in
the experience of Erasmus, Reuchlin, Staupltz, and a multi
tude of others who did not separate from Rome, as well as
of Luther, Zwingll, Calvin, and other Protestant Reformers.
The Scholastic Theology, however, had a double side. On
the one side It was the Theology of the learned, the authorities
of the Church. But on the other side it was the Theology
of the mass of ignorant and bigoted priests and monks.
These accepted it without the ability to understand It or
explain it; and so they warped it into aU kinds of exagger
ated, grotesque, and absurd forms, which they imposed
upon the mass of the people as the orthodoxy of the Church.
It was chiefly this exaggerated and grotesque Theology with
which the reformers first came into conflict, and which they
could easily show was not the real teaching of the Church.
But it soon became evident that they could not overthrow
these errors without striking at their roots in the false prin
ciples of the Scholastic Theology, which were maintained
by many of the chief dignitaries of the Church. Thus
before they knew it the reformers came into conflict with
Scholasticism Itself and with the Canon Law; and they very
soon, in this conflict, divided among themselves : and so the
Reformation was spht up into a number of warring systems
of Theology, finally expressed in a number of different dog
matic treatises and Confessions of Faith. Instead of unity
in the Faith the Reformation brought about the greatest
dogmatic confusion and contention in Christian history.
§ 3. The great work of reform was to throw off the papal
tyranny, the monastic rule, the Scholastic Theology, and the
Canon Law, and to substitute for them the pure Gospel in such
a form as to solve the religious problems of the age.
The work of religious reform had been undertaken before
the great Reformation by devout men in several different
countries, resulting in the formation of heretical and schis
matic sects. The chief of these were the leaders of the

152 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Waldensians in France and Savoy, Wyckllf in England, and
Huss In Bohemia. These, in a deep rehgious interest, struck
at the chief evils in the Church: but they did not attain to
a solution of the deepest problems of the age; and so they
were thrown aside with the schismatic movements that they
initiated. They only succeeded in committing the Church
in official decrees against their chief errors. These decrees
stood in the way of the Reformation of the sixteenth cen
tury, and were a great hinderance to the work of reform.
Thus a decree was issued against John Wyckllf by the
Council of Constance and In the Bull of Martin V (1418),
and he was charged with forty-five heretical statements.
So thirty articles of John Huss were condemned at the same
time. Many of these articles anticipate the Protestant
Reformation; but others are not In accord with Protestant-
Ism. There can be no doubt that the condemnation of
these articles by Pope and Council greatly obstructed the
Reformation. In the debate of Luther with Eck at Leipzig,
Luther was greatly compromised, and in the general opinion
defeated, because he was compelled to admit that Huss had
in some things been unjustly condemned.
Determined efforts for reform were made at the Councils
of Pisa, 1409, Constance, 1414-18, and Basel, 1431-43; but
these Councils concerned themselves chiefly with the exter
nals of religion, and were not influenced by any deep relig
ious impulse: therefore they succeeded only in part. They
overcame the papal schism and removed some of the more
glaring evils. But the Church remained unreformed. At
the Council of Florence, 1439, the papacy made an impor
tant gain in the adoption of a decree of union with the
Greeks, Armenians, and Jacobites. The Council of Basel
was discredited and dissolved without accomphshing any
thing. Pius II in a Bull (1459) prohibited an appeal from
a Pope to a general Council, and asserted the supreme au
thority of the Pope as the vicar of Christ and successor of
St. Peter. The reforming Councils thus only succeeded in
condemning Wyckllf and Huss, and in invoking a papal

THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION 153
decree, which prevented any of their successors from over
ruling the Pope.
Luther, in his appeal to the Christian Nobility of the German
Nation (1520), stated very clearly the serious obstructions
in the way of reform :
"The Romanists, with great dexterity, have drawn around them
three walls, with which they have hitherto protected themselves so
that no one could possibly reform them; and thus the whole of Chris
tendom is grievously prostrate. First, when pressed with the secular
power, they have taken the position and declared that the secular
authority has no right over them; but that, on the contrary, the spirit
ual is above the secular. Secondly, when any one would rebuke them
with the Holy Scripture, they have replied that it belongs to nobody
but the Pope to interpret the Scripture. Thirdly, if threatened with
a Council, they have feigned that no one but the Pope can call a
Council." This, though in somewhat stronger language than neces
sary, is yet essentially a presentation of the situation as it
was at the close of the fifteenth century, and as it is to-day
in the Roman Catholic Church. No one but the Pope can
reform the Church. Unless he can be influenced to make
the reforms, they cannot be made.
None of the reforming movements of the fifteenth century
succeeded, because they did not go to the root of the mat
ter. They did not discern the remedy for the evils. They
did not discern the principle which was to dominate the new
age of the world. The time had not yet come for the ad
vance to be made. The new age had to be born. The fif
teenth century was a period of seething preparation. The
birth throes became more and more violent as the century
drew to its close.
There were many great events that took place in the last
half of the fifteenth century, which changed the face of the
world. Among these we may mention the capture of Con
stantinople by the Turks (1453), the invention of printing
(1456), and the discovery of America (1492).
The invention of printing enabled the reformers to print

154 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
their plans of reform, and secure the attention of multitudes
all over Europe. What an enormous change from the lim
itations imposed upon speech, both as to the number of
hearers and the distances to be reached! The advance of
the Turks against the Greek empire, resulting in the capture
of Constantinople, not only filled Western Europe with
multitudes of refugees of another form of religion, but these
brought with them the Greek language and Greek literature.
This strengthened the Renaissance, or rebirth of ancient
learning. It brought Western Europe into touch not only
with classic heathen literature, but with primitive Christian
literature. It made the Latin Church once more acquainted
with the Greek and Oriental, as Is evident in the reunion
movement at Florence. It made it possible to understand
the Greek Fathers, and above all to go back of the Latin
Vulgate to the Greek Bible. The publication of the Greek
and Hebrew Bibles, and of the Greek and Latin Fathers,
was Indispensable for the work of Reformation. Without
them, how could any one have been able to test the Scho
lastic theologians and the Canon Law by primitive Christi
anity and the Fathers of the Church?
The Renaissance was furthermore connected with a revi
val of the Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophy; and so
Aristotle, the master of the Scholastic philosophy, was
undermined by Plato.
Still more the Renaissance worked mightily against the
monastic Ideals. It brought into prominence the ancient
Greek and Roman ideals of life. The aesthetic side of human
nature was revived over against the ascetic. The monastic
trampling upon human nature gave place to the exaltation
of human nature. The reaction went so far, especiaUy In
Italy and at Rome, that not a few scholars were essentially
heathen with only a varnish of Christian conformity. But
the very excesses of the Renaissance, especially in regard to
the sexual relation, made It Impossible any longer to hold
up the monastic ideal of celibacy as the life of Christian per
fection, especially in view of the unchaste lives of the clergy

THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION 155
themselves. It is doubtful whether the Protestant Refor
mation could have succeeded in doing away with monastic
institutions and the celibacy of the clergy, If it had not been
for the new view of the marriage state that was provided by
the Renaissance. Even in Latin countries, where the orders
still continued to flourish, and the cehbacy of the clergy was
maintained, the clergy, secular and regular, had to give up
concubinage, which they had persuaded themselves they
might indulge In without sinning so greatly against their
vow as in the marriage state. Before the Reformation con
cubinage of the clergy was winked at; but marriage was
regarded as a deadly sin.
Zwingll in his 49th article said:
" I know of no greater scandal than the prohibition of lawful marriage
to priests, while they are permitted for money to have concubines."
The discovery of America, the rounding of Africa, and the
rediscovery of Eastern Asia, enlarged men's minds to a won
derful extent. Thinking men were obliged to change their
opinions as to the extent of the earth and also as to its struc
ture. Scientific opinions which had been condemned as heret
ical, because they confficted with deductions from Scholas
tic Theology, were now justified, and Scholastic Theology
was thereby discredited. A new race of men was discovered,
which had to be taken into account In Christian Theology;
and in some way the traditional dogma had to be modified
for this purpose.^ Commerce and manufactures, and even
agriculture, and so all departments of human life, were
changed by these new relations. The Mediterranean Sea
was no longer the centre of the earth, and the chief seat of
its commerce, with never-ending commercial wars between
Genoa and Venice, Constantinople and Alexandria. The
seat of commerce now became the Atlantic Ocean, and the
great traders became Portugal and Spain, England and
Holland, France and Germany. The general result was
inevitable. Italy lost its supreme importance to the world,
and Rome could no longer dominate the nations. The

156 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
ideals of imperial Rome, the mistress of the nations border
ing on the Mediterranean Sea, which dominated all thought
in the Middle Ages, could no longer be maintained. The
Holy Roman Empire with its pope was about to pass away,
and a world of nations with national Churches and national
religions took their place.
This was, after all, the greatest movement of the age: the
formation of the modern nations by the destruction of the
feudal system, the deprivation of the nobility of their exclu
sive privileges, and the exaltation of the commercial and
industrial classes. This movement was Inspired by a spirit
of nationahty, which demanded expression not only in the
political structure of the State, but also in the rehgious
structure of the Church.
All these circumstances and many more of lesser conse
quence produced an environment, and conditions and cir
cumstances, that compelled a reformation in Church as well
as in State. The longer it was postponed, the more imper
ative became the need; the greater the efforts to restrain it,
the more powerful the rebound, which broke through all
restraints. The situation was ever becoming more serious and more
dangerous. All Europe was in commotion, but Germany
most of all. All men were anxiously longing for dehverance
from an intolerable situation — -the master word that would
set them free. It was Luther who was called to speak this
word. Christianity had become as Judaism in the time of Jesus,
a vast system of legalism, imposing "a yoke" on Christians
which, as St. Peter says (Acts 151°), "neither our fathers
nor we were able to bear," involving all mankind in that
wretched condition which St. Paul so well expressed when
he exclaimed : " O wretched man that I am ! who shaU deliver
me out of the body of this death?" (Rom. 72*.)
As the situation of Christianity had become so very like
that of Judaism in the time of Jesus and St. Paul, the only
way out was to lay hold of the teachings of Jesus and St.

THE ORIGIN OF THE REFORMATION 157
Paul, which alone enabled the early Christians to pass out
from the bondage of Judaism Into the freedom of early
Christianity. It was the merit of Luther that he was en
abled, by passing through an experience almost identical to
that of St. Paul, to understand him better than any other
before him since the time of Augustine, and to explain the
Apostle's teaching as the great transforming power of the
sixteenth century.

CHAPTER IV
THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION
It Is our purpose to give, not an outhne of the history of
the Reformation, but the historical framework of the many
different symbols that originated in that period, and to dis
cuss the circumstances and causes which produced them.
§ 1. The basis for thc Reformation was laid by the Human
ists, especially Erasmus in his editions of the New Testament
and the Fathers, and Reuchlin in his Hebrew Grammar and
Lexicon, and in their exposure of the corruptions of the Church
by appealing to these norms.
Erasmus of Rotterdam was really the greatest man of
the Reformation period. If It had not been for his funda
mental work, the Reformation would probably have been a
failure. He exposed the corruptions of the Church In such
a genial, witty way, that all intelligent and right-minded
men were compelled to agree with him and to strive to re
form them. His Greek New Testament of 1516 and his
editions of the Fathers were indispensable to all who wished
to appeal to the Bible and to antiquity.
Reuchlin was the chief of the German Humanists. He
was devoted to the study of the Bible in its Greek and He
brew originals. Hebrew Bibles had been printed by Jewish
scholars much earlier, at Soncino, In Lombardy (1488),
Naples (1491-3), Brescia (1494, used by Luther), Bomberg's
first Rabbinical Bible (1516-17), and his manual editions
(from 1517 onward). But a Hebrew grammar and lexicon
were needed, such as Reuchlin published In 1506.
His controversy with the Dominicans of Cologne (1509-16)
158

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 159
originated out of a defence of Jewish scholars from unwar
ranted attacks, and the attempt to discredit Rabbinical
literature and the Hebrew Bible. The Humanists rallied
to his support, i.nd they won a great victory. This rally
gave Luther the support he needed at the beginning of his
career. The epistolae obscurorum virorum (1514-17), of Im
mense influence in those days, were one of the results of
the conffict.
§ 2. The Church in Spain removed many abuses complained
of in other countries. This was due chiefly to the great Spanish
Humanist, Francisco Ximenes, a Franciscan, who was sus
tained by Ferdinand and Isabella, and won the consent of the
Popes. Ximenes (f 1517) rose to the highest positions in the
Church, as Archbishop of Toledo, Primate of Spain, Car
dinal, and Inquisitor-General. He reformed the clergy, reg
ular and secular, reorganised and strengthened the univer
sities, and revived the study of the Scholastic Theology of
Thomas Aquinas. He also issued the Complutensian Poly-
glott in 1513-17, the greatest Biblical work since Orlgen's
Hexapla. He influenced Francisco Vlttoria (f 1546), the
father of the newer Scholasticism, whose pupils, Melchlor
Cano (t 1560) and Domlnlco Soto (f 1560), exerted immense
influence In the reformation of Theology, especially in the
Council of Trent.
§ 3. The English Reformation began, under the bishops and
the Crown, by reforms of administration. The leaders were
Humanists, Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas More, and Dean
Colet. They aimed at a better education of the clergy and the
people, and to make Theology less scholastic and more Biblical
and historical. The distinction of the two jurisdictions of
Church and State was the most prominent question. Its ad
justment was prevented by the absolutism of Henry VIII, and
the divorce question, which resulted, in 1534, in the rejection of
papal supremacy and the recognition by Parliament and Con-

160 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
vocation that the king was the supreme head of the Church of
England as well as of the State.
The scheme of Wolsey was: (1) the higher education of
the clergy; (2) the visitation of regulars and seculars; (3)
an Increase of bishoprics; (4) the suppression of useless mon
asteries. Wolsey founded Christ Church College in Oxford.
He was sustained In his educational reforms by Warham,
the Primate, and by Fox of Winchester.
Sir Thomas More succeeded Wolsey as Lord Chancellor
in the same spirit. He was the most able and learned jurist
of his time. His effort was to distinguish the two jurisdic
tions of Church and State. His criticism of abuses and
ideas of reform appeared in his Utopia (1516).
In the year 1529 the holders of benefices were com
pelled to live in residence, and pluralities were forbidden.
Wolsey was condemned for having transgressed the Stat
utes of Pro visors and Praemunire of 1390, 1393, which for
bade the receiving of Papal Bulls in England and declared
the English Crown to be independent of the temporal sov
ereignty of the Pope. In 1531 all the clergy were declared
liable to the same penalty, and were compelled to purchase
their release by large sums of money and the acknowledg
ment of the king " as the supreme head of the English Church
and clergy," modified by "so far as the Law of Christ al
lows." In 1532 the payment of Annates was transferred
from the Pope to the Crown; and In 1533 appeals to Rome
were prohibited, except in certain definite ecclesiastical cases.
In 1534 the Act of Supremacy was passed. In the follow
ing year Sir Thomas More and Fisher were executed, be-.
cause they refused to accept Henry as the supreme head of
the Church in England.
Henry succeeded in combining civil and ecclesiastical
authority in the Crown, and thus laid the basis for most of
the evils with which the Church of England has had to con
tend until the present day. Sir Thomas More was the
martyr to the distinction of the two jurisdictions, which, if
he had been sustained, would have put England in the front

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 161
of the Reform and anticipated the separation of State and
Church of recent times. Luther and Calvin were In as
great error at this point as the Pope and Henry VIII. Their
error persisted until the eighteenth century, and its results
still continue In the State Churches of Protestantism, and
are only gradually disappearing.
§ 4. The Spirit of Reform was also working in the spiritual
life of the regular and secular priests. Among these we may
mention the Brothers of the Common Life in Holland, the
Augustinians of Germany, and the Oratory of Divine Love iti
Rome. The Brothers of the Common Life, an order founded c.
1391, continued a fruitful life, and greatly influenced Eras
mus. NIcolaus Cusanus, Bishop of Brixen, as Legate of the
Pope, undertook a wide-spread reform of the regulars in
Germany (1450-2), with only partial success. The Oratory
of Divine Love was founded In Rome in 1510, and had as
members some of the ablest men in Rome, among whom
was Cardinal Sadoleto. The Influence of the Dominican
Savonarola in Florence was not destroyed by his death
(1498). The Augustinians were reformed by Andreas Proles
(t 1503) and Staupltz (f 1524), the teacher and counsellor
of Luther, an apostle of love. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Prior
of the Augustinians of Lucca, came forth on the reformed
side of Protestantism. Bernard Occhino, General of the
Capuchins, also became a reformer.
Gleseler well says:
" The difference between these two parties, the Protestant Evangelical
and the Cathohc Evangelical, really consisted only in the importance
they attached to the unity of the Church." *
Thus, when Luther left the Augustinians, his teacher Stau
pltz did not. Zwingll separated from Erasmus, Cranmer
from Sir Thomas More. The founders of the Oratory in
Rome all remained true to the Church in Italy, when Ochino
* Eccl. History, IV, p. 279.

162 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
and Peter Martyr went forth. In Spain the Humanists
remained faithful to Rome. It was not a question of piety
and reform, but of method of reform, and whether best made
within the Roman Church or without.
§ 5. Luther began his work of reform by the promulgation
of the 95 Theses against the sale of indulgences by Tetzel, Octo
ber 31, 1517. The Pope, through his legate Cajetan, tried to
bring Luther to submission. In October, 1518, Luther appealed
"from the Pope ill-informed to the Pope better-informed."
The immediate occasion of the origin of the Lutheran
reform was the sale of indulgences by the Dominican John
Tetzel, accompanied by the most exaggerated claims as to
their value, and mingled with heretical, immoral, and blas
phemous statements. These may be regarded as personal
faults, for which the Church was not responsible. But they
brought into prominence the inherent evils in the whole
matter of the sale of indulgences, which had grown up grad-
uahy, especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth centu
ries. The Church had distinguished from the most ancient
times the four parts of repentance: contrition, confession,
satisfaction, and absolution. The doctrine of indulgence Is
based on the part satisfaction, and this has two important
phases: the one, satisfaction to the Church for temporal
offence against the Church; the other, chastisement of the
offender for his own beneflt and improvement. All eccle
siastical discipline is an unfolding of the doctrine of satis
faction. It is not a satisfaction to the divine Majesty for
the guilt and penalty of original sin, or personal sin against
God. The atonement of Jesus Christ, and that alone, com
pensates fully for these. The only question is as to the tem
poral disciplinary penalties, and the guilt which is involved
In them.
The Penitential system of the Church in its gradual de
velopment determined various gradations of penalty for
ecclesiastical discipline. The practice of indulgence arose
from the substitution of pious works of various kinds and

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 163
importance for these penalties, and eventually the estima
tion of gifts of money, or other substantial things, for the
benefit of the Church, as pious works suitable for such indul
gences. The development of the doctrine of purgatory and its
discipline carried with it the extension of the doctrine of
compensation and indulgence into that state; and when to
that was added the doctrine of intercession for the dead,
there arose the extension of indulgence to those for whom
their friends and relatives on earth made the intercessory
compensation for purgatorial chastisements.
It is easy to see how this doctrine of Indulgence was ca
pable of grave abuse, especially when the Popes were in finan
cial straits, and when It seemed to them that the interests
of Christianity were Involved in their financial struggles.
This was the situation when Pope Leo X organised collec
tions for the purpose of the rebuilding of St. Peter's in Rome,
and appointed commissioners In the various countries with
the authority of granting indulgences for these pious gifts.
The Archbishop of Mainz was given authority by the Pope
over the indulgences for his province of Mainz and Magde
burg; and he commissioned John Tetzel, a coarse, vulgar
Dominican monk, but a fervid, popular preacher, to super
intend the sale of these indulgences. He also Issued an
Instructio Summaria to direct the subcommlssioners in their
work. Tetzel was not permitted to preach these indul
gences in electoral Saxony, in which Luther was professor of
Theology in the recently founded university of Wittenberg;
but his preaching In the border-lands was of such a shameless
character that it was brought to the attention of Luther,
not only by common report, but also In the confessional,
and he felt called of God to attack and destroy this mon
strous evil. In accordance with the custom of the time, he
nailed ninety-five Theses against the sale of Indulgences on
the door of the castle church of Wittenberg, and undertook
to defend these Theses against all adversaries.
Luther did not think that he was opposing any doctrine

164 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
or estabhshed institution of the Church. He maintained
that he was holding up the Scriptures and the teaching of
the Church against heresies, immoralities, and blasphemies.
For the most part he was undoubtedly correct; but in this
case, as was usual with Luther in the heat of controversy,
he went to extremes, and did in fact come into conflict with
the common teaching and practice of the Church, expressed
in the writings of the greatest theologians and In official
papal decrees. Thus he not only attacked the abuses of
Tetzel and others of his kind, but also Popes and the most
eminent divines, when he denied the indulgence Itself and
the whole doctrine of compensation in penance. He cannot
be defended In the following statement in his sermon on
Indulgence and Grace.
"First you ought to know that some modern teachers, such as the
Master of the Sentences, S. Thomas [Aquinas], and their followers,
divide Penance into three parts, namely. Contrition, Confession, and
Satisfaction: and although this distinction, according to their meaning,
was found to be hardly or not at all grounded upon Holy Scripture, nor
upon the early fathers of the Church, yet we are willing to let it stand
and to speak after their fashion. ... It cannot be proved from any
Scripture that divine justice requires or desires any other punishment
or satisfaction from the sinner than his hearty and true repentance
and conversion, with a resolution henceforth to bear the cross of Christ
and practise the good works before mentioned, also imposed on him by

The doctrine of satisfaction for offences is in the Asham,
Dt^t*, of the Old Testament Law, and in the disciplinary
teaching of Jesus and St. Paul, and In the penitential system
of the Church from the earliest times. The satisfaction
of the divine Majesty by the atonement of Jesus Christ for
all sin never. In the Scriptures or In the ancient or medieval
Church, has been regarded as doing away with temporal
chastisement of the sinner and temporal penalties imposed
both by God Himself and His Church. Thus the Pope
himself Jand the Scholastic Theology were challenged by
Luther, and the Pope was obliged to interpose and send

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 105
his legate Cajetan to bring Luther to submission. This
effort was not successful, and so Luther appealed (Octo
ber, 1518) "from the Pope ill-informed to the Pope better-
informed." *
§ 6. When the Bull of Leo X was published, stating the
Roman doctrine of Indulgences, Luther appealed to a General
Council {November 28, 1518). In January, 1519, Miltitz and
Luther came to an agreement that both sides of the controversy
should remain silent; and Luther made a public declaration
of obedience to the Holy See. Tetzel was repudiated.
A second stage in the conflict began when Leo X issued
the Bull Cum postquam (November 9, 1518), reaffirming the
common doctrine of Indulgences. This made it evident to
Luther that his conflict was not simply with Tetzel and abuses
of the indulgences, but with the Pope himself and the com
mon doctrine of the Church. Luther did not regard this
decision of the Pope as settling the matter. He held with
the Councils of Constance and Basel that only a General
Council could flnally determine articles of Faith; and so he
appealed (November 28) from the Pope to a General Council
of the Church. In the meantime, it had become evident to
the Roman authorities that the conflict was much more
serious than they had supposed, especially as the Elector
of Saxony and other German princes defended Luther.
Accordingly Charles von Miltitz, a Saxon nobleman; had
already been commissioned as Nuncio (October 15, 1518)
to try and arrange matters with the Elector and Luther.
After an Interview with the Elector in December, he dis
avowed and disgraced Tetzel on account of his abuses of the
indulgence, and then. In January, 1519, made an arrange
ment with Luther himself. He found Luther reasonable,
and, notwithstanding his appeal from the Pope to a Council,
he agreed to submit to the Pope with these understandings :
(1) that both sides should remain silent as regards the con
troversy; (2) that Luther should meekly state his case to
* Gieseler, IV, p. 31.

166 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the Pope, that a commission should be appointed to inves
tigate it, and that he would recant if any errors were shown
in his position; (3) that Luther should confess that he had
been too zealous, and, perhaps, unreasonable in his advocacy
of the truth.
§ 7. Doctor Eck revived the controversy in his disputation
at Leipzig {June and July, 1519). He compelled Luther by
inevitable logic to justify Huss in some things, and to deny the
infallibility of Councils and Popes. This brought about the ex
communication of Luther and his refusal, at the Diet of Worms
(1521), to submit to any authority in religion but Scripture.
The agreement between Miltitz and Luther was not
kept, because Luther could not be held responsible for the
other parties to the controversy. A few days after his
letter of submission to the Pope, he was involved, against his
win as he claimed, and only In self-defence, in a controversy
with John Eck, Professor of Theology and VIce-ChanceUor
of the University of Ingolstadt. A disputation was arranged
in Leipzig, at first between Eck and Carlstadt, and finally
(July 4-8) between Eck and Luther, on the primacy of the
Pope. In this controversy Eck, who was a skilful and able
disputator, had the best of it. He forced Luther by inev
itable logic to justify Huss in some things, and so to go
against the authority of the Council of Constance as well
as the Pope. Luther was compelled to deny not only
the infallible authority of the Popes but also that of the
Councils. Thus his appeal to a General Council was no
longer valid, because he would no more recognise its final
authority than he would that of the Pope. He was thus
compelled to rest his whole cause on the right interpretation
of the Holy Scriptures. Eck speedily went to Rome with
full reports of the disputation, and of the rejection of the
authority of Councils and Popes by Luther; and after due
consideration the Pope issued a Bull, Exsurge, Domine,
against Luther (June 15, 1520), condemning forty-one errors
of Luther, and directing that his books should be burned.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 167
Luther and his adherents were summoned to recant within
sixty days or to suffer the usual penalties of the law against
heretics. This Bull was intrusted to Eck for promulgation
in Germany. It was published in Wittenberg October 3.
In the meanwhile Luther had been at work on his three
greatest tracts, which were published rapidly one after the
other, and scattered all over Europe: (1) To the Christian
Nobility of the German Nation (August) ; (2) The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church (October); (3) Liberty of a Christian
Man (November).
In these tracts Luther maintains the positions taken at
Leipzig, and does not hesitate to attack Popes, Councils,
theologians, and common opinion, appealing to the Scrip
tures alone, and reasoning on their basis against abuses and
errors In the Church. These tracts are full of fire, enthusi
asm, and real genius. In them he said many noble things,
which have ever since been regarded as fundamental to the
Protestant Reformation; but also other things that have
rightly been condemned as extravagant and erroneous, and,
if not heretical, yet on the brink of heresy; and still others,
that, when his foUowers tried to carry them out in practice,
in the Anabaptist movements, he himself was compelled to
challenge and rebuke. Luther said of himself: "I am rough,
boisterous, stormy, and altogether warlike. I am born to
fight against innumerable monsters and devils. I must re
move stumps and stones, cut away thistles and thorns, and
clear the wild forests." And so, like all men of his tem
perament, he lacked the faculty of nice discrimination, es
pecially in difficult problems; and In a reckless way he did
irreparable Injury to some cherished institutions and well-
established Christian doctrines.
Luther was now assured that his cause was a divine call
ing, and that he had finally broken with the papacy. Accord
ingly, on December 10, he burned the papal Bull, together
with the Decretals of the Canon Law. A Bull dated Jan
uary 3, 1521, excommunicated Luther and his adherents,
and laid an interdict upon the places of their residence.

168 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Luther was summoned to give an account of himself at the
Diet of the Empire at Worms. He was heard before the
Diet and summoned to recant. On the 18th of April, 1521,
he declined the authority of Popes and Councils, and refused
to submit to anything but the authority of Scripture, to which
alone his conscience was bound.
Thus the great antithesis between Rome and Luther was
stated. Rome bound the conscience by the authority of
the Church as expressed by Councils and Popes. Luther
bound his conscience by the authority of Scripture. The
conscience was as much bound In the one case as In the
other. Freedom of conscience was no more achieved In the
one case than In the other. In fact, the result of the Refor
mation was to bind the conscience more than it had ever
been bound before, not only by the decrees of the Council
of Trent, but also fully as much by the Protestant Confes
sions and institutional changes.
It was not till a much later date that the conscience re
ceived recognition and value as an authority In religion.*
§ 8. In 1521 Melanchthon issued his "Loci Communes,"
which became the standard system of Theology of the Lutheran
Reformation. Luther published in parts his translation of the
Bible (1522-34).
Luther, protected by his safe conduct, was allowed to
retire from Worms, but was put under the ban of the Empire.
He was secretly taken to the Wartburg at Eisenach by his
adherents, where he remained in seclusion for many months,
until March, 1522, devoting himself to translations of the
Scriptures into the German language, which were published
and widely scattered in cheap editions. These greatly
helped the progress of the Reformation.
In the meanwhile, Philip Melanchthon came to the front.
He was trained as a humanist, and called to be professor of
Hebrew and Greek at Wittenberg In 1518. He was thor
oughly trained In the original Scriptures, in Philosophy and
* V. p. 272.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 169
Theology, and became the great theologian of the Lutheran
type of the Reformation. He issued his theological treatise.
Loci Communes rerum theologicarum, in numerous editions,
1521-59. He rejected the Scholastic Theology, and In the
method of the Positive Theology built his theology on the
Scriptures, especially the Epistle to the Romans.
§ 9. Zwingli began his work of reform independently of
Luther, and from a different point of view. He began preach
ing Christ as the only Mediator, and the authority of Scripture,
at Einsiedeln, 1516, and then from 1519 at Zurich. He also
attacked the corruptions of the Church, especially in supersti
tions and idolatrous practices. His disputation with Faber
and his Sixty-Seven Articles may be regarded as the basis of
the Swiss Reformation.
Many German authors try to make Zwingli dependent
upon Luther. But Zwingli himself said: "All deference
to Martin Luther, but what we have In common with him
was our conviction before we knew his name." *
In fact, Zwingli's reform was from an entirely different
point of view from Luther's. The sale of Indulgences played
a very unimportant part in the Swiss reform. Samson,
the seller of indulgences In Switzerland, was driven forth by
the Diet with the approval of the bishop. Zwingli was
stirred against idolatry, rather than against the abuse of
indulgences. He appealed to Scripture as did Luther, and
indeed all the Humanists and reformers of every kind: but
in other respects his reforms, both in doctrine and institu
tion, took a different course from Luther's; and so these two
reformers came into irreconcilable conflict, as men of an en
tirely different spirit. All efforts to reconcile them failed
because of Luther's intolerance.
Zwingli, in a disputation with Faber at Ziirich, in 1523,
proposed and maintained Sixty-Seven Articles, which may be
regarded as the basis of the Swiss Reformation. The chief
controversy was as to the mass and the use of images in
* V. Hausser, Period of the Reformation, Enghsh edition, 1885, p. 127.

170 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
worship. These Articles of Zwingli are more comprehensive
and dogmatic than Luther's Theses. They exalt Christ as
the only Saviour and the Bible as the only infallible author
ity. They assert that the mass Is no sacriflce, but a com
memoration of the sacrffice of the cross; and they assail
various abuses. Zwingli's Commentarius de vera et falsa
religione appeared in 1525. The Ziirich Bible was prepared
by Leo Judae in 1524-31.*
§ 10. The Anabaptists were the radicals of the Reformation
period. They represented the peasants and the labouring
classes, and demanded more thoroughgoing reforms than the
nobles and the middle classes, who followed Luther and Zwingli.
Their most characteristic principle was the rejection of
Infant baptism. Both sections of the Reformation re
nounced them and persecuted them. Luther came forth
from his seclusion at the Wartburg in March, 1522, and at
once attacked Carlstadt and his party of false prophets, who
taught the inner word, a visible kingdom of Christ on earth,
community of goods, and the like, and rejected infant baptism.
Zwingli also attacked them (Grebel, Manz, Blaurock) at
Ziirich in public disputation in 1525, and then the magis
trates imprisoned, drowned, or banished them. The Ana
baptists of the sixteenth century represented a strange con
glomeration of opinions and practices, many of which were
revived In the conflicts of the seventeenth century and in
socialistic and sectarian movements of modern times.
§ 11. Luther entered into confiict with the chiefs of the Hu
manists, especially with Henry VIII of England and Erasmus.
The controversy with King Henry was about the sacra-
ments,t vrath Erasmus about the freedom of the will.t The
* V. EgU, Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Zurcher Reformation,
1879; Quellen zur Schweizer Reformationsgeschichte, 1901-4.
t Adsertio septem sacramentorum adversus Martinum Lutherum, 1521;
Luther, Contra Henricum, 1522.
t De Libera Arbitrio, 1524; Luther, De Servo Arbitrio, 1525; Eras
mus, Hyperaspisles, 1526.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 171
result of this conflict was to alienate Erasmus and the
greater proportion of the Humanists, and to exasperate the
King of England and most other authorities, because of
Luther's utter disregard of the proprieties of controversy,
especially in dealing with such exalted persons, who were
entitled by their position to reverential consideration. In
fact, Luther's coarse and violent language was a great hinder
ance to reform. To him Is chiefly due the separation of the
Lutheran type of reformation from all others. He destroyed
the unity of the Reformation by his insistence that it should
go strictly in his way and in no other.*
§ 12. The Diet of Speier, of 1526, unanimously concluded
that a General Council should be convened for the settlement of
the Church questions; and that in the meantime "every state shall
so live, rule and believe as it may hope and trust to answer
before God and his Imperial Majesty."
At the second Diet of Speier, 1529, the innovations in the
Church were condemned, further reformation until the meeting
of the Council was prohibited, and the Zwinglians and Ana
baptists were excluded from toleration. The Lutherans pro
tested (April 25, 1529) against all measures of the Diet, which
were contrary to the Word of God, to their conscience, and to
the decisions of the Diet of 1526. TJiey appealed from the
decision of the majority to the Emperor, to a General or German
Council, and to impartial Christian judges. This gave the
name of "Protestants" to the Lutherans. It subsequently be
came the common name for all the national Churches which
departed from Rome.'f
Several Diets were held In Germany, and strenuous efforts
were made by the Emperor to Induce the Popes to reform
the more glaring abuses of the Church, recognised by those
who were most faithful to Rome. The Diets strove in vain
to bring about concord, because, while Rome was entirely
willing to do away with many abuses, and in fact did so, these
concessions were not of sufficient importance to satisfy the
* V. Gieseler, IV, pp. 100 seq. f V. Walch, XVI, p. 364.

172

PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS

Emperor and the German princes who agreed with him, and
were coupled with a stiff-necked insistence upon the recanta
tion or suppression of the Lutheran and Zwinglian heresies.
In the meanwhile the German and Swiss Reformers were
active in organising churches entirely independent of Rome,
In national organisations under the jurisdiction of the rulers
of the land. The Diet of Speier In 1526 was compelled by
circumstances to come to the following agreement:
"Thereupon have we [the Commissioners], the Electors, Princes, Es
tates of the Empire, and ambassadors of the same, now here at this pres
ent Diet, unanimously agreed and resolved, while awaiting the sitting
of the Council or a national assembly [i. e., without tarrying for the re
turn of the deputation], with our subjects, on the matters which the
Edict published by his Imperial Majesty at the Diet holden at Worms
may concern, each one so to live, govern, and carry himself as he hopes
and trusts to answer it to God and his Imperial Majesty."
This made the civil government supreme in religious as
well as civil affairs. This agreement was altogether unsatis
factory to the Emperor and the Pope, and they determined
to put an end to it. Accordingly at the Diet of Speier in
1529 the majority resolved to do so. They reasserted the
ban of Worms against Luther and his adherents, which was
to be strictly enforced In lands whose governments adhered
to the majority; and so the Lutheran type of Reformation
was to be hemmed In and prevented from spreading. Those
governments which adhered to the minority, were forbidden
to make any further innovations before the assembly of the
Council; and so the Lutheran Reformation must halt in its
proposed reforms. The Anabaptists and Sacramentarians,
or Zwinglians, were excluded from toleration altogether; but
the old doctrines and institutions sustained by Rome must be
recognised as valid even in Lutheran lands.
The Lutheran reformers could not consent to these reso
lutions of the Diet without stultifying themselves. Accord
ingly they made a solemn Protest and Appeal, which won them
the name of Protestants.
The essence of their protestation is this:

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 173
"We hereby protest to you. Well-beloved, and you others, that we,
for kindred reasons, know not how to, cannot, and may not, concur
therein, but hold your resolution null and not binding; and we desire,
in matters of religion (pending the said general and free Christian
Council or national assembly), by means of the godly help, power, and
substance of the oft-mentioned late Recess of Speier, so to live, govern,
and carry ourselves, in our governments, as also with and among our
subjects and kinsfolk, as we trust to answer it before God Almighty
and his Roman Imperial Majesty, our most gracious Lord" (April 19).
In their instrument of appeal (April 25) :
"But these are matters which touch and concern God's honour, and
the salvation and eternal life of the souls of each one of us, and in which,
by God's command, and for the sake of our consciences, we are pledged
and bound to regard before all things the same our Lord and God, in
the undoubting confidence that your Royal Serenity, our beloved
fellow princes, and the others, will in a friendly spirit hold us excused
that we are not one with you therein, and that we cannot in such a mat
ter give way to the majority, as we have several times been urged to do
in this Diet, especially having regard to the fact that the Recess of the
previous Diet of Speier specially states, in the article in question, that
it was adopted by a unanimous vote, and in all honour, equity, and right
such a unanimous decision can only be altered by a similarly unanimous
vote. But besides this, in matters which concern God's honour and the
salvation and eternal life of our souls, every one must stand and give
account before God for himself; and no one can excuse himself by the
action or decision of another, whether less or more."
The exclusion of the Anabaptists and the Sacramentarians
(the Swiss) from toleration was approved by Luther and
Melanchthon officially In their Bedenken, composed at the
command of the Elector of Saxony.* Strictly, therefore, the
term Protestant belongs to the Lutherans alone. But grad
ually and eventually the name Protestant became a common
designation for all the Churches of the Reformation. How
ever, it was not adopted by any of them officially. The
Lutherans adopted the name Evangelical, the Swiss, Dutch,
French, and others who followed Zwingll, Bucer, Calvin, and
their associates used the name Reformed. The Enghsh used
* V. Walch, XVI, p. 360.

174 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the term Church of England; the Scotch, Reformed Church
of Scotland.
§ 13. A conference between the Roman and Reformed divines
was held at Baden, in Aargau, Switzerland, May, 1526, when
the Reformed triumphed. As a result Bern came over to the Re
form, and the Ten Theses of Bern were composed, the funda
mental Symbol of the Reformed Churches.
These assert the sole headship of Christ over the Church.
They reject: (1) the corporeal presence of Christ In the mass;
(2) that it is a propitiatory sacrffice; (3) the invocation of
saints; (4) purgatory; (5) the worship of images; (6) the
celibacy of the clergy.
§ 14. Bucer was a Humanist. He became the chief Re
former of Strasburg (1523) and Southern Germany. Influ
enced by both Luther and Zwingli, he took an independent,
mediating position, and became the chief peacemaker of the
Reformation. Bucer was born near Strasburg, educated at a Latin school,
became a Dominican, and continued his education among
Humanists at Heidelberg. He made the acquaintance of
Luther In 1518, and subsequently of Zwingli and the Swiss
reformers, with whom he was nearer in agreement, although
he took an independent position. He left his order in 1520,
and after ministering at several minor places he became, in
1523, with Capito, the chief reformer at Strasburg, and
greatly influenced South Germany, especially the Free Cities.
He prepared Ordnung und Inhalt deutscher Messe, 1524, and
three different Catechisms (1524-44'), and introduced the
Presbyterian form of government, 1534. He also, with John
Sturm, established a Protestant gymnasium, 1538, and semi
nary, 1544, the forerunner of the Genevan.
§ 15. Luther and Zwingli came into confiict with reference
to the Eucharist. A conference was held at Marburg, October,
1529, which resulted in agreement as to fourteen articles : but
the Lutherans would not agree with Zwingli and the Swiss in the

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 175
fifteenth, which ivas so modified as to express disagreement as to
the Eucharist; and thus thc two branches of the Reformation
became antagonistic.
Bucer was chiefly instrumental in bringing about the
conference at Marburg, October 2-4, 1529. As a personal
acquaintance of Luther and Zwingli he endeavoured to rec
oncile them. The difficulty was that Luther seemed un
able to discriminate between the Swiss who followed Zwingli,
the Strasburg theologians, and Carlstadt, whose radical
views had brought on the controversy as to the Eucharist
in Wittenberg, whence It extended all over the Protestant
world. As early as 1526 Bucer strove to influence Luther
In the way of reconciliation, but in vain. Bucer was the
chief adviser of Philip of Hesse, who invited the divines to
the conference at Marburg. The chiefs on all sides attended :
Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Myconius, and other Lutherans;
and Zwingli, (Ecolampadius, Bucer, Hedio, and Sturm, the
Strasburg and Swiss theologians. Osiander, Brenz, and
Agricola represented the Southern Germans.
The fourteen articles on which they agreed were as to the
Trinity, the Person of Christ, Faith and Justiflcation, the
Word of God, Baptism, Good Works, Confession, Secular
Authority, Tradition, and Infant Baptism. They agreed as
to the Eucharist on these questions : the necessity of partak
ing of both the bread and wine, the spiritual eating and drink
ing, and the rejection of the Roman mass, but retained their
differences. As regards these they resolved:
"And although at present we are not agreed on the question whether
the real body and blood of Christ are corporally present in the bread
and wine, yet both parties shall cherish Christian charity for one an
other, so far as the conscience of each will permit ; and both parties will
earnestly implore Almighty God to strengthen us by His Spirit in the
true understanding. Amen." *
Luther, during his retirement at the Wartburg, 1521-2,
had become more conservative. He had devoted himself es
pecially to the translation of the Scriptures, and this had
* The German original is in the archives of Zurich, according to Schaff,
History of the Christian Church, vol. VI, p. 646.

176 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
greatly Increased his knowledge of the Bible and Its authority
over him. The Bible, as he interpreted It, must be adhered
to without compromise and at all hazards. The more radi
cal views expressed in his tracts of 1520, which had been
carried to extremes by Carlstadt and the Anabaptists, were
no longer adhered to. He opposed with all his might, not
only the Anabaptists, but Carlstadt and the Swiss; and, un
consciously no doubt, but really, acted as if his interpreta
tion of Scripture was infallible.
The Elector requested Luther, while still at Marburg, to
confer with Melanchthon and Jonas in the preparation of arti
cles of agreement for the Evangelicals. Luther himself sent
to the Elector (October 10) what are known as the Schwa-
bach Articles, seventeen in number. These followed the
Marburg Articles closely, but emphasised the special Lu
theran view of the Eucharist. They were adopted by the
North Germans at Schwabach (October 16), but were not
accepted by the South Germans or the Swiss.
§ 16. At the Diet of Augsburg, in 1530, the Lutherans pre"
sented their Confession and plan of Reform in the Augsburg Con
fession, composed by Melanchthon. A Catholic confutation ivas
prepared by Eck, Faber, Cochlaeus, and others. Melanchthon
replied in his Apology.
The Emperor (January 21, 1530) Issued a summons for the
Diet of the German Empire to meet at Augsburg, April 8,
to deliberate upon the war with the Turks and upon matters
of religion. The Emperor was exceedingly desirous of re
ligious peace and the reform of abuses, that " as we all both
are and contend under one Christ, so we all may live in the
communion of one Church, and In harmony." Ample time
was given the reformers for consideration. Luther, Melanch
thon, Bugenhagen, and Jonas met by direction of the Elector
of Saxony at Torgau to prepare a summary of Faith to be
presented to the Diet. This summary is known as the "Tor
gau Articles." *
* V. Balthasar, J. H., Historiedes torgischen Buchs, 1741; Brieger, T.,
Die Torgauer Artikel, 1888.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 177
On the basis of the Articles of Schwabach and Torgau,
Melanchthon prepared an Apology, which, after consultation
with Luther and others, was revised into the Augsburg Con
fession.* The final form was adopted June 23, at Augsburg,
in a representative conference of theologians and chiefs of
the reforming governments. It was presented to the Diet
June 25.
The Confession in the first part consists of twenty-one chief
Articles of Faith, of which they claimed in Article XXII that
"there is nothing which is discrepant with the Scriptures, or
with the Church Catholic, or even with the Roman Church,
so far as that Church is known from writers [the writings of
the Fathers]." These articles treat of God, original sin, the
Son of God, justification, the ministry of the Church, new
obedience, the Church, what the Church Is, Baptism, the
Lord's Supper, confession, repentance, use of the Sacra
ments, ecclesiastical orders, ecclesiastical rites, civil affairs,
Christ's return to judgment, free will, cause of sin, good
works, worship of saints.
These articles are all brief, except the two of Free Will and
Good Works. The second part consists of seven articles in
which are recounted the abuses which have been corrected.
These they claim to be " novel and contrary to the purport of
the Canons, having been received by fault of the times."
These are all discussed at length — namely, both kinds In the
Lord's Supper, marriage of priests, the mass, confession, dis
tinction of meats, traditions, monastic vows, and ecclesias
tical power.
There can be no doubt that the Evangelicals were correct
according to the standards to which they adhered; but in fact
they were in confiict with traditions of the Roman Church,
both as to Faith and Institutions, which had been fixed, many
of them, for centuries and confirmed by papal authority, and
some of them by concihar and synodlcal decision. Upon
these standards, not recognised as valid by the Evangehcals,
* Cf. Knaake, J. K. F., Luther's Antheil an der Augsburgischen Confes
sion, 1863.

178 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the Roman theologians based themselves in their reply. The
chief of these theologians were Eck, Faber, and Cochlaeus,
already recognised as the chief opponents of Luther and
Zwingli. These presented to the Diet, August 3, their Re-
sponsio Augustanae Confessionis. They worked over it for
several weeks. Five revisions were made before the Emperor
was satisfied and willing to adopt It as his own. The polemic
of the earlier draughts was greatly modified. There was a
careful distinction between the consensus and the dissensus of
the parties. The Roman position was sustained by numer
ous citations from the Bible, whose authority the Evangel
icals could not question.
The Response approves the most of the Articles of Faith,
with minor exceptions. The dissensus is chiefly as to the
merit of good works, the relation of good works to justifica
tion, the exclusion of satisfaction from repentance, the invoca
tion of the saints, and the definition of the Church. It is
noteworthy that no exception Is taken to Article X on the
Eucharist, except to the neglect to state that the entire Christ
is present under both forms of the sacrament, and that the
substance of the bread has been transubstantiated into the
body of Christ. It Is evident that the chief dissensus is in
the second part, which is entirely rejected except so far as
certain minor abuses are concerned.
Melanchthon prepared an Apology of the Confession, which
was presented by Chancellor Briick, In the name of the Evan
gelicals, September 22. The greater part of the Apology
treats of these three : Justification, Repentance, and Institu
tional Abuses. It is significant that In the Tenth Article
the concord with Rome is emphasised, and nothing is said in
reply to the objection as to the omission of transubstantiation
and of the entire Christ under both forms. The Apology
also shows that most of the minor exceptions taken to the
other articles are invalid, either owing to misinterpretation
of the articles themselves or of the citations from Holy
Scripture by the adversaries.
When Melanchthon wrote his Apology he had no official

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 179
copy of the Responsio before him, and there were numerous
inofficial and incorrect editions of the Augsburg Confession
published. Accordingly Melanchthon issued a revised edition
of both the Confession and the Apology in 1531. He subse
quently issued several other editions, in which he felt free to
improve both documents without changing the substance.
In 1540, however, important changes were made in the arti
cles on the Lord's Supper, Free Will, and Good Works.
These were not regarded as serious at the time; but, subse
quently, controversies arose and became imbittered over just
these questions. Then, when a serious difference divided the
strict Lutherans from the followers of Melanchthon, or Phllip-
pists, as they were called, the former Insisted upon strict ad
herence to the edition of 1531 as the Invariata; whereas the
Philippists adhered to the edition of 1540, or the Variata,
which in the doctrine of the Eucharist was more acceptable
to the Calvinists, and so was regarded as crypto-CalvInlstic,
while the doctrine of Free Will and Good Works was more In
accord with that of the irenic theologians among both Cal
vinists and Lutherans, and not more agreeable to High Cal
vinists than to High Lutherans.
The literature of the Augsburg Confession is enormous, especially
in the German language. It is impracticable to give more than selec
tions from it.
The text of the Confession and Apology is given in the corpora
doctrinae of the sixteenth century, the Book of Concord, which took their
place, and the collection of the Symbolic Books of the evangelical
Lutheran Church, and finally in the more comprehensive collections
of Symbols. An immense number of editions both in Latin and Ger
man was issued, especially in the sixteenth century. A full account of
these as well as a history of the text is given in Kollner's Symbolik der
lutherischen Kirche, 1837; pp. 228-353. Owing to the loss of the orig
inal Latin and German editions of the Confession, given into the hands
of the Emperor, it is impracticable to ascertain the exact text of the
original of 1530. The Latin text of 1531 is therefore the standard text
of the Invariata.
The Augsburg Confession was first translated into English by Tav-
erner, 1536. Several other modern translations have been made, the
most important of which is that of Dr. C. P. Krauth, used by P. Schaff

180 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
in his Creeds of Christendom, 1877, and by H. E. Jacobs in his Book of
Concord, 1883. The best modern edition of Latin and German is that
of Tschackert, 1901. For a further study of the text v. Panzer, G. W.,
Die unveranderte augsburgische Confession, 1782; Weber, G. G., Kri-
tische Geschichte derAugspurger Confession aus archivalischen Nachrichten,
1783-4; Kaiser, G. P. C, Beitrag zu einer kritischen Literdrge-
schichte der Melanchthonischen Originalausgabe, 1830; Rausch, E., Die
ungednderte augsburgische Confession, 1874.
A large number of histories of the Augsburg Confession, and Intro
ductions thereto, have been written. The earlier are given by Koecher,
Bibliotheca Symbolica, 1751, the later by Krauth and Schaff. Among
these we may mention Chytrseus, 1576; Miiller, J. J., 1705; Cyprian,
1730; Salig, 1730; Pfaff, 1830; Forstemann, 1833-5; Rudelbach, 1829;
Calinich, 1861; Plitt, 1867-8; Schirrmacher, F., 1876; Ficker, 1891.
Interpretations and expositions of the Confession are no less numer
ous. We may mention Hutter, L., 1598; Mentzer, 1613-15; Franz,
1611, 16202; Varenius, 1664; Lebeau, 1842; Heber, 1846; Zockler,
1870. § 17. Four South German cities offered to the Diet of
Augsburg the Tetrapolitan Confession, composed chiefly by
Bucer. Zwingli also presented his own Confession. These were
refused by the Diet, but confutations of both of them were
written by the papal divines.
The disagreement among the Evangelical Reformers about
the Lord's Supper prevented their agreement on the tenth
Article of the Augsburg Confession. The Lutherans re
fused to unite with the South Germans and the Swiss in a
Confession, partly because of the disagreement about this
essential doctrine, but chiefly because they desired the recog
nition of their claims by the Diet, and were unwilling to com
promise themselves with what were generally regarded as
more radical views. Accordingly they took special pains to
repudiate not only the Anabaptists but also the Swiss and
South German Reformers. Thus the Evangelicals were di
vided at the Diet Into three parties over against the united
Romanists with the Pope and the Emperor at their back.
This policy, for which the uncompromising Luther was chiefly
responsible, did not succeed, but was a disastrous failure.
The conflict between the Lutherans and Zwinghans was so

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 181
sharp that no attempt at union was made. Zwingli simply
sent his own Confession, Ad Carolum Romanorum Impera-
torem Germaniae comitia Augustae celebrantem Fidei Huldrychi
Zwinglii ratio. The Diet, however, would not receive it.
But Eck wrote a refutation of It in his usual style, Repulsio
Articulorum Zwinglii, 1530.
The South Germans were an intermediate peace-seeking
party, who desired to unite with the Lutherans In a Confes
sion; but they were not allowed to do so. Accordingly the
representatives of the four cities, Strasburg, Constance,
Memmlngen, and Lindau, handed in a Confession, prepared
chiefly by Bucer, which Is known as the Tetrapolitan Con
fession. To it many other representative Germans of the
Rhine and the South adhered.
The Diet declined to receive this Confession also. How
ever, a confutation of it was written by Faber, Eck, and
Cochlaeus, which was answered by a Vindication and De
fence by Bucer.*
The only difference of any importance was in the inter
pretation of the Eucharist. They had not been able to
agree with the Lutherans at the conference of Marburg; but
in fact the South Germans and Swiss had no more objection
to the Tenth Article than the Romanists, for there was no
definition therein of the mode of the presence of Christ In
the Eucharist. The Tetrapolltan "waren leib und wares blut
warlich zu essen und trincken" (18), and Zwingli's "Verum
Christi corpus adsit, fidei contemplatione" (8) were regarded
by both Lutherans and Romanists as unsatisfactory and
heretical, as meaning nothing more than symbolical presence.
This misinterpretation was due to the polemic writings of
Zwingll and Bucer, and their criticisms of the Roman mass.
All attempts to explain their views as In harmony with the
Scriptures and the Tenth Article of the Augsburg Confes
sion were unsuccessful.f Indeed, it was the policy of both
* Bucer pubhshed it with his reply at Strasburg in 1531, Bekandtnuss
der vier Frey und Reichstatt, and a Latin translation in the same year.
t V. the careful statement of KoUner, pp. 369 seq.

182 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the Lutherans and the Romanists at this time to keep the
South Germans and Swiss apart from the Lutherans.
The Tetrapolitan of Bucer and the Fidei ratio of Zwingli are given
by K. Miiller in his collection of the Reformed Confessions; cf. Werns-
dorff, G., Confessionis Tetrapolitanae historia, 1694, 1721''; Fels, J. H.,
Dissertalio de varia Confessionis Tetrapolitanae fortuna, 1755; Keim, T.,
Sehwabische Reformationsgeschichte, 1855; Dobel, F., Memmingen im
Reformationszeitalter, 1878; Patzold, A., Die Konfutation des Vierstadte-
bekenntnisses, 1900.
§ 18. In Italy and Spain a number of religious orders were
organised for the reformation of the Church on mediceval lines,
the most important of which were the Capuchins and the Jesuits.
The reforming spirit was, as we have seen,* as strong in
Italy and Spain as elsewhere, but it assumed different forms.
{a) Gaetano da Thiene and Bishop Caraffa organised
the Congregation of Clerks Regular (confirmed in 1524), all
pastors, devoted to the cure of souls. They assumed the
vow of poverty, but not of begging. This order was an out
growth of the Oratory of Divine Love, organised by fifty to
sixty representative men in Rome a few years earher. It is
Important to notice the emphasis of the Catholic reformers
on Love over against the Protestant emphasis upon Faith.
(6) Bassi and Fossombrone organised a new branch of
the Franciscans, devoted to the contemplative life, called the
Capuchins (1526).
(c) Antonio Zaccaria organised the Barnabites in 1533, de
voted to the education of the young.
{d) Most important of all, the Society of Jesus was organ
ised by Ignatius Loyola In 1534. The older rule of obedience
was sharpened into absolute submission of .mind and con
science to the superior. They began with the conscience in
hearing the confessions of laymen. They were not allowed
to accept fees, and so they made the best and most practical
answer to the charge against the Church of greed for money
and the sale of pardons. They organised retreats and re
hgious exercises to deepen the religious life. They devoted
' V. pp. 159, 161.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 183
themselves to theological education, and soon became the
greatest scholars and teachers of Europe.
All these orders proposed a reformation in the monastic
sense, in continuation of the spirit of the Middle Ages.
§ 19. Geneva, after a disputation conducted by Farel, Fro-
ment, and Viret, adopted the Reformation in 1535, and received
Calvin as teacher in 1536. Lausanne accepted the Reformation
after disputation in 1536. In the same year Calvin issued his
"Institutes," which became the doctrinal basis for the Reformed
Theology. Articles for the government of the Church of Geneva
were prepared in 1537. These were replaced by the Ecclesi
astical Ordinances in 1541. Farel' s Liturgy of 1537 gave way
to Calvin's in 1542.
Calvin was well trained in humanistic studies and in Law,
and he became especially eminent as a teacher and for prac
tical executive ability. His doctrine was shaped by a return
from Scholastic Theology to the more ancient Positive The
ology based on Holy Scripture and the fathers, especially
Augustine, all put into the frame of the articles of the Apostles'
Creed. There was nothing new In the substance of his teach
ing except his doctrine of the Eucharist and his unfolding of
the doctrine of Justification by Faith. His chief merit as a
reformer was not in doctrine but in institutions. In his organ
isation of the Church on a presbyterial basis, in his prepa
ration of a normal liturgy for the Reformed Churches, and in
his establishment of a thorough theological education.
The Geneva Academy was dedicated in 1559. This edu
cated the ministry for French Switzerland, France, and even
other countries, especially the fathers of Scotch and English
Presbyterianism. The reason why Calvin's Institutes be
came normal for Reformed Theology was because of their
Biblical and Augustinian elements, well organised in a sys
tem of positive theology. What is known as Calvinism is
really a high, but not the highest, Augustinianism. In fact,
Calvin was much more moderate and cautious in his Augus
tinianism than was Luther.

184 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Furthermore, Calvin was a practical and an irenic theo
logian. He it was who, by friendly correspondence with
Bulhnger and other Zwinglians, brought the German and
the French Swiss into harmony, and unified the Reformed
Churches throughout Europe. With the leaders of the
Church of England on the one hand and the Waldensians
and Bohemian Brethren on the other he was in friendly and
influential correspondence.
Calvin was not responsible for the later, higher, and more
polemic Calvinism of his scholastic successors. He was a
stern controversialist against Rome and the Unitarian
heresies of his time. He is censured In modern times for his
dealings with Servetus, but unjustly; for he simply repre
sented the attitude of his age, in which all the Reformers
shared. § 20. In 1536 Hermann, Archbishop of Cologne, began a
conservative reformation, continued under the advice of Bucer
and Melanchthon, but rejected by Luther, whose followers allowed
the Emperor to crush it.
In 1536 Hermann, Archbishop of Cologne, endeavoured
to remove ecclesiastical abuses in a provincial council.*
In 1543, under the advice of Bucer and Melanchthon, a
Reforming Constitution was issued,t written by Bucer.
This conservative reformation was crushed by the Em
peror. Hermann was deposed by papal decree April 16,
1546, enforced by the Emperor January 24, 1547, the
Lutherans abandoning him to his fate. But their own pun
ishment came in the spring and summer of the same year,
when the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse were
captured by the Emperor. The Lutherans refused to sustain
Hermann, because he declined to sign the Augsburg Confes
sion. Hermann's Consultation was used by Cranmer in
* Canones provincialis concilii Coloniensis, Cologne, 1538, drawn up
by Gropper.
t Von Qottes Genaden unser Hermanns Erzbischofs . . . Bedenken,
Bonn, 1543.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 185
making the Book of Common Prayer, and so was influential
in shaping the Reformation in England, which was akin to
Hermann's type.
§ 21. The Churches of German Switzerland issued the Basel
Confession of 1534, and the Helvetic of 1536, composed for pres
entation at the proposed General Council. These Churches
were not represented at Trent, because they were already con
demned as heretical and schismatic.
The Confessions of German Switzerland were essentially
Zwinghan, with Important modifications, however, in a milder
and less aggressive mode of statement. Two Confessions
were issued at Basel: the first in 1534, composed by (Eco
lampadius and Myconius. It is simple and moderate. The
second Confession of Basel is usually known as the First Hel
vetic Confession, 1536. It consists of twenty-seven Articles.*
It was composed by a great gathering of Swiss and South
German divines to be laid before the proposed General
Council. Bullinger of Ziirich was the chief of the large
committee which composed It. Bucer was called into con
ference. § 22. The Smalcald Articles, composed by Luther and
adopted by the Protestant League in 1537, defined the Lutheran
position with a view to their presentation at the Council of Trent.
The Saxon Confession drawn up by Melanchthon, and that of
Wiirtemberg by Brenz, in 1551, had the same purpose.
The calling of a Council was also insisted upon by the
Emperor and urged by many faithful adherents of Rome.
The retaining of confiscated Church property was merely a
matter of finance, and concerned the civil authorities rather
than the reformers. The omission of the Canon of the Mass
was the most serious question; and yet Rome had already, at
* Special works upon these Confessions are: Beck, Dissertatio de Con-
fessione Fidei Basil. Ecclesiae, 1744; Burckhardt, Reformationsgeschichte
von Basel, 1818; Hagenbach, Krit. Geschichte der Entstehung und der
Schicksale der ersten Baslerkonfession, 1827.

186 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the Council of Florence, recognised the Greek and Oriental
Canons as valid notwithstanding their differences from the
Roman Canon. The Lutherans, however, had been drastic
in their revision. They had thrown out the Canon altogether
as a distinct part of the Eucharlstic liturgy, and only retained
of the Canon the words of institution in the Biblical narra
tive, enclosed with suitable prayers. The words of institu
tion were the essential thing, as was recognised by all. But
the Roman prayers, involving the doctrine of sacrifice, and
prayers for the dead, and intercession of the saints, were re
jected because of their doctrinal implications; thus very seri
ous differences existed, in that the rejection of these prayers
involved the rejection of the doctrines they contained.
The Protestants, however, declined the Invitation to attend
the Council, because they were regarded and treated as
heretics; and the controversial questions were taken up at
once and decided, without giving them a representation or a
hearing. Melanchthon wrote an explanation of their po
sition : De potestate et primatu Papae tractatus (Appendix to
Smalcald Articles, all in the Lutheran Concordia*).
§ 23. The Scandinavian countries were reformed after the
Lutheran model and accepted the Augsburg Confession, but they
retained the Episcopal form of Church government.
The Scandinavian countries accepted the Reformation In
the Lutheran form. Under the superintendence of John
Bugenhagen in 1537, the Church of Denmark was reformed
In accordance with Lutheran Ideals; only an episcopal estab
lishment was revived. But the new bishops were consecrated
* Bertram, J. C, Gesch. des symb. Anhangs der Schmalk. Artikel,
1770; Meurer, M., Der Tag zu Schmalkalden, 1837; Confessio doctrinae
Saxonicarum ecclesiarum Synodo Tridentinae oblata, 1551. The original
MS. with the title Repetitio Confessionis Augustanae, with Melanchthon's
own corrections, is in the library of the Thomaskirche, Leipzig. Con
fessio piae doctrinae, quae nomine illustrissimi principis ac domini Chris-
tophori Duds Wirtembergensis et Teccensis, ac comitis Montisbeligardi
. . . congregationi Tridentini Concilii proposita est, 1551, 56, 59, 61 -f- ;
opera Brentii, VIII, 1590, pp. 1-34; Pfaff, Acta et scripta puhlica ecclesiae
Wirtembergicae, 1720.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 187
by Bugenhagen, so that they have not episcopal succession.
Norway, at this time a province of Denmark, was reformed
by the Danish government. The reform was extended to
Iceland, 1540-50. The Reformation was introduced into
Sweden by the brothers Petri, pupils of Luther, in 1520, by
Laurentius Andreae, and others, but was carried out by the
king, Gustavus Vasa (1527-53), yet only gradually and with
reactions. It did not finally succeed until the adoption of
the Augsburg Confession in 1593 by a Synod summoned by
his son Charles, when the Roman Catholics were banished
from the kingdom. The episcopal succession was, however,
preserved. § 24. Continual efforts for reconciliation ivere made under
the auspices of the Emperor, resulting in the Ratisbon Interim,
1541, the Augsburg Interim, 1548, and eventually in the Inter-
imistic and Adiaphoristic controversies.
The Emperor was exceedingly desirous of reconciling the
different religious parties in Germany. Accordingly, at the
Diet of Augsburg, 1530, a small commission was appointed,
consisting of Melanchthon, Brenz, and Schnepf on the one
side, and Eck, WImpIna, and Cochlaeus on the other.
They agreed on all but three minor questions of doctrine
and three questions of institution.* The disputed questions
of doctrine were:
(1) "Whether our good works are meritorious, and how
far we may rely upon them"; (2) "Whether the satisfaction
was necessary to the forgiveness of sins, so far as the punish
ment is concerned"; (3) The invocation of saints.
These differences were not taken seriously at Rome. The
Protestants agreed to the intercession of saints, but not to
their Invocation. There was also agreement on all matters
of Institution except three:
(1) The withholding of the cup from the laity; (2) the
marriage of priests; (3) the change of canon in the German
* V. Walch, XVI, 1668; Pastor, Die Kirchlichen Reunionsbestre-
bungen, 1879, s. 17 seq.

188 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
mass, and private masses. The Lutherans threw out the
Canon of the Mass, all but the words of institution in the
Biblical narrative.
Cardinal Campeggio in his report to Rome gave five chief
demands of the Protestants: (1) The Lord's Supper under
both forms; (2) the marriage of priests; (3) omission of the
Canon of the Mass; (4) retaining of the confiscated Church
property; (5) the calling of a Council.
In a consistory held July 6, at Rome, it was decided to
yield nothing. These questions had been fought over with
Wyckllf and Huss, and decided against them; and Rome would
have been inconsistent with the past to grant these demands
to the Lutherans. At the same time two of them (1) and (2)
were granted to the Greeks and Orientals at the Council of
Florence; and one of them (1) was granted to the Callxtines
of Bohemia without healing the schism. It was therefore
not a matter of principle but of policy in this case.
The efforts for union were not discontinued, but persist
ently carried on by the intermediate party under the aus
pices of the Emperor and the Roman Cathohc princes; yet
continued to fail because it was impossible at the time to in
duce the leaders of the Reformation to submit to the domina
tion of Rome. Private conferences In the interests of recon
ciliation were held at Hagenau in 1540 and Worms in 1541,
the result of which was an agreement of the four theologians,
Eck and Mensing, Melanchthon and Bucer, on the doctrine
of original sin.* In the meanwhile Gropper, Veltwick, Bu
cer, and -Capito were at work upon a platform of concord,
under the auspices of Hermann, Archbishop of Cologne.
At the Diet of Ratlsbon this was submitted to a conference
of von Pflug, Gropper, and Eck on the one side, Melanch
thon, Bucer, and Pistorius on the other. In this document,
caUed an Interim, there are twenty-three articles.
The sickness of Eck brought the conference to a close after
they had agreed on five articles. Including the doctrines of
sin and justification. The remaining articles were not
* V. Pastor, s. 216.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 189
sufficiently considered to be brought to an agreement, and
all the efforts of the Emperor to reconcile the parties failed.
A bitter conflict arose among the theologians who took part
in this discussion with reference to the interpretation of
the Interim and their part in it.
V. Bucer, Acta Colloq. Ratisbon. 1541; Alle Handlungen und Schriff-
ten zu Vergleichung der Religion, 1541-2; De vera Ecclesiarum Doc-
trina, Ceremoniis et Disciplina reconciliatione et compositione, [1642];
De concilio, et . . . judicandis controversiis Religionis, 1545; Von den
einigen rechten Wegen . . . inn christ. Religion zu vergleiehen, 1545;
Wahrhafter Bericht v. Colloq. zu Regenspurg, 1546; Eck, Apologia adv.
mucores et calumnias Buceri, 1542; Replica adversus scripta secunda
Buceri apostatae super actis Ratisbonae, 1543; Gropper, Gegenbericht-
igung, 1545; Nausea, Colloquia privata, 1541; Epistola ad Frid. Nauseam,
1550; Brieger, De formulae concordiae Ratisbonensis origine atque indole,
1870; Pighius, Controversiarum prcecipuarum in comitiis Ratisbonensi-
bus tractatarum . . . explicatio, 1542.
King Ferdinand of Austria renewed the efforts for recon
ciliation through Friedrich Nausea. Another conference was
held at Ratisbon in 1546, In which von Pflug took the prin
cipal part. This conference only resulted in controversial
writings. V. Major, Kurtzer und warhafftiger Bericht von dem Colloquio, so in
diesem Jfi. Jahr zu Regensburg der Religion halben gehalten {v. Hortleder,
s. 576-7); Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae in altera colloquio a XLVI,
1548; Hofmeister, Actorum colloquii Raiisb. ultimi, 1546; Cochlaeus,
Actorum colloquii Ratisb. ultimi narratio, 1546; Latomus, Handlungen
des Colloquiums zu Regenspurg, 1546; Walch, XVII, 1478 /.; Pastor,
s. 305 seq.
Luther died February 18, 1546, and with him the unity of
the Lutherans, who henceforth became divided; some, the
strict Lutherans, adhering to Luther's views where he differed
from Melanchthon, the others following Melanchthon, who
now developed, more naturally, apart from the influence of
Luther, in a more humanistic and irenic direction.
The Emperor now determined to reduce the rebeUious Prot
estants to submission. He declared war upon the Elector

190 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse, June 17, 1546, de
feated them, and made them prisoners in 1547. For a
season he was triumphant all over Germany, until, in 1552,
his chief supporter, Moritz of Saxony, turned against him
and defeated him, released the Imprisoned princes, and won
for the Protestants religious peace by the treaty of Passau.
During the years of the Emperor's triumph the Protestants
were offered the Interim of Augsburg of 1548.
The Augsburg Interim was based on a formula of union
prepared by von Pflug, Bishop of Naumburg, on the founda
tion of that of Ratlsbon. It was revised by Agricola of
Brandenburg. It contains twenty-six sections.
The Emperor demanded from Rome concessions as to the
giving of the cup to the laity and the marriage of priests.
The opinion of the Cardinals was favourable,* and the Pope
went so far as to grant indulgence In these matters In a Bull
given in charge of his nuntius to use at his discretion.
The Interim divided the Protestants. It was accepted In
Wiirtemberg, the Palatinate, the chief free cities of the South,
and Brandenburg in the North; and, with certain alterations
(as the Leipzig Interim), in Saxony. The Catholic constitu
tions and usages were allowed as Adiaphora.^ This brought
about the Interimlstic controversy, and then also the Adi
aphoristic controversy.
One happy result of these controversies was to finally settle
the question of religious institutions In the liberty and variety
of German practice, thus avoiding the distressing controver
sies which subsequently distracted the British Churches.
But they greatly weakened German Protestantism in the
middle of the sixteenth century.
Formula sacrorum emandandorum in comitiis Augustanis anno 1548,
a Julio Pflugio composita, ed. C. G. Miiller, 1803; Bieck, Das Dreyfaclie
Interim, 1721; Schmid, Controversia de adiaphoris, 1807; Preger, W.,
Matthias Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit, 1859-61; Beutel, G., Uber
den Ursprung des Augsburger Interims, 1888; cf. Melanchthon, Bedencken
aufs Interim, 1548; Amsdorf, N., Antwort, Glaub und Bekaenntnis auf
* Martene, Collectio, VIII, 1180. f iStiipopa = indifferent.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 191
das schoene und liebliche Interim, 1548; Aquila, C, Wieder d. liigner u.
verleumder M. Eislehiiim Agricolam. Noetige verantwortung u. ernstliche
warnung wieder das Interim, 1548.
§ 25. The Reformation in England was conducted in a
gradual and conservative way by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop
of Canterbury, resulting in the Bishops' Book (1537), the Great
Bible (1539-40), Cranmer's Bible (1540-1), the Book of Com
mon Prayer (1548-52), the Articles of Religion (1553), and
the Episcopal organisation of the national Church of England.
After the execution of Sir Thomas More and of Fisher In
1535, Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, became
most influential in the English Reformation. He espoused
the king's cause in the matter of divorce and managed to
keep in favour with the king to the end of his reign. Ten
Articles were issued In 1536 of a character similar to that of
the Augsburg Confession; and Six Articles in 1539, reacting
toward Rome. The Institution of a Christian Man was Is
sued in 1537 (the Bishops' Book), A Necessary Doctrine and
Erudition for any Christian Man in 1543 (the King's Book),
the Great Bible In 1539-40, Cranmer's Bible in 1540-1, the
King's Primer in 1545.
As soon as Edward VI ascended the throne of England
Cranmer called Peter Martyr and Bernardino Occhino to
Oxford (1547), and Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius to
Cambridge (1549), and under their advice continued the
reformation of the Church of England.
The first Book of Homilies and the Royal Injunctions were
issued in 1547, the Book of Common Prayer in 1548-9. The
first Act of Uniformity was passed In 1549, the second In 1552.
The Forty-two Articles of Religion appeared In 1553.
§ 26. At the Diet of Augsburg, 1555, a Religious Peace was
concluded, which made the religion of the subjects to depend upon
that of their princes, who were guaranteed the choice between the
Catholic religion and the Augsburg Confession.
Two things remained unsettled to cause endless trouble in
the future:

192 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
(1) It was not agreed that clerical princes should have the
same freedom as the secular.
(2) The rights of the Protestant and Catholic principal
ities were not defined.
§ 27. After the Catholic reaction under Mary, the Reforma
tion advanced under Elizabeth, resulting in the Act of Uniformity
and Book of Common Prayer of 1559, the Thirty-nine Articles of
1571, and the final establishment of the Church of England as a
national episcopal Church.
After the Catholic reaction of the short reign of Mary,
1553-8, Elizabeth ascended the throne and the work of the
English Reformation was continued. The Book of Common
Prayer was adopted In 1559 with an Act of Uniformity which
made It binding on all the churches of the kingdom. Matthew
Parker was made archbishop, the father of the episcopate of
the Anglican Church. Convocation reduced the Forty-two
Articles of Religion to thirty-nine, which were adopted by
Parliament in 1571, and have since been the doctrinal symbol
of the Church of England. But In fact they were not alto
gether satisfactory either to the party of reaction, or to the
party of progress; and the Anglican Church and her daughters
in the British Colonies have made the Book of Common
Prayer the real standard both for Faith and Institution.
The chief works on the Thirty-nine Articles are: Rogers, T., The
English Creed, 1579; The Faith, Doctrine and Religion, . . . expressed
in the XXXIX Articles, \mi; Ellis, 1700; Burnet, 1715; Lamb, 1829;
Browne, E. H., 1850-3; Hardwick, 1851; Davey, 1861. Forbes,
1867-8; Green, E. T., 1896.
The Book of Common Prayer has passed through a series of re
visions, which have not made any substantial change in its doctrines
and institutions. The first Prayer Book of Edward VI, 1549, gave
place to the second in 1552, then that of Elizabeth, 1560; that of James
I, 1604; Laud's, 1637, and the final revision of Charles II, 1662; all
published at the time, often reprinted, and finally in facsimile by W.
Pickering, 1844. Other revisions have been made in Ireland, 1877,
and the United States, 1789 and finally 1892. There have been a
large number of works upon the Book of Common Prayer, among
which I may mention: E. Cardwell, 1839, 1841^; W. Maskell, 1846;

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 193
A. J. Stephens, 1849-50; F. Proctor, 1855; Lathbury, 1859; J. H.
Blunt, 1868; C. M. Butler, 1880; J. H. Garrison, 1887; A. T. Wirg-
mann, 1877; G. W. Sprott, 1891; F. A. Gasquet, 1891; C. E. Stevens,
1893; J. Cornford, 1897; J. Dowden, 1899; L. PuUan, 1900; W. H.
Frere, 1901; H. Gee, 1902; E. Daniel, 1901; A. R. Fausset, 1904.
§ 28. The Reformed Churches adopted a variety of Confes
sions in the different countries. The chief of these were the
Zurich Consensus, 1549, the Geneva Consensus, 1552, the Gal
Ucan Confession, 1559, the Scotch, 1560, the Belgic, 1561, the
Heidelberg Catechism, 1563, and the Hungarian Confession,
1557-70. In Switzerland the original Zwinglian type combined with
the Calvinistic to produce the Reformed type In the Ziirich
Consensus (1549), the joint production of Bullinger and
Calvin; and the Rhaetian Confession (1552) approved by Bul
linger and adopted by a synod of the Reformed Churches of
Rhaetia. The Consensus of Geneva was rather a polemic
treatise than a Confession, though signed by the company of
pastors In 1552.
The Emden Catechism was prepared by John a Lasco in
1554 for East Friesland.
The Galhcan Confession was prepared by Calvin and his
pupil, Chandleu, and was adopted with slight modifications
by the first Synod of the Reformed Churches of France, at
Paris, in 1559.
The Scotch Confession was prepared by John Knox, a
pupil of Calvin, and Was adopted by the General Assembly
in 1560.
The Belgic Confession was composed by Guy de Bres in
1561 for the Church of Flanders and the Netherlands, and
was adopted by the Synod of Emden in 1571.
The Heidelberg Catechism was composed by Urslnus and
Olevianus (1563), under the influence of Melanchthon as well
as of Calvin, was adopted by the German Reformed Church,
and Is of a milder type of Calvinism than the other Confes
sions mentioned above. All these Churches also adopted
the Calvinistic institutions of government and worship.

194 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
The Hungarian Churches issued a series of Confessions
dealing with special doctrines in a Calvinistic sense, the Con
fession of Kolosvar, 1559; Debreczin, 1560-2; Tarczal,
1562-3; and finaUy that of Czenger in 1570, in all of which
Melius, the Hungarian Calvin, was the master mind: but
these were displaced by the Second Helvetic and the Heidel
berg Catechism, which are the official symbols at the pres
ent time.
The chief literature on these symbols is as follows:
(1) Consensu) mutua in re sacramentaria ministrorum Tigurinae
ecclesiae et J. Calvini ministri Genevensis ecclesiae, 1549 (Calvin, opera,
VII, pp. 689-748).
(2) Consensus pastorum Genevensis, 1552 (Calvin, opera, VIII, pp.
249-366); Gaberel, J., Histoire de I'eglise de Geneve, 1853-62; Roget,
A., L'eglise et I'etat d, Geneve du vivant Calvin, 1867.
(3) Beza, Histoire ecclesiastique des eglises r&formees au royaume de
France, 1580; Confession de Foi et Discipline ecclesiastique des iglises
reformees de France, 1864; Gallicarum ecclesiarum Confessio, 1566
(English trans, in Quick's Synodicon, 1692); Aymon, Tous les synodes
nationaux des eglises reformies de France, 1710.
(4) Dunlop, W., Collection of Confessions of Faith, Catechisms,
Directories, Books of Discipline, etc. of publick authority in the Church
of Scotland, 1719, 22; Knox, J., Historic of the Reformation of Religioun
in Scotland, 1584, 1664, 1831, 1846; Calderwood, D., History of the
Kirk of Scotland, 1678, 1842-9; Spottiswoode, History of the Church
and State of Scotland, 1668, 1677*, 1847-51.
(5) Revius, J., Confessio Eccl. Belgicarum (Greek and Latin), 1623,
1627^ 1660, 1661; Confessiones Fidei Eccl. Reform. 1635, 38, 60 +;
Vinke, Lihri symb. eccl. reform. Nederlandicae, 1846; Brandt, G., His-
torie der Reformatie in en ontrent de Nederlanden, 1671-4 (French, 1726;
Eng., 1720-3).
(6) Catechesis religionis Christianae, 1563; Catechismus oder christ
licher Underricht, 1563; De Witte, P., Catechizing upon Heidelberg
Catechism, 1654; Lenfant, L'innocence du Catechisme de Heidelberg,
1688; Alting, H., Historia Eccl. Palatinis, 1680, 1701; Kocher, J. C,
Cat. Gesch. der Reform. Kirchen . . . sonderlich d. Schicksaale des Heidelb.
Catechismi, 1756; v. Alphen, H. S., Gesch. u. Literatur des Heidelb. Kate-
chismus, 1796-7, 1800; Nevin, J. W., History and Genius of the Hei
delb. Catechism, 1847; Sudhoff, K., Theol. Handb. zur Auslegung der
Heidelberger Katechismus, 1862; Schotel, G. D. J., Geschied. d. Heidelb.
Cat. 1863; Doedes, J. I., De Heidelberg. Cat. in zijne eerste Levensjaren,
1563-67, 1867; Tercentenary Monument. In commemoration of the 800

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 195
Anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism; Schaff, P., Der Heidelberger
Katechismus, 1863, 66; Die dltesten Ausgaben d. Heidelb. Catecliismus,
1867. (7) Bod, P., Hist. Hungarorum eccl., ed. L. W. E. Rauwenhoff and
C. Szalay, 1888-90; Godkin, E. L., History of the Protestant Church in
Hungary, 1854.
§ 29. The Council of Trent (1545-63) issued as the result
of its deliberations a definition, especially of controverted ques
tions, under the title of "Canons and Decrees." It was con
firmed by the Pope (1564), and thus became the symbol of the
Roman Church over against Protestantism. To this ivas added
the Profession of the Tridentine Faith (1564), and the Roman
Catechism (1566).
The Council of Trent was convened by the Pope at Trent,
March, 1545. It was opened December 13 and continued
with several interruptions till December 4, 1563. The de
cisions were collected under the title Canones et Decreta.
They were confirmed by a Bull of Pius IV, January 26,
1564, and have since been the chief dogmatic authority of the
Roman Catholic Church. To this must be added the Pro
fession of the Tridentine Faith, prepared by a College of Car
dinals, and sanctioned by the Pope, in 1564. It is binding
upon all Catholic priests and public teachers in Catholic in
stitutions. The Roman Catechism was prepared, under the
authority of the Pope and the supervision of Cardinal Bor-
romeo, by four eminent scholars, and was sanctioned by Pope
Pius V, September, 1566. It Is intended for priests, as the
title ad Parochos implies.
So soon as the Council of Trent had finished Its labours,
and the Roman Church had adopted its canons and decrees
with the Tridentine Profession of Faith and Catechism, the
whole Roman Catholic world rallied on the basis of this ref
ormation, and under the lead of the Jesuits began an at
tack on Protestantism.
Jesuit scholars of great ability were called to Institutions of
learning, and by their writings and their training, especially
of the young nobles, soon brought about so strong a reaction

196 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
against Protestantism that it was gradually driven out of
all countries where Catholic princes ruled. The suppression
began in Bavaria in 1561.
The text of the Canons and Decrees was published ofiicially in Rome,
edited by P. Manutius in 1564; for the first time in Germany, at Dil
lingen, 1565, at Lou vain, 1567, and frequently elsewhere; edited by
Chifflet, Antwerp, 1640; Le Plat, Antwerp, 1779; Richter and Schulte,
1853; Smets, Latin and German, 1854''; translated into French by
Heruetus, 1564; into English by Waterworth, 1848; Buckley, 1851.
The History of the Council was first given by P. Sarpi, under the pseu
donym Polanus, in Itahan, London, 1619; Latin, 1620; Enghsh by
Brent, 1619, 29^ 40^, 76; French by Deodatus, Geneva, 1621; by
Houssaie, Amsterdam, 1683, 1699*; by Courayer, with historical notes,
Amsterdam, 1736; German, by Rambach, Halle, 1761. Sarpi's His
tory was not satisfactory to Rome, and Pallavicini undertook another
History ^to correct him, written in Itahan, Rome, 1656-7; Latin,
Giattino, Antwerp, 1670, ed. Zaccharia, Florence, 1792-9, cf. Brischar,
Beurtheilung der Controversen Sarpi's und Pallavicini' s, 1844. Nu
merous historical accounts of the Council and its Acts have been
written by Visconti, 1719; Du Pin, 1721; SaUg, 1741-5; Le Plat,
1781-7; Mendham, 1834, 42, 46; Goschl, 1840; Wessenberg, 1840;
Paleotto, 1842; Bungener, 1847; Danz, 1846; Buckley, 1852; Baschet,
1870; Sickel, 1870-2; Theiner, 1874; DoUinger, 1876; Littledale,
1888; Froude, 1896; Mayer, 1900-1; Carcereri, 1910-11.
The Catechism of the Council was published in 1566, edited by P.
Manutius, and often reprinted in different countries. It was trans
lated into Enghsh by Donovan, 1829, and Buckley, 1852. The Cate
chism for Curates was published at Lyons, 1659, and translated into
Enghsh, 1687; v. Kocher, J. C, Catech. Gesch. der Pabstlichen Kirche,
1753. § 30. There were two Confessions of a mild and conciliatory
character composed after the Council of Trent with a view to
uniting Protestants: the Second Helvetic (1566), and the Con
sensus of Sendomir, 1570.
(1) The most important of these Is the Second Helvetic,
composed by Bullinger in 1562, but not adopted till 1566. It
gives the consensus of the original Zwinglian Churches with
the later Calvinistic. It unites the German and French
Swiss.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 197
This Confession was eventually adopted or approved by
all the Reformed Churches.*
(2) The Consensus of Sendomir of 1570, in which the milder
Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Bohemians of Poland
united. This consensus was again confirmed by General
Synods at Cracow (1573), Petricow (1578), Vladislav (1583),
and finally at Thorn (1595). f Its spirit passed over into the
Brandenburg Confessions of the seventeenth century.
§ 31. The three chief sects before the Reformation, the Wal
densians, the Lollards, and the Bohemian Brethren, became
incorporated with the Melanchthonian or Calvinistic types of
the Reformation.
The numerous sects that had been suppressed in public
before the Reformation, yet which lived and worked In se
cret, took advantage of the Reformation to carry on their
work in a more public and aggressive manner. The more
radical of these reappeared among the Anabaptist sects, the
more conservative united with the great historic Churches
of the Reformation.
(1) The oldest of these sects was the Waldensians. They
were visited by Farel and two other representatives of
French Switzerland, in the Piedmont valley, 1532, when
they adopted the Calvinistic type of the Reformation, to
which they had been previously inclined. Their cate
chism and confession were adapted to the Galhcan, and
they have ever since been counted among the Reformed
Churches.J (2) The followers of Wyckllf were known in England as the
Lollards. They persisted in secret until the Reformation,
* V. Thomas, L., La Confession Helvetique, 1853; Bohl, E., Con
fessio Helvetica posterior, 1866.
t V. Jablonski, D. E., Historia Consensus Sendomiriensis, 1731.
t V. Perrin, J. P., Histoire des Vaudois, 1619; L6ger, J., Histoire generate
des iglises evangeliques des ValUes de Piimont ou Vaudoises, 1669; Mor-
land, S., History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont,
1658; Palacky, Verhaltniss der Waldenser zu den bohmischen Secten,
1869; Muston, A., L'Israel des Alpes, 1851.

198 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
when they were absorbed in the Puritan party of the Church
of England.*
(3) The followers of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, In
Bohemia, divided in 1420 into two parties: the more con
servative Callxtines or Utraquists, who In 1433 accepted
communion in both kinds offered them by the Council of
Basel, which induced most of them to return to the Catholic
Church; and the Taborites who refused any compromise of
principles. The latter were finally overcome in 1453, and
driven Into obscurity for a while. They reappeared just be
fore the Reformation in 1467 as the Bohemian Brethren.
There seems to have been doubt as to the validity of their
baptism In those times of persecution, and so they were all
rebaptised. They then received a bishop with episcopal suc
cession from a Waldenslan bishop, Stephen of Austria, and
three priests of their own number were ordained. As an
organised Church they entered Into communication with Lu
ther. They presented to him an ancient catechism, which so
much resembled the Waldenslan that the two must have had
a common source. They were indorsed by Luther, and then
grew with such rapidity that at the beginning of the six
teenth century they had four hundred parishes In Bohemia.
The Bohemian Brethren, November 14, 1535, presented
to King Ferdinand at Vienna: Confessio Fidei ac Religionis,
Baronum ac Nobilium Regni Bohemiae.
The Second Bohemian Confession was composed by Pres-
sius and Krispin, and adopted in 1575 at a diet In which all
the reforming bodies were united, Lutherans, Calvinists, the
older Utraquists, and the Bohemian Brethren. These Con
fessions 'are both of the Melanchthonian type. The Bohe
mian Protestants flourished during the reigns of Ferdinand
I, Maximilian II, and Rudolph II; but they were exiled and
well-nigh exterminated by Ferdinand II, 1619-37, during the
* V. Leohler, G. V., Johann von Wiclif und die Vorgeschichte der Ref
ormation, 1873; Jundt, A., Les Precurseurs de Jean Huss au 14 SihcU,
1877; Marshall, W., Wycliffe and the Lollards, 1884; Gairdner, J.,
Lollardy and the Reformation in England, 1908.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE REFORMATION 199
Thirty Years' War.* However, a remnant continued to exist
under an episcopal form of government and with a Melanch
thonian type of doctrine in Bohemia and Moravia; and In
1722 a body of exiles, under the influence of Count Zlnzen-
dorf, organised the Church of the Moravian Brethren.
* Camerarius, J., Historica narratio de fratrum orthodoxorum ecclesiis
in Bohemia, Moravia, et Polonia, 1605; Pescheck, C, Geschichte der
Gegenreformation in Bohmen, 1850; Gindely, A., Geschichte der boh
mischen Bruder, 1857; Quellen zur Gesch. d. bohm. Brilder, 1861; Bezold,
Fr. v., Zur Geschichte des Husitenthums, 1874.

CHAPTER V
THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
The Symbols of the period of the Reformation defined
the chief doctrines and institutions in the controversies be
tween Protestantism and Rome, and also, to a limited extent,
exposed some of the most important differences among the
Protestants themselves. The ancient Greek Church had
not yet taken Its official position with regard to these con
troversies, and both sides strove to win her support. More
over, the separate Protestant Churches had still to define
their relation to each other, and also to the various con
troversies that arose within themselves. Accordingly a
second period of symbolical formation arose, beginning in the
last quarter of the sixteenth century and continuing into the
middle of the seventeenth century.
The Greek Church was compelled eventually to consider
the questions raised by the great Reformation of the Western
Church, and to define Its position with reference to the doc
trinal determinations of the separated Churches.
§ 1. The Greek and Russian Churches agreed in three
Symbols, which define their position over against Protestant and
Roman doctrines: (1) The Answer of Jeremiah (1576-1672);
(2) The Confession of Mogilas, 1643; (3) Tlie Confession of
Dositheus, 1672.
(1) The earliest of these was the Answer of Jeremiah, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, to the communications of the
Lutheran theologians Andreae and Crusius. It was written
in 1576 and received the approval of the Synod of Jerusa
lem in 1672. All of the distinctive doctrines of the Protestant
200

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 201
Reformation were rejected with the exception of the Institu
tional questions of communion in both kinds and the mar
riage of priests.
(2) The second of the official Confessions is that of Peter
Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kleff and Father of Russian ortho
doxy, composed in 1640 in the form of a Catechism for the
Russian Church. It was revised and adopted by a Provin
cial Synod at Kleff, and again revised by a Synod of Greeks
and Russians at Jassy in 1643, under the infiuence of Meletlus
Syriga, Metropolitan of Nice, and signed by the four East
ern patriarchs. It thus became the Symbol of the entire
Russo-Greek Church. It defines the Faith of the Greek
Church against Protestantism on the one hand and Roman
ism on the other. It was especiaUy directed against Cyril
Lucar, who was influenced by the Reformed Churches and
introduced some characteristically Calvinistic doctrines into
the Greek Church, especially In his Confession (Latin, 1629;
Greek, 1631). His high position as patriarch, at first of
Alexandria and then of Constantinople, gave his confes
sion great importance; but he was condemned and anathe
matised by a number of provincial Synods. This Confession
maintains. In the answer to Question 5, that in the Nicene
Creed in the Constantinopolitan form "all things that per
tain to our Faith are so accurately set forth, that neither more
nor less ought to be believed by us, nor (these) in any other
sense than that in which those Fathers understood (them)."
The filioque of the Western Church is rejected; but In other
respects, so far as there is any exposition of the Creed that
touches on questions of the Reformation, this Confession
agrees with the Council of Trent against the Protestant Con
fessions. This is clear In the doctrine of the seven Mysteries,
and especially in the doctrine of the Eucharist; so also In
the recognition of the authority of the Fathers and in the
doctrine of Justiflcation.
(3) The third official Confession is that of Dositheus.
This was adopted by the Synod of Jerusalem, March 16,
1672, and signed by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and

202 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
afterward by sixty-eight Eastern Bishops of the Greek and
Russian Churches. It was especially directed against Prot
estantism In botn its Lutheran and Calvinistic forms. It
foUows the order of Cyril's Confession, which it refutes article
by article. It Is less complete and more polemic than the
Confession of Mogilas, but the doctrinal position is the same.
Orthodoxa Confessio catholicae atque apostol. ecclesiae orientalis a Petr.
Mogila compos., a Meletio Syrigo aucta et mutata, gr. c. prcef. Nectarii
curav. Panagiotta, 1662; cum interp. tat. ed. L. Normann, 1695;
c. interp. lot. et vers, german. ed., Hofmann, 1751; Eng., 1898; Clypeus
orthodoxae fidei, sive apologia ab synodo Hierosolymitarm sub Hierosolym.
patriarcha Dositheo composita adversus Calvinistas haereticos, 1676, 1678;
Ittig, Dissert, de actis synodi Hieros. 1696; Acts and Decrees of the Synod
of Jerusalem . . . 1673, ed. Robertson, 1899; Confessio cathol. et apost. in
oriente ecclesiae, conscripta compendiose per Metrophanem Critopvlum,
ed. et. lat. redd. Hornejus, 1661; Monumenta fidei ecclesiae orientalis,
ed. E. J. Kimmel and H. Weissenborn, 1843-50; Michalcescu, Die
Bekenntnisse . . . der griech.-oriental. Kirche, 1904; Acta et scripta theo-
logorum Wirtembergensium et patriarchae Constantinopolitani D. Hiere-
miae, 1584; Cyrillus Lucaris, Confessio Christ, fidei, 1629, c. additam,
Cyrilli, Gr. et Lat., 1633; Thos. Smith, De Grace. Eccl  Epistola, 1676,
98; Eng., Account of the Greek Church, 1680; Collectanea de Cyrilh
Lucaris, 1707; Aymon, J., Monuments authentiques de la Religion des
Grecs, 1708; Lettres anecdotes de Cyrille Lucaris, 1718; Covel, J., Ac
count of the present Greek Church, 1722; Schelstrate, E., Acta eccl.
orientalis contra Lutheri haeres. 1739; Dietelmaier, De Metrophane
Critopulo, 1769; Pichler, A., Der Patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris, 1862;
Otto, J. C. T., Des Patriarchen Gennadios Confession, 1864.
§ 2. There were many questions of controversy, which do not
appear in tlie Symbols of the Reformation, yet which divided
Protestantism into several parties or factions, and were first
officially determined by the Symbols of the latter part of the
sixteenth century and those of the seventeenth century.
The Reformation had in itself the seeds of numerous con
troversies, which soon divided the reformers into parties,
waging as bitter war with one another as they did with the
Roman authorities. There soon arose three great divisions
in the Protestant world, the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the
Anghcan; all organising themselves into national Churches.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 203
But within these Churches themselves there soon arose bitter
controversies as to matters of doctrine and institution. These
controversies were in part officially decided by another set of
Symbols, We shall have to consider these in the order:
(1) The Lutheran Formula of Concord.
(2) Symbol of the Reformed Synod of Dort.
(3) The Presbyterian Westminster Confession.
It is necessary to consider for all these Symbols the cir
cumstances of their origin, and in some cases certain minor
symbols that prepared the way for them.
There are some writers who include under the Symbols
the doctrinal deliverances of Anabaptists and other revolu
tionary sects of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but
this is a widening of the disclphne beyond the range of his
toric Christianity. No sect, even if it claims to be Chris
tian, and more truly such than the historic Churches, may be
regarded as entitled to the claim merely because It holds
to some distinctive Christian principles. Such sects, so far
as they have organised themselves into religious societies
rejecting some of the historic Institutions of Christianity,
and have issued statements of doctrine in antagonism with
the historical Faith of the Church, can only be regarded as
schismatic and heretical. Their symbols, so far as they have
any, cannot be regarded as belonging to the discipline of
Christian Symbohcs.
§ 3. The Formula of Concord officially decides ten questions
as to (1) original sin; (2) synergism; (3) the righteousness of
justification; (4) good works; (5) the use of the Law; (6) the
Eucharist; (7) the human nature of Christ; (8) the descent into
Hades; (9) rites and ceremonies ; (10) predestination.
The chief heroes of the Lutheran Reformation were
Luther and Melanchthon; the former aggressive, thorough
going, and Inchned to radical methods, and withal somewhat
opinionated; the latter, mild, gentle, more comprehensive
in his scholarship, and irenic in his disposition. Luther and

204 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Melanchthon maintained their friendship notwithstanding
these differences; but after the death of Luther his more
radical pupils came Into conffict with Melanchthon and his
pupils, all the more that Melanchthon himself after the death
of Luther felt himself freer in his own position and more in
dependent of Luther in his teaching and actions. Moreover,
there were other influences, more or less independent of both
Luther and Melanchthon, which greatly complicated the situ
ation. The conffict raged over a good part of the field of
dogma; but especially as to (1) original sin; (2) synergism,
or the share of man in his conversion; (3) the righteousness
of justification; (4) good works; (5) the use of the Law;
(6) the Eucharist; (7) the human nature of Christ; (8) the
descent into Hades; (9) rites and ceremonies; (10) predes
tination. These are given in the order in which they are discussed
in the Formula of Concord of 1577-80.
This Formula was the result of a long-continued effort on
the part of a number of able divines under the patronage of
the Elector Augustus of Saxony and other princes. Many
conferences were held — at Frankfort, 1558; Naumburg,
1561; Altenburg, 1568; Wittenberg, 1569; Zerbst, 1570;
Dresden, 1571 — ^but without success, owing to the violent
spirit of faction that existed. After the death of Flacius
(1575) and other extremists, these conferences were resumed.
Three formulas for the settlement of the differences were
proposed in rapid succession: (1) the Swabian and Saxon by
Andreae in 1574, revised by Chemnitz and Chytraeus in 1575;
(2) the Maulbronn in 1575, by the Swabians Lucas Osiander
and Bidembach, approved by a convention of Lutheran
princes at Lichtenberg In 1576; (3) on the basis of these, th
Torgau Book, prepared by Andreae and Chemnitz, and ap
proved by a convention of divines in 1576. Taking these
previous efforts as a basis, six divines, Andreae of Tiibingen,
Chemnitz of Brunswick, Selnecker of Leipzig, Musculus of
Frankfort, Cornerus of Frankfort, and Chytraeus of Rostock,
prepared the Bergen Formula, which, after three years of con-

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 205
sideratlon, was signed and published at Dresden, June 25,
1580, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Augsburg Confession,
and issued in one volume with the previous Lutheran Symbols
as The Book of Concord. The design was irenic. It was to
solve the questions in debate, and bring reconcihation and
peace to the Lutheran Churches.
The same method was pursued as in all previous efforts
of the kind, to make peace and union by authoritative de
cisions of the controversies. This Is evident from the heading
of the Epitome to the Formula of Concord : " Epitome of the
Articles touching which controversies have arisen among the
divines of' the Augsburg Confession, which in the following re
statement have been in godly wise, according to the express
word of God, set forth and reconciled."
Then comes: "Of the Compendious Rule and Norm, ac
cording to which all dogmas ought to be judged, and all
controversies which have arisen ought to be piously set forth
and settled."
This Rule consists of the Holy Scripture. Other writ
ings are only witnesses. These are:
(1) The Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.
(2) The Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology, and
the Smalcald Articles.
(3) Luther's Smaller and Larger Catechisms.
The result was temporarily and in part successful for the
most of the Lutheran princes and nations, but (1) It was re
fused by an important minority of princes and nations; (2)
its authority In others could only be enforced by pains and
penalties of persecution; and (3) it accelerated the movement
of others toward the Reformed Church, so that the Lutherans
soon lost the Palatinate (1583), Anhalt (1588), Zwelbrucken
(1588), Hanau (1596), Hesse (1604), and Brandenburg (1614).
Each question In dispute is considered and decided in the
order given above.
The literature of the Book of Concord is immense. The Latin title
is Concordia, the German sometimes Evangelisches Concordienbuch, but
usually Christliches Concordienbuch. The Concordia was first published

206 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
at Leipzig by Selnecker in 1580, the second standard edition by com
mand of the Elector, in 1684; numerous subsequent editions were pub
lished depending upon it. German editions were issued in 1580 at
Dresden, Magdeburg, and Tiibingen, frequently later there and else
where. Translations were made into Dutch in 1715, and Swedish 1730,
and into English 1851, at Newmarket, Va. The history and interpreta
tion of the Formula of Concord is given in connection with studies
of the Concordia, among which we may mention: Rechenberg, 1677;
Pipping, 1703, 1739; Baumgarten, 1747; J. G. Walch, 1750; and the
Theological Faculty of Leipzig, 1760.
Of special works on the Formula itself we may mention the following:
Epistola ministrorum in Belgio ad authores libri Bergensis qui etiam
Concordia dicitur, 1579; Ursinus, de libra concordiae, 1581; Apologia
oder Verantwortung d. christi. Concordienbuchs, 1583; Bericht d. Theologen
und Universitaten, Leipzig, Wittenberg und Jena, 1586; Hospinian, R.,
Concordia discors, 1607; Hutter, L., Concordia concors, 1614; Musaeus,
J., Praelectiones in epitomen Formulae Concordiae, 1701; Balthasar, J.
H., Historic d. Torgischen Buchs, 1741-56; Anton, J. N., Gesch. d. Con-
cordienformel, 1779; Heppe, H. L. J., Der Textd. Bergischen Concordien-
formel, vergl. mit d. Text d. schwdbischen Coneordie u. s. w. 1857-60;
Gesch. d. luth. Concordienformel, 1858-9; Goschel, K. F., Die Concordien-
formel nach ihrer Geschichte, 1858; Frank, F. H. R., Die Theologie der
Concordienformel, 1858-65; for additional earlier literature v. Koecher,
Bibl. Theologiae Symbolicae, 1751, pp. 118 seq.
§ 4. Several Confessions of a Melanchthonian type were
composed on the basis of the variable form of the Augsburg Con
fession, tending more or less toward a milder Calvinism, or
with the purpose of uniting Lutherans and Calvinists in a
common Faith.
The sterner doctrinal decisions of the Formula of Concord
were not agreeable to all the Protestant theologians and
governments of Germany, and the bitter controversies be
tween the Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Melanchthonian theo
logians were destroying the peace and unity of the countries.
Therefore a number of local Confessions arose of a milder
character.* A Confession was drawn up by Superintendent Amllng
and others for submission to a conference in Cassel, in 1579.
* Heppe, Die Bekenntniss-Schriften der reformierten Kirchen Deutsch-
lands, 1860, gives nine minor Confessions of local interest.

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 207
It was adopted and became official for the duchy of Anhalt
in 1581. It Is based on the variable form of the Augsburg
Confession. In 1597 another Confession of Anhalt was
adopted of a more Calvinistic character. In 1607 a general
Synod at Cassel adopted a Hessian Confession for electoral
Hesse, of a mildly Calvinistic type.
A Confession was prepared by the Melanchthonian Pezel,
and adopted by the Synod of Dillenburg as official for Nas
sau In 1578.
The Bremen Consensus was also prepared by Pezel, and
adopted as official for the free city of Bremen In 1595. It
tends more In a Calvinistic direction than the Confession
of Nassau.
The Benthelm Confession was drawn up in 1613, and is of
a mildly Calvinistic type.
§ 5. Three Confessions of an irenic character were prepared
for Brandenburg, to unite the Lutherans and Calvinists in a
common Faith."'
The first of these is the Confession of Sigismund, of 1614.
John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg (Christmas, 1613),
made a public profession of the Reformed Faith In the Dome
at Berlin with a number of his representative subjects, and
in May, 1614, Issued a brief Confession of Faith prepared by
Pelargus, General Superintendent of Frankfort on the Oder,
of an irenic character, accepting the ecumenical Creeds and
Councils of the ancient Church and the variable form of the
Augsburg Confession, but with a moderate Calvinistic doc
trine of the sacraments and of divine grace.
The second of these Confessions was that of the Colloquy
of Leipzig (1631), arranged by the Elector of Brandenburg,
* Die drey Confessiones . . . Brandenburg. 1695; Zorn, Historia derer
zwischen den Lutherischen und Reformirten Theologen gehaUenen Col-
loquiorum, 1705; Hering, D. H., Hist. Nachricht von dem ersten An-
fang d. evang. -reformirten Kirche in Brandenburg und Preussen. . . . nebst
den drei Bekenntniss-Schriften dieser Kirche, 1778; Neue Beitrdge, 1787;
Acta conventus Thoruniensis celebrati, 1645; Calovius, Historia Syncretis-
tica, 1685.

208 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Christian Wilham, and the Elector George of Saxony. The
Reformed divines were John Berglus, the Court chaplain,
Croclus, and Theophllus Neuberger. The Lutheran divines
were Hoe of Hoenegg, Leyser, and Hopfner. The variable
form of the Augsburg Confession was taken as a basis, and
they agreed on all questions except those concerning the
omnipresence of Christ's human nature, oral manducatlon
In the Eucharist, and the doctrine of predestination. The
result of the conference was to determine the consensus and
limit the dissensus to a very few minor questions.
The third of these Confessions was the Declaration of
Thorn, 1645. This colloquy was arranged by Wladlslaus,
King of Poland, to heal the divisions of his subjects and to re
new the union in the Consensus of Sendomir, 1570, and the
Pax dissidentium, 1573. The Roman Catholic deputies re
fused concessions. The Reformed had twenty-four dele
gates, including John Berglus. The Moravians were repre
sented by their Bishop Amos Comenius, the Lutherans by
twenty-eight members, especially Calovius and Hiilsemann,
strict Lutherans, and the irenic George Calixtus. The col
loquy failed in its purpose. Each party made its own state
ment. Only the declaration of the Reformed gained sym
bolical significance, because of Its adoption by Brandenburg.
It accepts the ecumenical Creeds and Councils of the ancient
Church, the variable form of the Augsburg Confession, and
the Consensus of Sendomir.
These three documents became the Symbols of Faith for
Brandenburg, and are the basis of all the subsequent reunion
movements in Germany.
§ 6. The Synod of Dort was convened as a body representing
the various national Churches of the Reformed type to decide the
controversy between the Arminians and the stricter Calvinists.
Its Canons define the five points of scholastic Calvinism.
The Reformation, so far as It was not dominated by Luther,
was of the Swiss type, which began with Zwingli, but which,
under the influence of a number of leaders in different govern-

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 209
ments, assumed a variety of expressions In several national
Confessions. These agreed in the main; but, nevertheless,
there were important variations. The milder Augustinian
ism of Zwingli passed over Into the sterner Augustinianism
of Calvin, and especially of Beza. Beza is the real father of
scholastic Calvinism, rather than Calvin himself. Beza dom
inated the Churches of Switzerland, Holland, and Scotland;
but the Augustinianism of the Reformed Churches of France
and Germany, and of the Church of England remained of a
milder type. However, the Puritan party in England and
even some of their stout opponents were high Augustinians.
There was considerable danger of conflict in the Reformed
Churches because of the diversity of nationalities and inter
ests represented in the Reformed camp by such a large num
ber of different Confessions of Faith; but the representative
leaders strove to keep them united in battle array against
Romanists and Lutherans. An early effort of this kind was
the Harmonia Confessionum Fidei Orthodoxarum et Reforma-
tarum Ecclesiarum, of Salnar, Geneva, 1581; translated Into
English at Cambridge, 1586; at London, 1643, as Harmony
of the Confessions of Faith of the Christian and Reformed
Churches; new edition by Peter Hall, 1842.
Another effort of the same kind was made by Laurentius In
his Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum Fidei, 1612; new edition,
1654. The Reformed doctrinal system soon became known on
the basis of Calvin's Institutes as the Calvinistic System. This
emphasises the divine side of theology, whereas the Lutheran
system emphasises the human side. The Calvinistic scho
lastics, under the impulse of Beza, exaggerated the divine
sovereignty, and especially the divine sovereign decree; and
attempted to analyse the divine decree, by a use of the
Aristotelian logic, into an order of decrees and a correspond
ing order of salvation.
Calvinists soon divided upon the order of the divine de
crees into two parties, the Supralapsarians and the Infralap-
sarians. The order of the divine decrees is most elaborately

210 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
worked out by Wm. Perkins of Cambridge, in his Armilla
aurea, 1590, Golden Chaine, 1591.
The Scriptural basis is Rom. 8^*'^":
"And we know that to them that love God all things work together
for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose. For
whom He foreknew. He also foreordained to be conformed to the image
of His Son, that He might be the first born among many brethren:
and whom He foreordained, them He also called : and whom He called,
them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified."
Here we have a double statement in parallelism:
I. Purpose, calling, work for good;
II. Foreknew, foreordained, called, justified, glorified.
Neither of these is complete, however. What relation has
foreknowledge to foreordlnatlon? The High Calvinists main
tained that the foreknowledge here was the pregnant fore
knowledge of the divine purpose, and not simple foreknowl
edge; and that foreknowledge was not "the moving or
efficient cause of predestination, but solely and alone 'the
good-will and pleasure of God.' " On the other hand, it was
maintained that predestination was based upon an ante
cedent foreknowledge. Upon this distinction everything
depended. The fall of mankind is not included in this
order. Where does it come in this order? The usual Cal
vinistic order puts the election after the fall, and is In-
fralapsarian; there are other theologians who put it before,
and are Supralapsarlan.
The order of Infralapsarianism is:
Creation, Permission of Fall, Election, Reprobation;
of Supralapsarlanlsm: Election and Reprobation, Creation, Fall.
This extreme Calvinism was opposed by Baro, in Prcelect.
in lonam Prophetam, 1579, and Concio ad Clerum, 1595; and
by William Barrett of Caius College, Concio ad Clerum, 1595.
To settle this controversy the Lambeth Articles were prepared
in 1595. These were never ratified by the Church of Eng
land or the Crown of England, and are altogether unoffi-

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 211
clal. All efforts to enforce them were prevented by Eliza
beth and her ministers. There are nine Articles, which are
Infralapsarlan: (1) There is a double decree of predestination unto life and
reprobation. (2) The predestination and reprobation are not preceded
by foreknowledge; but are due to the divine sovereign pleas
ure. (3) The number of the elect and the reprobate is definite,
and cannot be increased or diminished.
(4) The elect will certainly be saved; the reprobate are cer
tainly lost.
(5) Saving grace is only given to the elect; and it is not in
the will or power of every one to be saved.
The Irish Articles of 1615 incorporated the Lambeth Arti
cles, to all intents and purposes. And yet the milder Au
gustinianism continued in England during all this period.
The Golden Chaine of Perkins stirred up controversy not
only in England, but all over the Calvinistic world. Ar-
minius, an able theologian of Holland, came into such pre
eminence in the controversy which began about him and his
disciples, that his name was given to all subsequent forms of
the milder Augustinianism in the Reformed Churches. Ar-
minius was professor of theology at Leyden, 1603-9. He
came into conflict not only with the Supralapsarlanlsm of
Gomarus, but also with Perkins; and maintained, as he
thought, the most natural interpretation of Rom. 7-8.
After his death, Episcoplus, professor at Leyden, and Uy-
tenbogaert, preacher at the Plague, the statesman Barneveldt,
and Hugo Grotlus, the greatest scholar of his age, gave their
weight to the milder Augustinianism in Holland. The Ar
minians formulated their view In flve articles drawn up by
Uytenbogaert, which were signed by forty-six ministers, and
laid as a Remonstrance before the representatives of Holland
and West Friesland in 1610. This was replied to by Go
marus and his party. This introduction of the political ele
ment imbittered the controversy; and so the States General

212 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
summoned a national Synod at Dort. The foreign Reformed
Churches were Invited to send three or four divines each.
The Synod assembled on November 13, 1618, and contin
ued In session till May 9, 1619. Scotland, England, the Pa
latinate, Hesse, Belgium, Switzerland, and a number of
minor principalities were represented.
Delegates were selected for Brandenburg and France, but
did not appear. The Remonstrant delegates were not al
lowed seats; and so they appeared only as criminals at the
bar, condemned already by their opponents. The only ques
tion was as to the form and substance of the condemnation.
The most important writings on the Synod of Dort and the Remon
strants are as follows: Arminius, Examen libelli Perkinsiani, 1612; Dis-
putationes, 1614; opera, 1629; English, 1825-8; Scripta adversaria
collationis Hagiensis, 1612, 16; Barlaeus, epistola ecclesiastarum, quos in
Belgio Remonstrantes vacant, 1617; Carlton, D., Speech . . . touching the
discord and troubles of the Church and Polide, caused by the schismat-
icall Doctrines of Arminius, 1618; Specimen controversiarum Belgi
carum, 1618; Judicium Synodi nationalis Reformatarum ecclesiarum
Belgicarum habitae Dordrechti, 1619; Dordrecht, Heidelberg, and Lon
don in English, the same year; Judicia theologorum provincialium, de
quinque controversis Remonstrantium articulis Synodo Dordrechtanae ex-
hihita, Hanovise, 1619; Molinaeus, P., Anatome Arminianismi, English
also, 1620; Episcopius, Confessio seu declaratio pastorum qui Remon
strantes vocantur, 1621, 22; Apologia pro confessione remonstrant. 1629;
Acta synodi nationalis . . . Dordrechti fiabitae . . . Accedunt plenissima
de quinque articulis tam exterorum quam Provincialium theologorum ju
dicia, Hanoviae, 1620; Acta et scripta synodalia Dordracena ministrorum
Remonstrantium in fosderato Belgio, 1620; Malderus, J., Antisyrwdiea,
1620; Suffragium Collegiate Theologorum Mag. Brit, de quinque con
troversis Remonstrantium articulis, Synodo Dordrechtanae exhibitum,
1626, English same year; Hales, J., Letters from Synod of Dort, 1711,
in Golden Remains, 1657, 1673; Historia Concilii Dordraceni, 1724;
Works, 1765; Robinson, J., Defence of the Doctrine propounded by
the Synode at Dort, 1624; Vedel, N., Arcana Arminianismi, 1632-4;
Peltius, Harmonia Remonstrantium et Socinianorum, 1633; Calovius, A.,
Consideratio Arminianismi, 1655; Heylyn, P., Historia Quinquartiew-
laris, 1660; Rutherford, S., Examen Arminianismi, 1668; Hickman, H.,
Historia Quinque Articularis Exarticulata, 1673; Zeltner, Breviarium
controversiarum cum Remonstrantibus agitatarum, 1719; Graf, M., Bey-
trage z. Kenntniss d. Gesch. d. Synode von Dordrecht, 1725; Catten-

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 213
burgh. A., Bibliotheca scriptorum Remonstrantium, 1728; Regenboog
J., Historie der Remonstranten, 1774-6; Scott, T., Tlie Articles of the
Synod of Dort, 1818; Glasius, B., Geschiedenis d. Synode te Dordrecht,
1860-1; Rogge, Bibliotheek Remonstrantsche Geschriften, 1863.
§ 7. The French School of Saumur raised the standard of a
more moderate Calvinism in what was subsequently known as
New School Theology. The leaders of the school denied (1)
verbal inspiration, especially of the Hebrew vowel points.
They taught (2) conditional universalism in human salvation;
and (3) the mediate imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity.
These views were rejected by the Helvetic Consensus in 1675 in
the interests of scholastic Calvinism.
The Synod of Dort did not define all questions in dispute
in the Calvinistic Churches. In France controversy soon
arose over the milder Calvinism of the School of Saumur,
where three great scholars, Cappellus (1585-1658), Placeus
(1596-1655), and Amyraldus (1596-1664), taught large bod
ies of students from many lands.
(1) Louis Cappellus, the Younger, was the most eminent
Biblical scholar of his age. He showed that the Hebrew
vowel points were not original, but Massoretlc; and that there
were different readings of the text; and thus came into con
ffict with the scholastic theory of verbal Inspiration and an
inerrant text.
(2) Amyraldus brought forth the doctrine known as
hypothetic, or conditional universalism, which, indeed, had
been taught by his teacher, John Cameron (1580-1625), the
great Scotch divine. Amyraldus made several important
distinctions: {a) The divine decree was double; but the fore-
ordination to life was efficient, the reprobation permissive.
{b) Christ died intentionally for all, but efficiently only for the
elect, (c) Objective grace is offered to all, but subjective
grace in the heart is given only to the elect, {d) Men have
the natural ability to believe, but not the moral ability.
(3) Placeus denied the immediate imputation of Adam's
sin to his posterity, and asserted the doctrine of mediate
imputation as alone justifiable on moral grounds. The

214 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
reformers held to the Augustinian realism, that the human
race was one In Adam, and that the race sinned in and with
him; and that therefore there was a race guilt in which all
shared by divine Imputation, or condemnation for Adam's
sin. At the close of the sixteenth century and early in the
seventeenth the federal theory came into vogue with a re
vival of scholastic Nominalism. There was assumed to have
been a covenant of works with Adam, on behalf of himself
and all his descendants, whom he represented in this covenant
relation. Thus originated the doctrine of a forensic legal im
putation of Adam's sin, which was neither natural nor moral.
Placeus objects chiefly to the latter, and urges that the
sin of Adam is imputed to us mediately, through our share
in it by the inherited sinful nature.
The controversy as to these doctrines stirred not only the
Churches of France, but also those of Holland, Great Brit
ain, and Switzerland. Heidegger of Ziirich, with the co
operation of Gernler of Basel and Francis Turrettin of Ge
neva, composed the Formula Consensus Helvetica, in 1675, as a
definition of scholastic Calvinism over against the School of
Saumur. This Formula was adopted by several of the Can
tons of Switzerland under the influence of these great divines,
but nowhere else; and It was overthrown In Switzerland in
the next generation. However, scholastic Calvinists rallied
about it and maintained its doctrines in other countries, es
pecially in Holland and Scotland; but it had little influence
in Germany or England.
The official copy of the Formula consensus is in the archives of Ziirich.
It was first printed as a supplement to the Second Helvetic Confession
in 1714. The writings which chiefly brought on the conflict were:
Cappellus, L., Arcanum punctationis revelatum, 1624; Diatriba de veris
et antiquis Ebraeorum litteris, 1645; Amyraut, Traits de la predestina
tion, 1634; Exercitatio de gratia imiversali, 1646; Placeus, De statu
hominis lapsi ante gratiam, 1640; Disputatio de imputatione primi peccati
Adami, 1655. For the consensus and the controversy, v. Aymon,
Tous les synodes nationaux des eglises reformees de France, 1710; Het
tinger, J. J., Succincta et solida ac genuina Formulae consensus . . .
historia, 1723; Pfaff, C. M., Dissertatio hist, theol. de formula consensus

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 215
Helvetica, 1723; Barnaud, Memoires pour servir d, Vhistoire des troubles
arrirecs en Suisse d, I'occasion du Consensus, 1726; Schweizer, A., Die
protestant. Centraldogmen, 1856; Haag, E., La France protestante, 1889.
The Westminster Assembly
§ 8. The Westminster Assembly composed and issued the
Westminster Confession and Catechisms, the Form of Govern
ment, and the Directory for Worship, as a platform for entire
British Christianity.
The conflict between the Puritan, or Presbyterian party,
and the Catholic, or Episcopal party In the British Churches
continued with constantly increasing violence until it re
sulted in civil war.
The people of Scotland were for the most part Presby
terian. They had bishops, but these were superintendents
In the Presbyterian sense rather than prelates. When Charles
I and Archbishop Laud of Canterbury endeavoured to force
upon the Church of Scotland royal supremacy and prelacy,
the people of Scotland rebelled. The immediate occasion
was the effort to compel the Church of Scotland to use a
Liturgy prepared by the archbishop of Canterbury, which
was more objectionable than that of the Church of England.
This was resisted by the people; and the Solemn League and
Covenant was drawn up by Alexander Henderson and Johnston
of Warriston, which was signed by the great majority of
nobles, ministers, and people. The king was forced to yield,
and call a free General Assembly, November 21, 1638. Laud's
Liturgy was rejected, and the Book of Canons he had tried
to force upon the Scottish Church. The Bishops were com
pelled to resign; and so the Church became simply Presby
terian, governed by General Assembly alone.
The Church of Ireland was Episcopal in its organisation,
but Puritan and Presbyterian in its doctrine under the in
fluence of Travers and Archbishop Ussher. The Intolerance
of the crown brought about a rebellion of the Roman Cath
olics, who were greatly in the majority in Ireland; and all
Protestants were compelled to unite against them. Accord-

216 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
ingly ecclesiastical questions went Into the background, al
though the Irish Church was In general sympathy with the
Scottish. The English people, led by their parliament, were com
pelled to battle for civil and religious liberty against the
king and the archbishop. This eventually resulted in civil
war, In which Parliament prevailed and the chief advisers
of the king, including Archbishop Laud, were beheaded as
traitors to the nation.
The Long Parhament summoned an assembly of divines
to meet in Westminster Abbey, July 1, 1643. Ireland and
Wales, as well as all the counties of England, were repre
sented by their ablest divines; so also the universities. The
Church of Scotland sent commissioners to work with these
divines with the purpose, as they said, of the "settling of
the so-much-deslred union of the whole Island in one forme
of Church government, one confession of Faith, one common
catechism, and one directory for the worship of God."
The Assembly first set to work over a revision of the
Thirty-nine Articles. This only went as far as fifteen ar
ticles, and then, on October 12, the work was suspended,
they being ordered by Parliament to "confer and treat" of
the government and discipline of the Church. This was
their most serious task, and where the greatest difference
arose between the four parties into which they divided: (1)
Episcopal, (2) Presbyterian, (3) Independent, (4) Erastian.
The draught of Church government was first sent up to
parliament July 4, 1645, after two years of hard labour and
discussion. In the meanwhile the Episcopalians withdrew
from the Assembly, and the Independents or Dissenting
Brethren, a very small minority, were overwhelmed and their
congregations put under the ban, until Cromwell overturned
Presbyterianism and gave them liberty and supremacy.
In the meanwhile, committees were at work upon other
documents. The Directory of Worship was sent up to the
House of Commons, December 27, 1644, and, after it had
been adopted, was by law substituted for the Book of Comr

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 217
mon Prayer, whose use was prohibited under severe penal
ties. The Independents did not quarrel with this.
The Confession of Faith, after a long debate, was finished
November 26, 1646. Parliament required the Assembly
to append proof-texts, which was done April 29, 1647. The
Confession was not altogether satisfactory to Parliament,
and was not adopted until June 20, 1648, with the omission
of two chapters on Church Censures and on Synods and
Councils (XXX, XXXI) and of other minor sections, which
were stricken out. As thus adopted by Parhament, it was
given the title Articles of Christian Religion.
The Confession of Faith, with Articles XXX and XXXI in
cluded, never received the sanction of the Parliament of
England, although it was subsequently adopted in Scotland
and by Presbyterian Churches generally In the form of 1647.
The Larger Catechism was prepared on the basis of Herbert
Palmer's Catechism, and completed October 15, 1647. The
Shorter Catechism was based on the Larger and completed in
a month, November 16, 1647.
The Assembly were long troubled to answer nine questions
propounded to them by Parliament, April 30, 1646, as to
the divine right of Church government and discipline. This
they never did, but left it to the Provincial Assembly of
London, to which many of the chief divines belonged.
The Westminster Assembly of divines was in vast majority
Presbyterian and Calvinistic. There were no doctrinal dif
ferences among them, except between Old School and New
School Calvinists; and the statements in the Confession were
a compromise acceptable to both parties.
The documents of the Westminster Assembly and the Long Parlia^
ment are the following:
(1) Church Government. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Di
vines . . . concerning the Doctrinal part of Ordination of Ministers, April
19, 1644; — concerning Church Government, July 4, 1645. These occa
sioned considerable debate in Parliament and the Assembly itself. Par
hament issued the following Ordinances: — for the ordination of ministers
pro tempore, October 2, 1644; for the electing and choosing of Ruling
Elders in all the Congregations and in the Classical Assemblies for the

218 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
cities of London and Westminster, and the several counties of the Kingdom,
for the speedy settling of the Presbyterial government, August 19, 1645;
• — concerning suspension from ttie sacrament of the Lord's supper in cases
of ignorance and scandall, October 20, 1645; — for giving power to all the
classical presbyteries within their respective bounds to examine, approve,
and ordain ministers for severall congregations, November 10, 1645;
— for Iceeping of scandalous persons from the sacrament of the Lord's sup
per, the enabling of congregations for the choice of elders, and supplying of
defects in former ordinances and directions of Parliament concerning
Church Government, March 14, 1645(6); — for the speedy dividing and
settling the several counties of this kingdom into distinct classical Presby
teries and congregational elderships, January 29, 1647(8); — and finally.
The form of Church Government to be used in the Church of England and
Ireland, August 29, 1648.
(2) A Directory for the Publique Worship of God throughout the three
Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, together with an Ordinance
of Parliament for the taking away of the Book of Common Prayer, and for
establishing and observing of this present Directory throughout the King
dom of England and Dominion of Wales, March 13, 1644(5).
(3) The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines . . . concerning a
Confession of Faith, December 4, 1646; — the same with the QuotatioTis
and Texts of Scripture annexed, April 26, 1647. After revision the
Parliament published it as Articles of Christian Religion, June 27, 1648.
(4) The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines . . . concerning a
Larger Catechism, October 22, 1647; — the same, vyith the proofs thereof
out of the Scriptures, April 12, 1648. The Humble Advice of the Asserrv-
bly of Divines . . . concerning a Shorter Catechism, November 25, 1647.
Parliament finally adopted it under the title: The Ground and Princi
ples of Religion, 1648.
(5) The Jus Divinum. The Assembly did not itself respond to this
question. The Provincial Assembly of London took this off their hands
in two large papers: A Vindication of the Presbyterian Government, 1649;
and Jus Divinum ministerii evangelici, 1653; v. Briggs, Provincial
Assembly of London {Presbyterian Review, January, 1881).
The Presbyterian Churches of Great Britain and America have
adopted the final standards of the Westminster Assembly itself in all
subsequent editions rather than the forms adopted by the English Par
liament. The literature on the Westminster Assembly is abundant. The
documentary is as follows: Journals of the Proceedings of the Assembly
of Divines convened for the work of Reformation in the Church by the au
thority of Parliament, by John Lightfoot, pub. in Works, XIII, ed.
Pitman, 1825. These journals extend from the opening July 1, 1643,
until December 31, 1644. Notes of the Debates and Proceedings of the

THE SYMBOLS OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 219
Assembly of Divines and other Commissioners at Westminster, by George
Gillespie, pub. in the Presbyterian Armoury, II, 1846, from the Wodrow
MSS. in the Advocate's Library, Edinburgh. Minutes of the Sessions
of the Assembly of Divines, 3 v., folio, MSS. in the Williams Library,
London; transcript in the Kirk Library, Edinburgh. Vol. Ill alone
has been published : Minutes of tlie Sessions of the Westminster Assembly
of Divines (November, 1644, to March, 1649), ed. Mitchell-Struthers,
Edin., 1874. There was not sufficient interest in this volume in the
entu-e Presbyterian world to secure the publication of the other vol
umes. Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, ed. David Laing, 3 v.,
Edin., 1841. Records of the Commissions of the General Assemblies of
the Church of Scotland, 1646-9, ed. Mitchell and Christie, 1892-6.
There are besides the Ordinances, Declarations and Directions of the
Long Parliament of England, and several hundred vols, of writings by
members of the Westminster Assembly and their opponents, the most
of which are in the British Museum, and in the McAlpin Collection of
the Union Theological Seminary, New York; v. Briggs, Documentary
History of the Westminster Assembly {Presbyterian Review, January,
1880); American Presbyterianism, 1885, pp. 61 seq.; Reid, J., Memoirs
of the Lives and Writings of those Eminent Divines who Convened in the
Famous Assembly at Westminster, 1811-15; Mitchell, A. F., The West
minster Assembly, its History and Standards, 1883.
The Arminians were not represented in the Westminster
Assembly. These were chiefly Episcopal divines, adherents
of the Laudlan party; although there were a few Arminians
among the Baptists and other smaller Christian societies
not represented in the Assembly. The differences between
the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians were decided in the
Assembly against the Episcopalians.
In this negative position the Independents agreed.
But the Independents dissented from the Presbyterians
upon church government and discipline; and so, In 1658, rep
resentatives of one hundred and twenty Congregational
Churches issued the Savoy Declaration. This Declaration
agrees with the Westminster Confession In all strictly doc
trinal matters, but not in ecclesiastical or disciplinary mat
ters. It omits Chapters XXX and XXXI, as Parliament
had done, inserts as XX a new chapter on the Gospel, slightly
modifies Chapters XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI, and adds a
section on the Institution of Churches in thirty Propositions.

220 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Previous to this, in 1648, the New England Churches as
sembled in the Cambridge Synod, had expressed agreement
with the Westminster Confession except in Chapters XXV,
XXX, and XXXI, which were replaced by the Cambridge
Platform. A Platform of Church-Discipline gathered out of the Word of God, and
agreed upon by the Elders and Messengers of the Churches assembled in
the Synod at Cambridge in N. E., 1649; A Declaration of the Faith and
Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches in England;
agreed upon and consented unto by their elders and messengers in their
meeting at the Savoy, October 12, 1658; Confession of Faith — Heads cf
Agreement and Articles for the administration of Church Discipline (Say-
brook Platform), 1710; Dexter, H. M., The Congregationalism of the
Last Three Hundred Years as seen in its Literature, 1880; Walker,
W., Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, 1893.
The Baptist Confession of 1677, 1688, 1689, known in
America as the Confession of Philadelphia, adopted Septem
ber 25, 1742, also adheres to the Westminster Confession, ex
cept in the Articles on the Church and the Sacraments. In
the matter of Church government it agrees with the Savoy
Declaration, but in the Article on Baptism it stands apart.
This Confession, however, represented only the Particular or
Calvinistic Baptists. The Baptists have also their Arminian
division, due to their connection with the Holland Arminian-
ists. These issued a London Confession of twenty-five Arti
cles in 1660.
A Brief Confession or Declaration of Faith, set forth by many of us who
are {falsely) called Ana-baptists, to inform all men {in these dayes of scan
dal and reproach) of our innocent Belief and Practice, London, 1660; A
Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congre
gations of Christians, Baptised upon Profession of their Faith, in London
and the Country, 1677, 1688, 1689; Underbill, Confessions of Faith and
other Public Documents illustrative of the History of the Baptist Churches
of England in the Seventeenth Century, 1854; McGlothlin, W. J., Bap
tist Confessions, 1867 [1911]; Nicholas, J. S., History of Baptism, 1678;
Crosby, Thos., History of the English Baptists, 1740; Ivimey, History
of the English Baptists, 1811-30; Barclay, R., The Inner Life of the
Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, 1879.

CHAPTER VI
ROMAN CATHOLIC SYMBOLS OF THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY
§ 1. The Church of Rome issued many papal condemnations
of error during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but no
definition of the Faith and therefore no symbol.
The Church of Rome has not ceased from issuing decisions
of various kinds with reference to doctrines of Faith and
Morals, as well as Institutions. Indeed there has been a
steady stream of them since the Council of Trent. Denzinger
gives no less than seventy-four of them. Many Protestants,
as Indeed many Roman Catholics, find it difficult to discrim
inate between them and to determine which of them. If any,
is symbolical. They all have an official authority, chiefly in
the rejection of errors, but few have symbohcal authority as
deflnitions of the Faith. The only ones that can have any
real claim to be symbolical in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries are the condemnations of the five propositions of
Jansen in 1653, repeated in 1656, 1664, 1705; and of the one
hundred and one propositions of Paschasius Quesnel in 1713.
But there is no sufficient reason to distinguish these condem
nations from that of the sixty-eight propositions of Miguel
de Mollnos in 1687, or those of the GaDIcans of 1682, and of
the eighty-five propositions of the Synod of Pistoria in 1794.
It is true that the questions raised by the Jansenists were
more important from a doctrinal point of view, and that they
caused a prolonged conflict in the Church; but there are In
these official decisions only negative condemnations, and not
positive definitions of the Faith such as alone are symbohcal.
And indeed prior to 1870 no Council of the Church ascribed
221

222 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
symbolical character to any papal decision whatsoever. It
is true that the Society of Jesus was zealous for the preroga
tive of the Pope In giving final determinations of Faith; and
that Order was most active in procuring the condemnation
of the Jansenists with the resulting schism in the Church.
But the most of the other Orders and the Episcopate in gen
eral were not in sympathy with theories of papal absolutism.
The Jansenists were driven out of France, but established
themselves in HoUand with their centre at Utrecht, where
they have maintained an honourable existence until the pres
ent time, protesting their innocence of heresy or schism, and
maintaining the genuine Catholic tradition based on the
Council of Trent.
The Chief Literature of Jansenism is the following: Jansenius, Cor
nelius, Augustinus, 3 v., Louvain, 1640; Paris, 1641; Gale, T., The
True Idea of Jansenisme, 1669; Leydecker, M., Historia Jansenismi,
1695; Quesnel, Le Nouveau Testament en frangois avec des reflexions
morales, 1692; Gerberon, Histoire generate de Jansenisme, 1700; Luc-
chesinus, J. L., Jansenianorum hosresi enchiridion, 1705; Hist. Polem.
Jansenismi, 1711; Constitution (JJnigenitus) Clement XI, 1713; Dubois,
R. J., Collectio nova actorum Constit. Unigenitus, 1725; Colonia, Dom.
de. Diet, des livres Jansenistes, 1732; Bibliotheque Janseniste, 1735; Yon-
tame, Memoires pour servir hl'histoirede Porte-Royal, 1738; Bellegarde,
D. de. Hist, de I'eglise metrop. d'Utrecht, 1784, 1852^; Augusti, Das
Erzbisthum Utrecht, 1838; Reuchlin, H., Gesch. von Port-Royal, 1839-44;
Tregelles, S. P., The Jansenists, 1851; Guettee, R. F. W., Jansenisme
et Jesuitisme, 1857; Neale, J. M., History of the so-called Jansenist
Church of Holland, 1857; Van Wyk, J. A. G., Hist. eccl. Ultrajed., 1859;
Ricard, A., Les Premiers Jansenistes, 1883; Seche, L., Les derniers
Jansenistes, 1891; HuUer, J. de, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het
Utrechtsche Schisma, 1892.
The Society of Jesus accomplished a great work of reform
in the Roman Church during the sixteenth century in edu
cation in the doctrines and institutions of the Church, so long
as the spirit of the founders prevailed ; but like all human in
stitutions It had within itself the seeds of corruption, which
in the seventeenth century became malignant, and which in
the eighteenth century brought about the expulsion of the

SYMBOLS OP THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 223
Order from most Catholic countries and its abolition by the
Pope in 1773. Undoubtedly this, like all persecution, was
really beneficial to the Order. After its purgation, it was re
stored in 1814 by Pius VII, who greatly needed its aid In the
revival and reform of the Church after the disorders of the
French Revolution and the Empire of Napoleon. During
the past hundred years the Society of Jesus has steadily
gained Importance notwithstanding frequent conflicts with
the civil powers.
Just as in the early Church the monastic orders strove to
make the entire Christian ministry monastic, and Impose
monastic ideals upon the people of the Church; just as the
mendicant orders strove for the same ideal in the Middle
Ages; so in modern times the Society of Jesus has laboured
without ceasing to Jesuitise the Church, to shape her piety
and institutions, to formulate her doctrines of Faith and
Morals, and to dominate her education, her discipline, and
her relation to the civil governments. The inevitable re
sult has been unceasing conflict in Church and State, with
the demoralisation of the Order Itself into a mere auto
cratic machine, in which the vital godliness, the consecra
tion to the glory of God, and the self-sacrificing service of
Christ, characteristic of its founders, have too often been
depressed or crushed.
§ 2. Pope Pius X, in 1854, after securing the well-nigh unanr-
imous consent of the Roman Catholic Church, defined the Im
maculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of Christ as an in
fallible dogma of the Church.
The modern symbolic movement in the Church of Rome
began under the instigation of the Jesuits, when Pius IX in
1854, in his Bull Ineffabilis Deus, defined the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mother of our Lord. The Pope, in
an encyclical letter. Invited the bishops throughout the world
to give their opinion as to whether the Apostolic See should
define the doctrine. More than six hundred bishops an
swered, all in favour of the definition except four who dis-

224 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
sented from the doctrine, and fifty-two who thought Its
definition inexpedient or inopportune. Accordingly, on De
cember 8, the definition was solemnly made in St. Peter's,
Rome, as foUows :
"Beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis
fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum
Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe
preservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam atque idcirco ab omnibus
fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam."
It must be said that the Catholic world was consulted
before the definition was made to a much greater extent than
ever before In history, and that an extraordinary consensus
of the Church In favour of the doctrine had been attained; all
the more surprising in view of the long differences between
the Franciscans and Dominicans on this subject, and the
rejection of the doctrine by many of the most authoritative
theologians of former ages. Undoubtedly It was the zealous
activity of the Jesuit Order which brought about the inquiry
and the final papal definition of this important and popular
doctrine. And so that definition greatly enhanced the papal
prerogative and the influence of the Society of Jesus, and
prepared the way for the definition of papal infallibility by
the Vatican Council.
The consensus of the Early Church was that the vir
ginity of Mary was perpetual, and that she was free from
actual sin. In these phases of the doctrine Pelagius agreed
with Augustine, and the East with the West. There were
few dissenting voices to either of these propositions. When
the doctrine of original sin became prominent after Augustine,
the theologians were troubled to see how Christ, as born of
Mary, could escape its contamination and guilt. The great
Scholastics generally agreed with Thomas Aquinas that Mary
was sanctified in the womb of her mother after the infusion
of the soul, and that she was further sanctified in the concep
tion of our Lord. Duns Scotus, the great Franciscan, first
shaped the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which

SYMBOLS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 225
subsequently became a doctrine of the Franciscans. The dif
ference of opinion on this subject still persisted in the six
teenth century; and so the Council of Trent went no further
than reservation in statement of the doctrine of original sin,
that it was not intended to "comprehend in this decree the
blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary" (Sess. V:5). The
Jesuit Order in 1593, in a General Assembly, adopted the doc
trine of the Immaculate Conception, and from that time the
Order has been most zealous In Its promotion.
Protestant theologians find It necessary to separate the
Son of INIary from original sin. They do it by various the
ories, chiefly by that of her sanctlficatlon In the act of con
ception. But it is difficult to see how that alone could ac
complish the purpose. In any case it is necessary to say that
no positive evidence for the doctrine can be found in Holy
Scripture; it can only be proved from the implications of
other doctrines. The doctrine originated from the neces
sity of eliminating the Son of Mary from original sin, and the
difficulty of doing it in any other way than by the elimina
tion of original sin from his Mother Mary. When that took
place, whether in her own conception or afterward, or whether
in her conception of Jesus, remained an open question until
the definition of Pius IX.
The most important Literature is the following: Turrecremata, J.,
Tract, de veritate conceptionis beatissimae virginis, 1547; Launoius,
Praescriptione de conceptu B. Mariae Virginis, 1677^; Perrone, J.,
De immaculato . . . Mariae conceptu, 1847, 1848, 1853, 1854, German,
1849; Passaglia, C, De immaculato . . . virginis conceptu, 1854-5; Den
zinger, H., Die Lehre von der unbefleckten Empfangniss der seligsten Jung-
frau, 1855; Ullathorne, W. B., The Immaculate Conception of the Mother
of God, 1855; Gratry, A., Le mois de Marie de I'immaculee conception,
1873; Roskovany, A. de, Beata Virgo Maria in suo conceptu immacu-
lata ex monumentis . . . demonstrata, 9 v., 1873-81.
§ 3. The Council of the Vatican in 1870 defined the relation
of Faith and Reason over against Pantheism and Rationalism,
assigning to each its distinct office and asserting their entire har
mony when rightly used and understood.

226 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
The definition of the Immaculate Conception was only the
beginning of a series of doctrinal decisions by the Roman
Church. The first of these was the Papal Syllabus of errors
of 1864, which was issued together with an Encyclical, Quanta
Cura. These errors were chiefly those of Pantheism, Natu
ralism, Rationalism, absolute and moderate, Indifferentlsm,
Latitudinarianism, Socialism, and Communism.
Protestants would agree for the most part in the rejection
of these errors. But the rejection of Bible Societies, Clerlco-
Liberal Societies, so-called errors concerning the Church
and her rights, civil society, natural and Christian ethics,
marriage, the civil power of the Roman pontiff, and mod
ern Liberalism, raised many questions upon the determina
tion of which Protestants and Roman Catholics are not
agreed, and about which there were differences of opinion
in the Roman Church Itself.
Protestant scholars have made a great mistake in regarding
this syllabus of errors as symbolical. It is no more symbol
ical than many other catalogues of error issued by the Popes
from time to time. These give no definition of Faith and are
not symbolical. That is the opinion of the ablest Roman
Canonists and of Pope Pius X himself.
This syllabus was preliminary to the summons by the
Pope of the Council of the Vatican by his Encyclical Mterni
Patris In 1868. The Council opened December 8, 1869. It
continued in session until November 11, 1870, when it ad
journed on account of the unfavourable political situation of
Europe. It will probably resume its labours at a more
favourable opportunity, for its work was not completed.
The Council adopted two decrees : the first, the Dogmatic Con
stitution on the Catholic Faith (April 24); the second, the
First Dogmatic Constitution en the Church of Christ (July 18).
The Constitution of the Christian Faith has four Chapters:
(I) of God, the Creator of all things, (II) of Revelation, (HI)
of Faith, (IV) of Faith and Reason; with several Canons sup
plementing each chapter. This decree defines the Faith chiefly
over against Pantheism and Rationahsm. The Symbols of

SYMBOLS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 227
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not called upon
to meet this Issue, and, therefore, made no definition of the
relations of Faith and Reason, or of their relation to God and
Revelation. In this respect the decree Is an important ad
vance in the symbolical definition of the Church. Apart
from uncharitable reference to Protestantism, thinly veiled
in the Preamble, and from certain unprotestant exaltations
of papal and ecclesiastical authority, and ecclesiastical tra
dition, Protestant Churches would agree with them in sub
stance. It cannot be maintained with regard to the symbol
ical statements of a Council that preambles, circumstantial
statements, evidences adduced, their rhetoric or their logic,
are symbolically authoritative, but only the definitions them
selves. With these qualifications. Protestantism can make
no valid objection to this Decree. The Protestant Churches
themselves ought to have faced these burning questions of
the nineteenth century, and made symbolical statements
which could not have differed appreciably from those of the
Council of the Vatican. As it Is, the Protestant Churches
either insist upon their symbols, without interposing any bar
rier between them and the Pantheistic and Rationalistic the
ories which undermine them, or else abandon their symbols
and give Pantheism and Rationalism free range in their
midst. The definitions in Chapters I, II, III are simply reaffir
mations of the Faith, especially over against modern Panthe
istic and Rationalistic ideas. Chapter IV gives the real ad
vance in definition by its distinction between the relative
spheres of Faith and Reason.
"The Catholic Church, with one consent, has also ever held and does
hold that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct both in prin
ciple and also in object; in principle, because our knowledge in the one
is by natural reason, and in the other by divine faith; in object, because,
besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are pro
posed to our belief mysteries hidden in God, which, unless divinely
revealed, cannot be known."
"But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real dis
crepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals

228 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the
human mind; and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contra
dict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due,
either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded
according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion
having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that
every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false."
"And not only can faith and reason never be opposed to one another,
but they are of mutual aid one to the other; for right reason demon
strates the foundations of faith, and, enlightened by its light, culti
vates the science of things divine; while faith frees and guards reason
from errors, and furnishes it with manifold knowledge. So far, there
fore, is the Church from opposing the cultivation of human arts and
sciences, that it in many ways helps and promotes it. For the Church
neither ignores nor despises the benefits of human life which result
from the arts and sciences, but confesses that, as they came from
God, the Lord of all science, so, if they be rightly used, they lead to
God by the help of His grace. Nor does the Church forbid that
each of these sciences in its sphere should make use of its own prin
ciples and its own method; but, while recognizing this just liberty,
it stands watchfully on guard, lest sciences, setting themselves against
the divine teaching, or transgressing their own limits, should invade
and disturb the domain of faith.
" For the doctrine of faith which God hath r&vealed has not been pro
posed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human inge
nuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of
Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that
meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our
holy mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever
to be departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper compre
hension of them. Let, then, the intelligence, science, and wisdom of
each and all, of individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and all
times, increase and flourish in abundance and vigor; but simply in its
own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same doctrine, one and
the same sense, one and the same judgment."
If a Protestant Assembly of divines had understood these
careful distinctions, they would not, by denying that the Rea
son is a great fountain of divine authority,* have exposed
themselves to the deliverance of Canon II: 1.
* V. Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture, pp. 26 seq.; Bible, Church, and
Reason, pp. 29 seq.; Church Unity, pp. 221 seq. ; Defence of Professor
Briggs, pp. 45 seq.

SYMBOLS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 229
"If any one shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord,
cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason tlirough
created things: let him be anathema."
§ 4. The Vatican Council also asserted the infallibility of the
Pope when ex cathedra, as the pastor of all Christians, he defines
a doctrine of Faith or Morals to be held by the whole Church.
The First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ,
apart from preamble, circumstantial matter, evidences, and
other details, defines the Catholic Faith as follows :
"We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony
of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church
of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed
Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord."
"Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the
institution of Christ Himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the
whole Church."
"Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord
the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all
other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pon
tiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever
rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and col
lectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and
true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith
and morals, but also in those that appertain to the disclphne and gov
ernment of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of
Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preser
vation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith
with the Roman pontiff."
"And the Roman Pontiffs, according to the exigencies of times and
circumstances, sometimes assembling oecumenical Councils, or asking
for the mind of the Church scattered throughout the world, sometimes
by particular Synods, sometimes using other helps which Divine Prov
idence supplied, defined as to be held those things which with the help
of God they had recognized as conformable with the sacred Scriptures
and Apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new
doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and
faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through
the Apostles."
"Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the
beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the

230 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peo
ple, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma
divinely revealed : that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra,
that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Chris
tians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doc
trine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by
the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church
should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and
that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable
of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."
This decree was challenged by many of the ablest histori
ans and Canonists in the Roman Catholic Church, as well as
by Protestants, Greeks, and Orientals, as unhistorical and
against the Canon Law of the Church. It was resisted for a
long time in the Council by a considerable number of eminent
prelates, partly on that account and partly as an inoppor
tune decree; but when the final vote was taken, there were
but two negative voices, and these Immediately gave In their
adhesion, so that the decision was legally unanimous.
Those who resisted the decree as inopportune could not
sustain themselves against such an overwhelming majority,
and soon submitted. The few who held out because It was
unhistorical, or uncanonical, also eventually yielded as Hefele,
not because he had changed his opinions, but for the sake of
the peace and unity of the Church. Indeed, it was to them
more of an academic than a vital question. Those who held
to the infallibility of ecumenical Councils could not hold out,
after an ecumenical Council had Infallibly decreed the In
fallibility of the Pope. Those who held that the Council of
Trent was an infallible ecumenical Council could not success
fully maintain that the Council of the Vatican was not.
While Protestants, Greeks, and Orientals sympathised with
those eminent Roman Catholic scholars, who retired or were
driven from the Church of Rome because they would not
yield their convictions against papal infallibility, and formed
the Old Catholic Church, they could not altogether vindicate
the consistency of their action.

SYMBOLS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 231
The polemic against the decree of Papal Infallibility by
Old Catholics and Protestants usually overshot the mark,
because of the failure to take account of the limitations of
the definition and the great care with which It had been
composed. According to the best authorities of the Roman Catholic
Church, oral and written, the definition may be interpreted
as follows:*
(1) Infalhbility is limited to "a doctrine regarding Faith
and Morals."
(2) Infallibility of doctrines regarding Faith and Morals
is limited to those "to be held by the whole Church."
(3) Infallibility is limited to a doctrine regarding Faith
and Morals "which the Roman Pontiff defines."
(4) Infalhbility is not in the definition of the Pope as a
person, but in the Pope as an official "when discharging the
office of pastor and teacher of all Christians."
(5) Infallibihty is limited to definitions of doctrine "di
vinely revealed in Holy Scripture and in apostolic tradition."
(6) The infallibility of the definition is limited to the doc
trine itself, and does not extend to the introduction, or to cir
cumstantial details, or to evidence adduced, or to the rhetoric
or logic of the decree, or the merely verbal formula of the
definition. When these limitations are considered, it Is vain to adduce
the case of Honorius as an historic example that disproves
the dogma; for the case of Honorius was well known to those
who framed the definition, and had been thoroughly discussed
before the definition was made; and It is altogether probable
that the definition took full account of It.f
It is indeed a most remarkable fact that the only pope in
more than eighteen centuries of the papacy, who can be ad
duced as a case in point against the dogma, is just this
* V. Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 226 seq.
t I have already shown, in connection with hia condemnation by the
Church, that his heresy does not conflict with this Vatican definition
{v. Fundamental Christian Faith, p. 317),

232 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Honorius; all the more extraordinary when one reflects upon
the number of heretics condemned by the Church In the
great Sees of Antloch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. It
gives the presumption In favour of the claim that the word of
Jesus to St. Peter has In fact been fulfilled In all the popes:
" Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you, that he may
sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not" (Luke 2231-32).
The following are the most important works on the Council of the
Vatican: 1869
Actes et histoire du Concile cecumenique de Rome, premier du Vatican,
1869-70; Officielle Actenstucke zu dem von . . . Pius IX nach Rom berufen.
Oekumen. Condi, Berlin {zweite Sammlung, 1870) ; Dollinger, J. v.,
Erwdgungen fiir die Bischbfe des Conciliums ilber die Frage der papst-
lichen Unfehlbarkeit ; Dupanloup, F., Lettre sur le futur Concile (Few-
minique; Fessler, J., Das letzte und das ndchste Allgemeine Concil;
Janus, Der Papst und das Concil (Eng. same year); Ketteler, W. E.,
Das Allgemeine Concil und seine Bedeutung ; Manning, H. E., The
(Ecumenical Council and the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; Maret,
H. L. C, Du Concile general et de la paix religieuse.
1870
Bickel, G., Grunde fiir die Unfehlbarkeit des Kirchenhauptes ; Car-
doni, G., Elucubratio de dogmatica Romani Pontificis Infallibilitate
ejusque Definibilitate ; La demiire heure du Concile ; Dollinger, J. v.,
Einige Worte iiber die Unfehlbarkeitsadresse; Hergenrother, J., Antir
Janus (also English); Die " Irrthumer" v. mehr als 4^0 Bischbfen;
Ketteler, W. E., Die Unwahrheiten der Romischen Briefe vom Concil;
Kenrick, Concio in Concilio Vaticano (trans, by Bacon as Inside View
of the Vatican Council, 1872); Manning, H. E., The Vatican Council and
its Definitions; Das Oekum. Concil. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach ; Quiri-
nus, Rbmische Briefe vom Concil (Eng. same year); Reinkens, J. H.,
Ueber pUpstliche Unfehlbarkeit; Schulte, J. F. v., Das UnfeMbarkeits-
decret . . . gepriift; Veuillot, L., Rome pendant le Concile, 1870-2; Wieder-
legung der vier unter die Vdter des Concils vertheilten Brochuren gegen
die Unfehlbarkeit. 1871
Acta et Decreta Concilii Vaticani ; Fessler, J., Die wahre und die falsche
Unfehlbarkeit der Papste; Das Vatikanische Concilium; Friedrich,

SYMBOLS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 233
Tagebuch wahrend des vatikanischen Konzils; Documenta ad illustran-
dum Concilium Vaticanum; Hinschius, P., D'te Stellung d. Deutsch.
Staatregier. g. d. Beschliiss. d. vatikan. Koncils; Langen, J., Das Vati
kanische Dogma von dem Universal-Episkopat, 1871-6; Manning, H. E.,
Petri priinlegium; Scheeben, M. J., Schulte und Dollinger, gegen das
Concil. Kritische Beleuchtung ; Schulte, J. F. v.. Die Stellung der Con-
cilien, Pdbste u. Bischofe. Later Years
Friedberg, E., Sammlung d. Actenstiicke zum ersten vatikanischen
KonzU, 1872; Fromman, T., Gesch. und Kritik des vaiicanischen Con
cils, 1872; Pressens6, E. de, Le concile du Vatican, 1872; Cecconi, E.,
Gesch. der allg. Kirchenversammlung im Vatican, 1873 (French, 1887);
Martin, C, Omnium Concilii Vaticani . . . documentorum collectio, 1873;
Gladstone, W. E., Vatican Decrees, and Schaff, P., History of Vatican
Council, 1875; Manning, H. E., The Vatican Decrees in their Bearing
on Civil Allegiance, 1875; Friedrich, J., Gesch. des Vatican. Konzils,
1877-87; Granderath, T., Gesch. des vatikan. Konzils, 1903-6.
The Old Catholics
Zirngiebl, Bericht ilber d. altkath. Bewegung, 1873; Beschliisse der
1-4 Synod, d. Altkatholiken, 1874-7; Schulte, J. F. v., Der Alikatho-
licismus, 1887; Friedberg, E., Aktenstiicke d. altkath. Bewegung, 1876;
Friedrich, J., Altlcatholizismus, 1888.

§ 5. The Vatican Council adjourned to meet again when sum
moned by the Pope. Leo XIII and Pius X have issued deliver
ances on important matters and condemnations of error, but no
symbolical definition of Institutions, Faith, or Morals.
The pontificate of Leo XIII did not produce any symbol
ical decision, and the Roman Church enjoyed an unusual
amount of flexiblhty, peace external and Internal, and suc
cess. The only decision of any great importance was that
on the validity of Anglican Orders in the apostohcal letter,
Apostolicae Curae, 1896. This decision was made with reluc
tance, and only when it was forced by the agitation for the
reunion of the Church of England with Rome and by the
wide-spread discussion on the subject in the Church of Rome
itself. This decision was not a doctrinal one but a disciphn-

234 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
ary one, as Pope Pius X said to me, and cannot be classed as
infallible and symbolical.*
Pius X in the sixth year of his pontificate issued an En
cyclical against Modernism with a SyUabus of sixty-five
errors contained In the writings of Loisy, Tyrrel, and other
Biblical, historical, and philosophical scholars.! This En
cyclical and Syllabus cannot be regarded as any more sym
bolical and infallible than those of Pius IX, which Pius X
himself declared not to be infallible. Undoubtedly there was
more justification for this Encyclical and Syllabus than ap
peared when it was first issued. The authorities were aware
of more serious departures from the Faith than any writings
then published Indicated, and they cannot be blamed for the
censure of such heresies. But, unfortunately for the success
of their attack on Modernism and its vindication before the
Christian world, they made no discrimination whatever be
tween those devout and faithful Catholics who were striving
to reconcile modern thought with Catholic dogma and Cath
olic institution with modern methods, and those who made
radical departures from the Institutions and doctrines of the
Church; and they instituted a system of suspicion, inquisi
tion, and delation, which has brought the administration of
justice in the Church into contempt, and has forced a large
proportion of Catholic scholars to silence and retraction, or
suspension, excommunication, and withdrawal from the
Church. It is evident that this state of affairs cannot con
tinue much longer without serious injury to the Church. It
is devoutly to be hoped that the reaction in favour of liberty
of scholarship will begin under the present pontiff and not
wait for his successor.
Some years ago when the present writer said to the Pope
that it was necessary, in the interest of Church Unity, that
Catholic scholars should frankly and fully discuss the differ
ences between the Churches In an irenic spirit, seeking for their
* V. Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 110 seq.; Halifax, Leo XIII and Angli
can Orders, 1912.
t V. Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 393 seq.

SYMBOLS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 235
solution, the Pope said that " all reasonable liberty would be
given." That is all that the moderate Modernists require.
The radical Modernists do not desire Church Unity at all,
but only full liberty to express their individual opinions.
None can tell what the future will be. There is a desire
on the part of many that Pius X should define the Assump
tion of the Virgin, as Pius IX did her Immaculate Conception.
There is a still more wide-spread desire that the Vatican
Council should reassemble to continue its work on the divine
Constitution of the Church, and especially to define the rela
tion of Church and State, and maintain the independence of
the Church and the pontiff' of all civil authority. On the
other hand, there is the dread lest such a Council would com
mit the Church to a still greater hostility to the modern
world. If only such a Council could constitutionallse the
papacy and provide for the automatic reassembling of the
councils of bishops every five or ten years, it would begin a
reform, which might eventually result in the removal of all
the misunderstandings of the past and bring about the re
union of Christ's Church.

CHAPTER VII
PROTESTANTISM OP THE EIGHTEENTH AND
NINETEENTH CENTURIES
From the last quarter of the seventeenth century onward
there was a strong reaction against those types of rehglon
which had battled with each other in the struggles of the
previous years. New philosophical theories came into the
field to displace the Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies, in
Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibnitz, and their asso
ciates. Science made a succession of wonderful discoveries
of the laws of nature unknown before. These laws of nature
and the new philosophical and scientific theories conflicted
with many traditions of the Church, and also seemed to un
dermine some of the most Important doctrines of Christian
ity. Theologians had to face this new situation. Some schol
ars abandoned the historic faith of the Church and reverted
to ancient heresies. Others obstinately resisted the new
thought and stiffened themselves to the defence of the dog
mas and institutions of the Church in their traditional form.
Few tried to distinguish between tradition and history, the
essential and the non-essential, the consensus and the dis
sensus of Christianity. Many philosophers, scientists, literary
men, and politicians became unfriendly to historical Christi
anity, which could not easily be reconciled to their theories.
Deism arose in England and for a time swept along like a
flood, destroying all that was distinctive of Christianity and
reducing it to a religion of nature with the human reason as
the sole authority.
§ 1. The endeavours of the Deists to replace historic Chris
tianity by a purely natural religion and the efforts of the theo-
236

MODERN PROTESTANTISM 237
logians to maintain the distinctive principles of Christianity,
resulted in the discrimination between natural Religion and Re
vealed Religion, natural Theology and Christian Theology; and
an apologetic chiefly in the form of evidences of Christianity.
The apologists at first emphasised external evidences and
gave miracles and prophecy an evidential value that they had
never previously had, either in the Bible itself or in the his
tory of Theology. Miracles and Prophecy received by these
apologists technical meanings, which did not correspond with
their BIbhcal character. No historic Symbol of the Christian
Church — not even the Westminster Confession — mentions
miracles or prophecies, either as evidences of Christianity or
as a part of the historic Faith of the Church. It was not
difficult for the Deists to show the inadequacy of the evi
dential value of Miracles and Prophecy, and force the apolo
gists back on the internal evidences. Unfortunately the
apologists compromised the great dogmatic facts upon which
the Christian religion depends, such as the Virgin Birth and
the Resurrection of our Lord, by classifying these Chrlstoph-
anies with miracles, and using them for the same eviden
tial purpose.
Moses and the Prophets, Jesus and His Apostles came into
conflict with magicians and false prophets, and warned their
disciples against miracles and prophecy as such.* The Mir
acles and Prophecy of the Bible vindicate themselves not by
their extraordinary and marvellous character, but by their
religious and moral purpose. The Christian Church has
always taken this attitude toward them and cannot be held
responsible for the blunders of apologists. As I wrote many
years ago:
The miracles of Biblical History were not wrought in order to give
modern divines evidences of the truth and reality of the Biblical relig
ion. The prophets did not aim to give apologists proofs for the verbal
inspiration of the Scriptures. The miracles were wrought as acts of
divine judgment and redemption. Prophecy was given to instruct men
* Deut. 131-0, i8"-22; Jer. 14", 285-'; Mt. 2423-2<; II Thes. 28-i2; Rev.
I312-18. 7. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 23 seq.

238 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
in the religion of God, in order to their salvation and moral growth.
The miracles were not designed to show that God was able to violate
the laws of nature, to overrule or suspend them at His wUl. The
miracles of the Bible rather show that God Himself was present in
nature, directing His own laws in deeds of redemption and of judgment.
The miracles are divine acts in nature. Prophecy was not designed
to show that God can overrule the laws of the human mind, suspend
them, or act instead of them, using man as a mere speaking-tube to
convey heavenly messages to this world. Prophecy rather discloses
the presence of God in man, stimulating him to use all the powers of
his intellectual and moral nature in the instruction of the people of
God. Miracles and prophecy in Biblical History are the signs of the
presence of God in that history. He has not left that history to itself.
He has not left the laws of nature and of mind to their ordinary develop
ment, but He has taken His place at the head of affairs as the Monarch
of nature and the King of men to give His personal presence and super
intendence to a history which is central, and dominant of the history of
the world. — (Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, p. 543.)
Hume's argument against the evidential value of miracles,
and Dr. McGIffert's argument * based upon it, are both alike
specious. It Is quite true that "Hume was really concerned
primarily to destroy the apologetic value of miracles." He
writes: "I own that otherwise there may possibly be mir
acles or violations of the usual course of nature of such a
kind as to admit of proof from human testimony"; but he
qualifies this by saying, "perhaps it will be impossible to
find any such in all the records of history." This latter
remark McGiffert indorses when he says: "That it cannot
be historically proved that any particular event was wrought
by a supernatural power with the purpose of testifying to a
person's divine commission is a commonplace among his
torians to-day." To this I reply, such historians are not
the only historians, nor are they the most learned or- the
most rehable. Miracles have their place in history and can
not be dislodged from it by any scepticism whatever. To
ignore them discredits the historian and his history. Those
who try to exclude God from history ignore the fundamental
principle of the philosophy of history. As Lessing says, the
history of the world is the divine education of our race.
* Protestant Thought before Kant, pp. 220-1.

MODERN PROTESTANTISM 239
Miracles may be explained In accordance with various
theories, but they are there as " testifying to a person's divine
commission" in many instances in Biblical History. It Is
not true that "such proof assumes a complete knowledge of
all possible natural forces which may have operated to pro
duce the event, a knowledge to which no one now thinks of
pretending" ; for this reason applies only to miracles as viola
tions of laws of nature or as wrought outside of and Inde
pendent of laws of nature. If they were wrought by the use
of means "inexplicable in the light of our present knowledge,"
the argument has no force. The real question of the miracle
is as to whether it was supernatural because wrought by God
or a prophet inspired by God to work It; and that does not
at all depend upon unusual knowledge of the laws of nature,
but upon sufficient credible testimony as to the agent who
wrought the miracle, not the ways and means of it. McGif
fert evidently has been influenced by Hume's specious argu
ment: "Upon the whole then it appears that no testimony for any kind of
miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof; and
that, even supposing it amounted to a proof, it would be opposed by
another proof derived from the very nature of the fact which it would
endeavor to establish. It is experience only which gives authority to
human testimony; and it is the same experience which assures us of
the laws of nature. When, therefore, these two kinds of experience
are contrary, we have nothing to do but subtract the one from the
other, and embrace an opinion either on the one side or the other, with
that assurance which arises from the remainder. But, according to
the principle here explained, this subtraction with regard to all popular
religions amounts to an entire annihilation, and therefore we may
establish it as a maxim that no human testimony can have such force
as to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such system
of religion."
Hume's argument is based entirely on the conflict of two
kinds of experience, a conflict which does not really exist In
the miracles of Christianity, for those miracles do not claim
to be contrary to the laws of nature, but only to be wrought
by supernatural power. A supernatural power may use the

240 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
laws of nature, known and unknown, as certainly, as really,
and as well, as any other person or cause. The significance
of the Biblical miracles is this. No one at the time could
work them except the prophets of God. Some of them have
been explained, and similar ones have been wrought in mod
ern times. But the most of them are still Inexplicable by
any known laws of nature. As I have already said, if they
could aU be explained by laws and forces unknown at present,
that would not impair their value as miracles.* Christianity
Is responsible for the facts and events as recorded and noth
ing more. Either the prophets and apostles knew these laws
and forces of nature, or they knew them not. If they knew
them, where did they get this knowledge? Such knowledge
could not have been derived from their experience, but can
alone be explained from divine inspiration. If they did not
know these laws of nature, then they wrought the miracles
by simple faith In the power of God that was given to them
with their commission. In fact, it is just this latter which is
characteristic of Biblical miracles. The testing of ordinary
human experience of the laws of nature amounts to nothing
in such cases. We have to do with questions of fact to be es
tablished by credible evidence. This evidence consists in the
testimony of credible witnesses, the record of which has been
preserved In well-accredited documents. It is sustained by
the religious and moral character of the miracles, congruent
with the sacred calling of the prophets, and reinforced by
sufficient reasons to justify them in giving a divine religion
and doctrine to man for his salvation.
Already in the twelfth century St. Thomas Aquinas had
given a sufficient answer to the scepticism of Hume and his
followers when he said:
"But some one says. It is foolish to believe what is not seen, nor are
the things which are not seen to be believed. I reply: (1) that the
imperfection of our intellect removes this doubt; for if man could per
fectly of himself know all things visible and invisible, it would be
foolish to beheve what we do not see; but our knowledge is so weak,
* Authority of Holy Scripture, pp. 36 seg.

MODERN PROTESTANTISM 241
that no philosopher has ever been able to investigate perfectly the
nature of a single fly. Whence it may be read, that one philosopher
lived in solitude thirty years, that he might know the nature of a bee.
If therefore our intellect is so weak, is it not foolish to believe nothing
of God save only that which man is able to know of himself? And
therefore in opposition to this it is said : Behold God is great, transcend
ing our knowledge (Job 36^»). (2) It may be answered: Suppose that
a certain Master (of learning) should say something within his own
knowledge; and some rustic should say that what the Master taught
was not so, because he himself could not understand it; that rustic
would be accounted extremely foolish. But it is certain that the intel
lect of an angel exceeds the intellect of the ablest philosopher, more
than the intellect of the ablest philosopher the intellect of a rustic.
And therefore the philosopher is foolish, if he is unwilling to believe
those things which angels say, and much more if he is unwilling to be
lieve those things wliich God says. And in opposition to this it is said :
A great many things beyond human perception are shown unto thee (Eccle-
siasticus 3^). (3) It may be answered, that if a man is unwilling to
believe anything save those things which he may know, it is certain
that he cannot live in this world. For how can any one live, unless
he believe some one? How indeed could he believe that such an one
was his own father ? And therefore it is necessary that a man should
believe some one as to those things which he cannot know perfectly of
himself. But none is so worthy to be believed as God; and therefore
those who do not believe the words of Faith, are not wise, but fool
ish and proud, as says the Apostle: Proud is he, knowing nothing (I
Tim. 6''). Wherefore he said: I Jcnow in Whom I have believed, and I
am sure (II Tim. 1'^). Ye who fear God, believe in Him (Eccles.
11*). (4) It is also possible to reply, that God proves that those
things which Faith teaches, are true. For if a king should send
letters sealed with his seal, no one would dare to say that those letters
had not appeared by the will of the king. But it is certain that all
those things which the saints have believed, and transmitted to us of
the Faith of Christ, are signed with the seal of God: which seal
those works display, which no mere creature is able to do. And
these axe miracles, by which Christ has confirmed the sayings of
the Apostles and the saints. If thou shouldst say, that no one sees
mu-acles take place; Ireply to this: It is most certain that all the world
was worshipping idols, and persecuting the Faith of Christ, as even the
histories of the pagans relate: but nevertheless all have been converted
to Christ, both the wise, and the noble, and the rich, and the powerful,
and the great at the preaching of the simple, and the poor, and the
few, preaching Christ. Now this has either been wrought miracu
lously, or it has not. If miraculously, the proposition is proven. If

242 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
not, I say that there could not be a greater miracle, than that the
whole world should be converted without miracles. So then no one
ought to doubt the Faith, but believe those things which are of Faith
more than those things which he sees: for the sight of man may be
deceived, but the knowledge of God is never at fault." — {Symbolum
Apostolorum Expositio, art. I, ii.)
§ 2. Deism was overcome in Great Britain and her colonies
by the vital religion and Christian experience ofMethodism,which
preached Christ and His Gospel, and insisted on regeneration
as a necessary prerequisite for Christian faith and knowledge.
There were many sects in the time of the Westminster
Assembly, as in the time of the Reformation, which were
regarded as outside Historical Christianity and Protestant
ism. The only ones of any importance that survived were
the Mennonites of Holland, successors of the more moderate
Anabaptists of the Continent of Europe, and the Quakers or
Friends of Great Britain. These, although possessed of cer
tain evangelical tendencies, put themselves outside of his
torical Christianity by their rejection of the consensus of
Christianity as to doctrine and institution; and therefore
their doctrines and institutions, so far as they have any, can
not be regarded as belonging to Christian Symbolics.
The Unitarians of the Reformation period perpetuated
themselves in the Soclnians of Poland. These have never
been recognised by any of the great Churches of the Refor
mation. Unltarlanism arose again in England in the second
half of the seventeenth century in John Biddle and his asso
ciates, but was soon suppressed. It was revived In England
in the early eighteenth century out of Presbyterianism and
eventually captured the English Presbyterian organisation.
Thomas Emlyn, a Presbyterian minister of Dubhn, first
advocated Semi-Arlanism and was expeUed by the Presby
tery of Dublin in 1719. James Pierce, of Exeter, took essen
tially the same position at about the same time, and brought
on the subscription controversy among the Non-conformists
in England in the Union they had established after the revo
lution in 1690. The majority, chiefly Presbyterians, refused

MODERN PROTESTANTISM 243
to require subscription. The minority, cliiefly Congrega
tionalists, separated and subscribed to the first of the Thirty-
nine Articles of the Church of England and the fifth and sixth
questions of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Eng
lish Presbyterians in this way opened the door wide for lib
erty in essential doctrines, and gradually the whole body
became either Arian, Semi-Arian, or Modalistic in various
conceptions.* The same tendency was manifested in milder form in the
Churches of England and Scotland. Professor Simson, of
Glasgow, endeavoured to reconcile Christianity with modern
thought, yet within the sphere of historical Christianity.
But he was misunderstood and regarded as compromised In
an anti-trinitarian direction, tried for heresy, and treated
with great injustice. The General Assembly also issued a
warning to all professors and ministers. The Church of
England was more tolerant, partly because Deism was
stronger among the clergy and people, and partly because
of the difficulty of disclphne in a Church dominated by the
Crown and Parliament.
In New England, at the beginning of the nineteenth century,
Unltarlanism arose out of Congregationalism and captured a
considerable part of it, together with Harvard College and its
Divinity School. Unitarianism did not lose its supremacy
in Massachusetts until the second quarter of the century,
through the rally of the orthodox about Andover Theological
Seminary, which they had established, and their separation
from the Unitarians both in Associations and Congregations. f
Unltarlanism is also outside of historical Christianity, be
cause it denies the essential doctrines of Christianity as to
the divinity of Christ and* the Holy Trinity.
In the early eighteenth century the Methodist revival gave
birth to a number of new denominations, which separated
from the existing Churches because of their intolerance to
new methods in religious life and work.
* V. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp. 194 seq.
¦f V. Colton, Church and State in America, 1834.

244 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
Methodism was a revival of the vital religion and ethical
principles of Puritanism. It was an historical recompense
from the Pietism of the Continent for the influence of Puri
tanism upon Continental Christianity.
Spener, the father of German Pietism, was influenced by
the Puritan piety, especiaUy of Baxter, and the French of
Labadie. He organised the collegia pietatis in Frankfort in
1670, and wrote his Pia desideria in 1675, his Geistliches Pries-
tertum in 1677. He subsequently laboured in Dresden and
finally, from 1691, in Berlin, under the patronage of King
Frederick I.
In 1693 the Pietists established a theological School at
Halle with A. H. Francke at its head. Pietism did not sepa
rate from the Church, but has maintained itself as a party in
the German Churches until the present day.
Pietism was carried into the Moravian Church by Count
ZInzendorf , who received the exiles from Moravia on his es
tates at Herrnhut from 1722, and reorganised them as the
Unitas Fratrum with the ratio disciplinae of Bishop Comenius,
perpetuating the episcopal succession of the mother Mora
vian Church. German Pietism influenced John Wesley
through the Moravians.
Wesley and Whitfield were the fathers of Methodism in
England, the one an Arminian, the other a Calvlnist.
It was the earnest desire and purpose of Wesley and
Whitfield to simply organise holy circles within the Church,
after the example of German Pietism. But their foUowers
were compelled by intolerance to organise separate denomi
nations, the Wesleyans more in sympathy with the Church of
England, the followers of Whitfield more in harmony with the
Non-conformists. About the same time Methodism was rep
resented in Scotland by the Ersklnes, who, after their sus
pension by the Church of Scotland, organised the Associate
Presbytery in 1733. It was also represented by the Ten-
nents in the American Presbyterian Church. A conflict en
sued which brought about a division of American Presby
terianism into the Old and New Sides. Jacob Frehnghuysen

MODERN PROTESTANTISM 245
represented the same movement among the Dutch Reformed
and Jonathan Edwards among the Congregationalists in
America; but the conflict within these bodies did not produce
divisions.* Pietism and Methodism emphasised regeneration and
Christian religious experience; but It cannot be said that they
departed from the doctrines of the Churches or the historic
institutions of Christianity. They certainly laid more stress
on vital and spiritual Christianity, and less on doctrinal and
institutional Christianity.
§ 3. The confiict between Rationalism and Supernaturalism
led to a criticism and more careful distinction of the sources of
knowledge and to attempts to reponstruct Christian Theology in
newer philosophical and scientific forms.
It soon became plain, especially when Deism passed over
to the Continent of Europe, that such a religion of nature as
the Deists proposed was not really a natural religion, and
never had real existence outside the imagination of the Deists:
and accordingly Deism gave place to Scepticism and Atheism,
especially in France and the Latin countries; whereas in
Northern Europe it passed over into Rationalism.
A series of great philosophers arose, especially in the first
half of the nineteenth century, Kant, Hegel, Schelling, and
their associates and successors, who undermined and well-
nigh destroyed the ancient philosophical forms In which
Christian doctrine had been framed. A large number of great
sclentffic discoveries were made, which rendered It impossi
ble to maintain many traditional opinions that were based on
statements of Holy Scripture; and the extension of the
knowledge of the laws of nature and of the uniformity of its
operations inclined scientific men to resent any interference
with these laws, even on the part of the Deity. Theo
logians were compelled to consider whether the formulas of
the Faith could be divested of their ancient phUosophical
frames and reframed in terms of modern thought, and whether
* V. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp. 238 seg.

246 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the supernatural in the Bible and the Church could be rec
onciled with the laws of nature and of mind. Pantheism,
Rationalism, and finally Agnosticism were the chief oppo
nents of Historical Christianity in the nineteenth century.
A series of efforts were made to get rid of the historic Christ
and Apostolic Christianity by the mythical hypothesis of
Strauss, the legendary hypothesis of Renan, and the develop
ment hypotheses of Baur and Ritschl, in various theories of
rival religious parties and their result on historic Christianity.
All of these have been refuted by the great Christian theolo
gians of the last century. All have been driven from the field
except the school of Ritschl, about which the opponents of
the supernatural have rallied for a desperate stand against
Apostolic Christianity.
It is easy for them with their speculative theories of science
and philosophy to make a plausible case against historic Chris
tianity to the academic adherents of these theories; but it is
also easy to repel them as revivers of ancient heresies, as con
tributing nothing whatever to the solution of the mysteries
of Christianity, and as unsettling the realms of Science and
Philosophy more than the realm of Religion. They have
had no influence whatever upon the people of God, whose
Christian experience Is sufficient to withstand all their theo
rising. There have been theologians enough who, with more or less
success, have tried to reform Christian doctrine by recon
structing It In the forms of the modern philosophies. But
such reconstructions have had a brief existence, passing away
with the popularity of the particular philosophy that was
used. The Kantians and the Neo-Kantlans or RItschlians
reduce Christianity itself to a moral system. The Hegelians
make It a modern Gnosis. The school of Schleiermacher
has been more successful In building on the religious prin
ciple of absolute dependence upon God. Each and aU of
these have shown themselves defective and unstable, and,
when compared with the Theology of the Bible and the
Church, narrower and less comprehensive. All that is really

MODERN PROTESTANTISM 247
valuable in any of these systems was already contained in the
Historic Theology of the Church. There were traditional ex
aggerations in the Scholastic and Mystic Theologies which
Criticism easily destroyed. But the Biblical and historical
substance, resting on divine authority, could not be impaired.
The Religious Reason of Schleiermacher gives us a religious
foundation In metaphysics, but nothing more. The Ethical
Reason of Kant gives us the moral fruit of Theology without
its religious and intellectual foundation, and is without vital
power. The Gnosis of Hegel has no basis In religion and no
fruit in morals. Philosophers greater than any of them,
Plato and Aristotle, still give to Christianity metaphysical
forms for the doctrines of Faith, which modern philosophers
have been able to criticise in detail, but have not been able
to dislodge as a whole. The ablest modern theologians have
been eclectic in their use of modern philosophies, and have
found little difficulty in appropriating all that is useful In
them and incorporating it with the ancient impregnable
Metaphysic and Mystic of the Christian Faith.
§ 4. TJie Christian denominations, that arose in the nine
teenth century did not differ in any marked degree from those
already existing in tJieir Faith, but only in practical matters
of Christian Institution, and therefore have added nothing to
Christian Symbolics.
The new denominations of Christians, which originated in
the nineteenth century in the midst of the environment de
scribed above, had as their chief purpose vital piety and the
practical religious hfe, usually accompanied with resentment
against speculative theology and the formalism so often as
sociated with religious institutions. The exaggeration of
dogma by the scholastic theologians, in their elaboration of
the more technical and difficult doctrines of the Symbols at
the expense of the simple and vital ones of the Bible and
primitive Christianity, brought about the depreciation of the
Symbols of Protestantism, and the exaltation of the Bible
and the primitive Creeds above them. Accordingly, most of

248 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
the new denominations have revised the various Protestant
Symbols in the interest of simplicity, or have adopted new
and simple Creeds setting forth only the essential doctrines
of Christianity, or have made the Bible Itself their only
Symbol. The older Churches of the period of the Reformation, or
of the seventeenth century, have for the most part either
abandoned their Symbols altogether, or else retained them
as historic monuments, without requiring any more than a
general adherence to them on the part of the ministry. No
Symbol has been adopted by any Protestant Church which
adds anything whatever to the historic Faith of the Church.
The tendency has rather been to reduce the historic Faith in
the direction of Biblical simplicity.
The revivals of the early and middle nineteenth century
originated several new denominations.
(1) In America the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was
organised In 1810. In the great revival in the Cumberland
valley, Kentucky, James McGready made use of pious but
uneducated men who were ordained by the Presbytery of
Cumberland. This action was condemned by the Synod of
Kentucky, which dissolved the Presbytery in 1806. The
prosecuted ministers reorganised the Presbytery and carried
on their work, and out of this nucleus a great denomination
gradually arose.
(2) In 1811 Thomas Campbell organised the first church
of the Christian Association, with the Bible as the only Creed.
His principles, however, were those of the EvangeHcal
Methodists in doctrine and of the Baptists in Institution.
His son Alexander carried on his work, and out of It has
grown another great denomination known as Christians or
Disciples of Christ.
(3) The Free Church of Scotland was organised in 1843
by the withdrawal of four hundred and seventy-four ministers
from the Established Church, under the leadership of Thomas
Chalmers, in the supposed interests of vital religion and of
the crown rights of Jesus Christ against "Moderation" in

MODERN PROTESTANTISM 249
religion and the intrusion of civil authorities in ecclesiastical
affairs. (4) Besides these a considerable number of Christian de
nominations have arisen, especially In Great Britain and
America, but also in France, Switzerland, Germany, and Hol
land, partly because of the intolerance of the bodies from
which they went forth and partly because of their own in
tolerance in insisting upon their special opinions to such a
degree as to make co-operation in Christian work impracti
cable. These have separated, divided among themselves, re
united again in whole or In part, increasing the number of
Christian bodies to an indefinite extent. The peculiarities
of these bodies are chiefly in the way of church discipline and
methods of religious work. They do not, except in rare in
stances, depart from the consensus of historic Christianity,
but usually regard doctrinal differences in the denominations
of Protestants as of minor importance.
The most vital and powerful religious force of the nine
teenth century originated in the revival movement at Ox
ford in 1833-41, which was essentially a reaction toward the
authoritative religion of the ancient and mediaeval Church:
some, with Newman and Manning, seeking refuge In the
Roman Catholic Church on the principles of catholicity,
especially that of Augustine, securus judical orbis terrarum; *
some with Pusey and Keble, remaining faithful to the Church
of England with the effort to enrich her faith and institu
tions by a return to those of the Middle Ages in their pure
and uncorrupted forms. In fact, religion, on the whole, at
the beginning of the twentieth century, inclines to be a re
ligion of divine authority rather than one of human specu
lation. H. K. Carroll, in his valuable work on the Religious Forces
of the United States, 1912, gives the result of the census of the
United States as follows :
"A full half of the 170 bodies report less than 10,000 communicants
each, and 70 have less than 5,000 each. To put the matter in another
* V. Briggs, Church Unity, p. 68.

250 PARTICULAR SYMBOLICS
way, the great mass of communicants are found in the first 37 denom
inations in Table III, embracing all denominations having 100,000 and
upward. These 37 bodies contain more than 95 per cent of all com
municants, or 33,580,000, leaving only 1,665,000 for all the remaining
133 bodies. From all which it appears that the division of religious
bodies is more a matter of name than of fact." *
Several of these may be regarded as Christian : but by their
own act they have departed from historical Christianity,
either as to Faith, or Institution, or both; and whatever Sym
bols they have cannot rightly be considered in Christian
Symbolics. The only new denominations of any Importance which are
outside of historical Christianity are the Latter-Day Saints
(Mormon), the Plymouth Brethren, Spiritualistic Societies,
and the Christian Scientists. Several of the old heretic sects
persist with reduced numbers. If these are thrown out
there remain only thirty-two denominations having over one
hundred thousand communicants each. These may easily
be reduced to nine types. COMMUNICANTS
Roman Catholic  12,425,947
Methodists (16 bodies) *  6,615,052
Baptists (15 bodies)  5,603,137
Presbyterian and Reformed (16 bodies) . . . 2,368,955
Lutheran (23 bodies)  2,243,486
Disciples of Christ (2 bodies)  1,464,774
Episcopalian (2 bodies)  938,390
Congregationalist  735,400
Eastern Orthodox (7 bodies)  385,000
These types have all been considered in their relation to
Christian Symbolics.
There are other minor variations from these, but none of
them require any special consideration from the point of view
of Christian Symbolics; for what Symbols they have are only
modifications of older Symbols in the direction of simphcity
and not of the addition of new doctrines.
* Religious Forces of the United States, p. LXXV.

PART III
COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Comparative Symbolics has to compare the doctrinal state
ments of the Symbols of the separated Churches and determine
their consensus and their dissensus, together with their under
lying principles.
It presupposes the preliminary work of Particular Sym
bolics, and can only give a summary of the results of that sec
tion of our discipline.
Comparative Symbolics has nothing to do prior to the great
Reformation of the sixteenth century, which resulted in the
division of the Church into so many different denominations
and national Churches. In the ancient Church there were
controversies, decided by ecumenical Councils, which re
sulted in schisms; but these controversies were with ref
erence to certain particular doctrines. These have been con
sidered in connection with the ecumenical determination of
those doctrines. In the mediaeval Church there were also
heresies and schisms, but these were only of minor impor
tance. We have studied them sufficiently In connection with
the decisions rejecting them. It is true that during aU that
period the Eastern Church was separated from the Western;
but there was no doctrinal difference of any importance ex
cept as to the filioque, and that was deflned at the Council of
Florence so as to reconcile the difference.* The conflict
* V. pp. 135 seq.
251

252 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
between these two great divisions of Christendom is in
stitutional rather than doctrinal.
The situation became entirely different at the Reformation;
for while institutional questions were even then the most seri
ous, yet they involved doctrinal questions of grave impor
tance, which were discussed and decided by the Roman, Greek,
Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican Churches in separate
Symbols. These Symbols were for the most part theological
treatises rather than decisions of new questions of doctrine.
We have considered in the previous part, Particular Symbol
ics, the origin of the Reformation and its progress, resulting
in the organisation of separate Churches and the adoption of
particular symbols. We must now, on that historical basis,
compare these symbols and study: (1) the principles of the
Reformation common to them; (2) the consensus and dis
sensus as to the Sacraments, and (3) the consensus and dis
sensus as to Faith and Morals.
The symbolical formation did not cease with the Refor
mation itself. In the three great branches of Protestantism
internal controversies arose, which resulted in a second stage
of symbolical formation, where again we have to distinguish
between consensus and dissensus. The conflict began In the
latter part of the sixteenth century and continued till the
middle of the seventeenth century. In this conflict we shaU
have to consider: (1) the consensus and dissensus in connec
tion with the Formula of Concord, of the Lutherans; (2) the
Synod of Dort of the Reformed and the conflicts involved in
its decisions; (3) the Westminster Symbols and the divisions
of British Christianity.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Internal
controversies of Protestantism continued, yet resulted in no
additional symbolic definitions of doctrine, but only in the
revision and condensation of previous symbolic statements.
Therefore our final chapter has only to consider the consensus
of modern Protestantism in connection with modern irenic
movements. The Roman Catholic Church alone has made a symbohcal

INTRODUCTION 253
advance in this last period of Christianity, culminating in the
Vatican Council of 1870. These Symbols we have suffi
ciently considered in the previous part under Particular Sym
bolics* and in their relation to the party In that Church which
could not accept them, but separated as Old Catholics. The
Old Catholics, Greeks, and Protestants did not, however,
make any symbolical definitions over against the Roman
Catholic Symbols, and therefore there is no call for Com
parative Symbohcs in the study of them.
The Faith of the Reformation was built upon the Faith
of the ancient and mediaeval Church in its consensus. The
dissensus sprang out of controversies which arose during the
Middle Ages, but had not reached their solution; and also out
of new questions, which originated out of the circumstances
of the dawn of the modern age of the world.
Western Christianity had its symbolical inheritance from
the ancient and the mediaeval Church. This symbolical in
heritance was accepted without question by the reformers,
Protestant as well as Catholic, at the beginning; and there
was a general desire that the questions of serious Importance,
thrust upon the Church by the circumstances of the times,
might be determined by an ecumenical Council as all pre
vious questions had been. It was not until these questions
loomed up with excessive importance before the reformers
that the new doctrines carried with them modffication, and
in some cases even serious departure, from the symbohc de
cisions of the Middle Ages. But there was not even the
slightest modification of the Trinitarian and Christological
decisions of the primitive Church, except among sects which
were repudiated by all branches of Protestants as well as by
Greece and Rome.
It is common to interpret the Reformation from a Protes
tant point of view, to Identify it with Protestantism, and to
regard the reforming of the Roman Catholic Church as a
counter-Reformation. This is an unphilosophical and un
historical way of considering this great event in history.
* V. pp. 221 seg.

254 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
We shall endeavour to avoid that mistake In this volume.
The fundamental principles of the Reformation were common
to the Protestant Reform and the Roman Cathohc Reform.
The consensus of the Symbols of the Reformation, even as
regards the new doctrines, is much greater than the dissensus;
and it is just In this consensus that the real symbolic advance
of the Christian Church has been made. The same essential
situation will appear in our study of the second symbolical
formation in Protestantism.

CHAPTER II
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION
§ 1. The great religious principle of the Reformation was
the assertion of the necessity of divine authority in matters of
religion. The differences among the reformers were as to the
msdia through which this divine authority comes to man. The
Roman Catholic reformers made the Church the chief medium,
the Protestants the Bible. Only a few radicals thought of the
Reason as the final authority.
The question as to the principles of the Reformation Is
of great Importance. It has been much discussed by many
of the greatest theologians of the past; but, so far as I have
been able to determine, it has always been limited to the
principles of Protestantism. About these, there is still no
agreement. Most think of two principles, some of three,
some of but one.
(1) It is quite common in our day to regard the universal
priesthood of believers as the fundamental principle of the
Reformation. It Is undoubtedly true that the Reformation
revived that ancient Biblical conception, which had been
pushed into the background for many centuries; but this was
not the essential principle, as is evident from several reasons.
(a) The principle of the universal priesthood of believers,
if the stress Is laid on the individual believer as an individ
ual, combining all the functions of priesthood in himself, is
unbiblical and unhistorical. Neither the Roman Catholics
nor the Protestants stand for that. Only a few Anabaptists
would agree with nineteenth-century individualism in that
regard. It is quite true that there is a sense in which all Christians
255

256 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
are priests, as indeed all Israelites were under the Old Cov
enant, in so far as they have immediate access to God — the
people of the Old Covenant as united by circumcision to the
kingdom of God, admitted to the altar of burnt-offering and
to the exercise of private personal religion; the Christian, as
baptised in the name of Christ and the Holy Trinity, and
admitted to the Lord's table, with the privilege of family and
private worship. Both are priests in the same sense, and in
no other. The Church has never denied that baptised Chris
tians are priests In this fundamental sense, whether Catholic,
or Greek, or Protestant. But it is not true that all Chris
tians are equally priests, so as to dispense with a ministering
official priesthood. That is the only question In dispute,
and to that there can be but one answer: that Jesus Christ
and His Apostles instituted an official ministry, to use as
His representatives the functions of prophecy, priesthood,
and royalty, for the people to whom they minister.
Luther, in his address to the Christian Nobility of the Ger
man Nation, used unguarded language on this subject in his
red-hot battle with the Roman hierarchy, which he subse
quently quahfied by his own teaching and acting against the
Anabaptists and against aU the reformers who did not agree
with him; but even Luther, in this address, was careful
enough, when he said that "aU Christians are truly of the
spiritual estate; there is no difference among them," to add
the qualfficatlon, "save of office alone."
Luther's qualffications are often neglected, both those of
the address and those of his subsequent life, by men who wish
to deny the priestly office of the ministry altogether. Bap
tism undoubtedly is a consecration more important and
fundamental than the bishop's consecration, as Luther urges;
but it does not dispense with consecration to the ministerial
office in the Lutheran or in any other Christian Church.
{b) If, however, the principle is understood in Its BIbhcal
and historical sense as implying the royal priesthood of the
Christian Church as an organism, the Roman Catholics and
the Protestants alike are agreed as to that. The difference

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 257
is as to the degree of emphasis put upon it. In fact, neither
body has emphasised it sufficiently.
(c) The battle of the Reformation was not a battle against
the priesthood of the ministry in the interest of the priest
hood of the laity; it was rather a battle against the royal
function of the ministry in the interest of the laity, and it
resulted, all over the Protestant world, In the exaltation of
the State above the Church in government, in royal, and not
in priestly functions.
{d) So far as the Christian ministry is concerned, the Prot
estant Reformation really resulted in the exaltation of the
prophetic function of the ministry from the depreciation Into
which it had fallen in the late Middle Ages. The royal func
tion of the ministry went to the State in its culmination, in
Lutheran Germany, in the consistorial system, in the Church
of England in the royal supremacy, and in the Reformed
Churches in a kind of theocracy, whether we look to Geneva
or New England. The priestly function of the ministry
was not denied in Protestantism, but only depreciated
when the prophetic was exalted above It. Rome, on the
other hand, exalted the priestly function and depreciated
the prophetic, at least so far as the general ministry was
concerned. (2) Neander reduces the difference between Rome and
Protestantism to the simple principle,* Communion with
Christ, either immediate as in Protestantism, or mediate as In
Roman Catholicism. In this he foUows Schleiermacher,
who says that Protestantism "makes the relation of the
individual to the Church dependent on his relation to
Christ; Catholicism, vice versa, makes the relation of the
individual to Christ dependent on his relation to the Church."
{Der Christliche Glaube, I, § 24.)
But Roman CathoUcs indignantly deny that they dis
courage immediate communion with God. Most religious
orders lay stress upon it. The contemplative piety of the
orders is sufficient evidence of it. And it is characteristic
* Katholicismus und Protestantismus, 1863, ss. 30 seg.

258 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
of Mysticism in its mediaeval, as well as its modern forms,
that it urged such communion in every way. Such an
antithesis as Schleiermacher and Neander proposed, cannot
be made out except in a relative emphasis upon one or the
other of the two. So Protestants do not altogether deny
mediate communion with God. They assert that the Church
and Sacraments are means of grace, no less than Roman
Catholics. Undoubtedly the Church before the Reformation had a
religion, consisting to an undue extent in external rites and
ceremonies; and It may well be described as externalism, form
alism, ritualism, ceremonialism, and ecclesiastical works. Piety
had taken refuge to a great extent in pious families and cer
tain devout associations. Undoubtedly the mass of Christen
dom had union and communion with God through the media
tion of the ministry; and immediate communion with God
was confined chiefly to mystics and pious individuals under
their Influence. But the Roman Catholic Reformation, as
well as the Protestant Reformation, changed aU this. And
personal piety was extended by the Roman Catholic Refor
mation no less truly than by the Protestant.
An external religion is not characterised by a multitude
of forms rather than a few, but by an exaggeration of such
forms as it has. A spiritual rehglon is not characterised by
a paucity of forms, but by an emphasis on the spirit In the
use of such forms as it has. The difference between Prot
estantism and the Roman Church is more carefully stated
by Twesten:*
"Cathohcism emphasizes the flrst, Protestantism the sec
ond, clause of the passage of Irenaeus: 'Where the Church Is,
there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is,
there is the Church and all grace.'"
The real difference here is a matter of emphasis, nothing
more. (3) The usual statement as to the principles of the Prot
estant Reformation is that there are two: (a) the material
* V. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 208, n.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 259
principle, Justification by Faith; {b) the formal principle, the
Infallible Authority of the Scriptures.
The Lutherans lay more stress on the former; the Reformed
lay more stress on the latter. Indeed, it is necessary to add
only to both clauses to get a strong antithesis to Rome even
here. For justification by faith and the divine authority
of the Scriptures were never denied by the Roman Catholics.
They contended that the divine authority was in apostolic
tradition as well as in the Scriptures; and that justification
was by love and good works, the fruits of faith, and not by
faith only. Undoubtedly the greatest antithesis is found at
these two points; but they do not cover the whole ground,
and it is historicaUy impossible to make the division between
Protestantism and Rome depend on the word only.
(4) Several scholars add to these two principles a third;
but they differ in defining it.
Kahnis* finds a third Kirchenprindp in the idea of the In
visible Church. There can be no doubt that this became a
characteristic feature of Protestantism; but not so much
more so than other features as to make it a fundamental
principle. It is really a development out of the high Au
gustinianism of Luther and Calvin, and derived from Augus
tine himself, and is not denied by Rome except in its Prot
estant exaggeration.
(5) Schaff recognises a social principle in the supremacy
of the Christian people over an exclusive priesthood.
"There are three fundamental principles of the Reformation: the
supremacy of the Scriptures over tradition, the supremacy of faith over
works, and the supremacy of the Christian people over an exclusive
priesthood." Schaff then goes further and resolves his three principles
into one: " evangelical freedom, or freedom in Christ." '\ This
is the principle of the universal priesthood of believers in a
* tfber die Principien d. Protestantismus, 1865, ss. 52 seg.
t History of the Christian Church, vol. VI, The German Reformation,
p. 16.

260 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
modernised form; but in this form it is open to even greater
objections, because neither in the Lutheran nor in the Angli
can Reformation had the Christian people any supremacy
whatever. Supremacy was in the civil government. This
principle would have to be stated rather in the form of the
supremacy of the crown over the Church. But in that form,
in which alone it is true, who could accept it as a principle
of the Reformation? There was no such freedom for in
dividuals in any Church of the Reformation, but only a free
dom for governments from the dominion of Rome. The
Protestant governments gave the individual "evangelical
freedom" if he accepted the Gospel as authoritatively deter
mined by them, but not otherwise. The Calvlnist had no
freedom in Lutheran lands, the Presbyterian no freedom in
England, the Anabaptists no freedom anywhere. To caU
such freedom evangelical freedom, or freedom in Christ, is to
put modern American ideas of freedom in religion into the
Protestantism of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
where they had no place.
Schaff, however, brings to the front an important differ
ence between the Lutheran and the Swiss.
"As regards justification by faith, Luther made it the article of the
standing or falling Church; while Zwingli and Calvin subordinated
it to the ulterior truth of eternal foreordination by free grace." *
Upon this I have remarked: "Redemption by the divine grace alone
is the banner principle of the Reformed Churches, designed to exclude
the uncertainty and arbitrariness attached to all human instrumental
ities and external agencies. As the banner principle of the Lutheran
Reformation was justification by faith alone, excluding any merit or
agency of human works, so the Calvinistic principle excluded any in
herent efficacy, in human nature or in external remedies, for over
coming the guilt of sin and working redemption. In these two prin
ciples lie the chief merits and the chief defects of the two great Churches
of the Reformation. Intermediate between these principles, of faith
alone, and grace alone, lies a third principle, which is the divine Word
alone. This principle has been emphasized in the Reformation of
Great Britain and especially in the Puritan Churches. The Word of
God has been called the formal principle of Protestantism over against
* History of Christian Church, VII, Swiss Reformation, p. 10.

THE PRINCIPLES OP THE REFORMATION 261
faith alone, the material principle; and it has been said that the Re
formed Churches have laid more stress upon the formal principle, while
the Lutheran Churches have laid more stress upon the material prin
ciple. This does not, in our judgment, correspond with the facts of
the case. Rather is it true that in the three great Churches of the
Reformation the three principles, faith, grace and the divine Word
were emphasized; but these Churches differed in the relative impor
tance they ascribed to one of these three principles of the Reformation
in its relation to the other two. The Word of God is the intermediate
principle where faith and grace meet. The Word of God gives faith
its appropriate object. The Word of God is the appointed instrument,
or means of grace." — {General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scrip
ture, pp. 651-2.)
We may conclude, therefore, that the fundamental re
ligious principle of Protestantism, in which all unite, is that
the Bible is the chief medium of divine authority and grace.
They could not go further because they were obliged to
claim divine authority for the Church in the ordination of the
ministry, the administration of the sacraments, the worship
and organisation of the Church. But this authority was
derived from God through the Scriptures, which were re
garded as alone infallible.
(6) The Reformation was, however, wider than Protes
tantism. Roman Catholics considered the same great prob
lems; and, while they came to somewhat different conclu
sions, yet they did advance reform in religion and doctrine
in their own way.
There can be no -doubt that the Roman Catholics ad
vanced the Church as the chief fountain of divine authority
and grace without at all denying that the Scriptures had
also these functions fundamentally and originally. They
did not claim that the Church had any authority to contra
dict or displace any Scripture; but only to explain, unfold,
and adapt the authority of Scripture as circumstances re
quired. (7) Protestants and Catholics agree In exalting divine au
thority, and requiring a jus divinum for everything in re
hglon, to such an extent as had never been the case before

262 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
In Christian history. This insistence upon the divine au
thority of itself destroyed a multitude of evils and introduced
a multitude of reforms. The simple question: What is the
will of Godf whether asked by Protestant or Cathohc, was a
great destroyer of intellectual and moral cobwebs. And
in practice the antithesis could never be so sharp as the
mere words imply. The Cathohc could never put the
Bible over against the Church. He was obliged to say Bible
and Church. Only the Protestant could make the antith
esis; and the Protestant could do so only by distinguishing
between the true Church and the false, or the visible and
the invisible Church. In practice the Protestant Churches
could not antagonise the Bible with the Church without
thereby destroying their own Churches. They were com
pelled to recognise the authority of the Church in inter
preting the Bible as truly as the Roman Catholic. They
recognised fallibility; but that was theoretical rather than
practical, for, even if fallible, Protestant ecclesiastical au
thorities were just as ready to burn, drown, hang, and banish
heretics as were the Roman Cathohc authorities of an in
fallible Church. Practically it made no difference whatever
to the common man, who at the close of the sixteenth
century changed his religion as he did his cloak, as the ec
clesiastical weather changed. And that was also the case
with the majority of the pastors of village congregations, who
were more interested In the welfare of their flocks and them
selves than in doctrinal and institutional differences. This
may be regarded as indifference to the importance of these
great questions. But underlying all these differences is the
fundamental question whether they are. Indeed, more Im
portant than the peace and welfare of the people, and the
interests of practical religion.
§ 2. The Protestants and Romanists agreed in maintaining
the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures.
Luther, at the Diet of Worms, made this his fundamental
position.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 263
"Nisi convictus fuero testimoniis Scripturarum, aut ratione evidente
(nam neque Papae, neque Conciliis soils credo, cum constet eos errasse
ssepius et sibi ipsis contradixisse), victus sum Scripturis a me adductis,
captaque est conscientia in verbis Dei: revocare neque possum neque
volo quidquam, cum contra conscientiam agere neque tutum sit, neque
integrum. Hie stehe ich. Ich kan nicht anders. Gott helff mir. Amen." *
The Augsburg Confession does not give a chapter, or even
a section, to the Scripture; but it is pervaded throughout
with an appeal to the Gospel as the supreme test of truth
and right. The Formula of Concord (1576) flrst defines the
Lutheran faith In the Scriptures.
The Reformed Confessions begin with the doctrine of the
supreme authority of the Scriptures: so the Sixty-seven
Articles of Zwingli, the Ten Theses of Bern, the First Hel
vetic, the Second Helvetic, and so on, the great majority of
them. They are concerned to appeal to the Scriptures
against the Roman Church.
But the Roman Church no less asserts the supreme au
thority of Holy Scripture:
"Following the example of the orthodox Fathers, (the Synod) re
ceives and venerates, with an equal affection of piety and reverence, all
the books both of the Old and of the New Testament — seeing that one
God is the Author of both." — (Council of Trent, Sess. 4.)
There is no difference whatever between the Churches at
this point.
§ 3. The Roman Catholics adhered to the traditional Au
gustinian Canon, the Protestants to the traditional Hieronym-
ian Canon. The Protestants distinguished between the Ca
nonical and the Apocryphal Books, and used the latter for
instruction, but not as divinely authoritative; the Roman Catho
lics made no distinction between them.
The Augsburg Confession does not define the Canon
of Scripture. The traditional Lutheran position does not
differ from the Reformed except In using the Apocryphal
*Kidd, Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation, 1911,
p. 85,

264 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
Books with greater respect and veneration. The Reformed
Churches define the Canon as excluding the Apocrypha.
The Anglican Church does the same.*
The original position of all the reformers was, to use the
language of the Anglican Articles, that the Apocrypha should
be read " for example of life and instruction of manners, but
yet doth it not apply to them to establish any doctrine."
It was not until later times that the Puritans altogether
ruled out the Apocrypha as of no more authority than
other human writing.!
Thus for the first time by this fixing of the Canon of
Scripture the Church restricted liberty of opinion on this sub
ject. The Roman Catholics were now bound to accept the
Apocryphal Books as divine; the Protestants were bound to
reject them from the Canon. The question naturally arose:
What authority is there to define the Canon? The Roman
Catholics said: God in the Church. The Protestants said:
God Himself, speaking in the Scriptures themselves. But
who Is to determine the voice of God In the Scriptures?
Shall every Christian make his own Canon? Or shall the
Church determine that question? The Protestant Churches
reached practically the same position as the Roman Cathohc;
for they defined and limited the Canon as it had never been
limited before, and made their authoritative decisions bind
ing upon all, ministers and people. The only real difference
was that the Roman Catholics claimed the right of the
Church to decide and define, and they did it: the Prot
estants denied the right of the Church to define, and yet
they did it. Both alike destroyed the liberty of opinion that
had been In the Church before.J
§ 4. Tradition was recognised by Roman Catholics as of
primitive divine authority when expressed in the unanimous
*II Helvetic, 1'; Belgic Conf. 6; Articles of Religion, 6.
t Cf. Westminster Confession, V.
t V. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, pp.
141 seg., 164 seg.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 265
consent of the Fathers and apostolic in character, but was ruled
out from the realm of divine authority by all Protestants, who
would only recognise it as authoritative so far as it agreed with
Holy Scripture.
The Augsburg Confession, in Article I, asserts faith in the
Nicene Creed just as truly as the Council of Trent in its first
Decree. So do the Articles of Religion (VIII), the French
Confession (V), and other Symbols of the Reformation.
The antagonism to tradition was not to ancient tradition
but to more recent tradition against the Word of God. The
Protestants observed traditions which were not harmful.*
The French Confession is more hostile to traditlon.f The
Anglican Articles assert the sufficiency of Scripture. And
yet reverence for the first three centuries, and even for
the first six centuries, has persisted in the Church of Eng
land to the present tlme.J In fact, much was retained of
tradition, at the Reformation, not in Scripture. Is the value
of tradition to be limited to what Scripture verffies? or has
tradition an independent value, so far as it does not conflict
with Scripture?
The Roman Catholic position recognises oral apostolic
tradition as co-ordinate in authority with written Scripture.§
Roman Catholics do not recognise any conflict between Tra
dition and Scripture. Any seeming conflict is explained in
precisely the same way as seeming conflict between different
passages of Scripture. The usual Protestant antithesis,
Bible against Tradition, or Tradition making void the Bible,
the Roman Catholics do not recognise as valid.
Both sides are agreed that any traditions that are contrary
to the Bible should be rejected. The question as to any par
ticular tradition is either a question of fact or one of interpre
tation. Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree in that
Roman Cathohcs attribute an independent authority to tra-
* 7. Augsh. Conf. I, 22; II, 5; I Helvetic, 3, 4.
t Gallican, 5; cf. Belgic, 7.
% Ai-ticle VI; cf. Formula of Concord, Epitome 1.
j Cone. Trent. Sess. 4.

266 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
dition supplementary to Scripture and in matters where
Scripture does not speak. Protestants regard this testimony
as simply historical, which they may accept or reject, as
seems best In any particular case, from other reasons than
that of any authority in the tradition itself. Protestantism
is not altogether consistent in this regard.
(1) The Bible does not, In fact, give us all that the Prot
estants thought that they found in it. Accordingly, when
the Puritans in England insisted upon chapter and verse
of the Bible for every doctrine and institution of the Church,
they challenged many institutions of the Church of England,
and insisted upon a revision of the Book of Common Prayer
and Articles of Religion into a closer conformity with Scrip
ture; that is, in fact, into a closer conformity with the Re
formed Churches of the Continent. The English Parliament
brought the Westminster Assembly into confusion, when they
demanded a jus divinum for their recommendations, espe
cially that of the right to exclude from the Eucharist.*
Later the Congregationalists challenged the Episcopal and
Presbyterian forms of government as not based on Scripture.
The Baptists chaUenged Infant baptism. The Fifth Mon
archy men tried to realise the kingdom of God on earth. And
thus the numerous non-conforming churches and parties of
Great Britain arose by pressing the Scripture principle as
the only valid authority. But even these bodies still main
tained many things that have no authority in the Scriptures
by any valid interpretation of them. The appeal to Scrip
ture alone, if thoroughly carried out, destroys all existing
Churches according to the interpretation of scholars in other
Churches. (2) All Protestants use apostolic traditions for institutions
which cannot be explained from the Bible. Modern scholar
ship has made it impossible to build on Scripture alone, and
it is only a question of degree how far any existing church
organisation uses the principle of tradition.
(3) All Protestants accept the ancient Creeds, and also
* V. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp. 66 seq.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 267
the doctrines of sin and grace of Augustine, and of the atone
ment of Anselm. Here again liberty of opinion was re
stricted by both parties, as we shall see later on. The Prot
estant bodies supposed, and rightly so, that these doctrines
were based upon and confirmed by Ploly Scripture. At the
same time, these doctrines were accepted and defined in the
terms and interpretations of the Creeds and the Fathers,
thereby adding tradition to Scripture.
§ 5. The Roman Catholics declared that the Church was
the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. The Protestants de
clared that Scripture was its own interpreter to the right-minded.
The Council of Trent takes this position:
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees, that
no one, relying on his own skill, shall, — in matters of Faith and of
Morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, — wresting
the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, —
whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy
Scriptures, — hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unan
imous consent of the Fathers." (Sess. 4.)
The insistence of Luther that his conscience could only be
bound by Scripture itself and not by the decision of Councils,
invokes the principle that Scripture Interprets itself to the
pious man. This is distinctly taught In the First Helvetic
Confession. "This holy, divine Scripture is not to be in
terpreted and explained in any other way than from itself,
by the rule of faith and love." (Art. 2.)
The Protestant position was not, in fact, maintained; be
cause no national Church permitted the individual to inter
pret the Scripture for himself. All Churches gave official
interpretations of Scripture in their Confessions of Faith,
which all men in the nation were required to maintain. And
so the Protestant ecclesiastical bodies gave official interpreta
tions of Scripture no less than the Roman Catholic. Luther,
Calvin, Beza, Cranmer were as insistent that their interpre-

268 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
tations of Scripture were the only correct ones as were the
Roman Catholic bishops and the Pope.
The Protestant principle that the Scripture was its own
interpreter, and that doubtful passages were to be Interpreted
in accordance with those that were not doubtful, is most
exceUent. But who shall decide as to these passages? In
fact, both Protestants and Roman Catholics are right; and'
their principles are complementary and not exclusive. We
must recognise that, while Scripture ordinarily interprets
itself to the right-minded, yet this is not always the case; and
that the final decision must rest with the Church and not
with the individual, provided the Church does not decide
against truth and righteousness.
§ 6. Protestants and Roman Catholics agreed in holding to
the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that that
Church was possessed of divine authority for the work of the
ministry and the administration of the sacraments. They
differed as to the organisation of the Church and the functions
of the ministry.
Luther in his Appeal to the Christian Nobility says:
"I let alone Pope, bishops, foundations, priests, and monks, whom
God hath not instituted. ... I will speak of the office of pastor, which
God hath instituted to rule a community with preaching and sacra
ments." The Augsburg Confession says:
"But the Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel
is rightly taught, and the sacraments rightly administered." (7, cf. 8.)
"No man should pubhcly in the Church teach, or administer the
sacraments, except he be rightly called." (14.)
"The power of the keys, or the power of the Bishops, by the rule of
the Gospel, is a power or commandment from God, of preaching the
Gospel, of remitting or retaining sins, and of administering the sac
raments." "Again, by the Gospel, or, as they term it, by divine right. Bishops,
as Bishops . . . have no other jurisdiction at all, but only to remit

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 269
sin, also to judge in regard to doctrine, and to reject doctrine inconsist
ent with the Gospel, and to exclude from the communion of the Church,
without human force, but by the Word [of God], those whose wickedness
is known. And herein of necessity the churches ought by divine right
to render obedience unto them; according to the saying of Christ, 'He
that heareth you, heareth me' (Luke 10^*). But when they teach or
determine any thing contrary to the Gospel, then have the churches a
commandment of God, which forbiddeth obedience to them: 'Beware
of false prophets' (Mt. 7'^)."
"Besides these things, there is a controversy whether Bishops or
Pastors have power to institute ceremonies in the Church, and to make
laws concerning meats, and holidays, and degrees, or orders of min
isters, etc. They that ascribe this power to the Bishops allege this
testimony for it: 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can
not bear them now; but when that Spirit of truth shall come, He shall
teach you all truth' (John 16''' "). They allege also the examples of
the Apostles, who commanded to abstain from blood, and that which
was strangled (Acts 15^'). They allege the change of the Sabbath into
the Lord's Day, contrary, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue; and they
have no example more in their mouths than the change of the Sabbath.
They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it
hath dispensed with a precept of the Decalogue.
"But of this question ours do thus teach: that the Bishops have no
power to ordain anything contrary to the Gospel. . . . The same also do
the Canons teach."
"Whence, then, have the Bishops power and authority of imposing
these traditions upon the churches, for the ensnaring of men's con
sciences, when Peter forbids (Acts 15'°) 'to put a yoke upon the neck
of the disciples,' and St. Paul says (II Cor. 13'°) that the power given
him was to edification, not to destruction? Why, therefore, do they
increase sins by these traditions?" (Part II, Art. 7.)
The real question here was not as to the authority of the
bishops to institute ceremonies and impose traditions upon
the Church, or as to whether they could ordain anything
contrary to the Gospels.
The question was one of detail, whether certain ceremonies
and traditions were contrary to the Gospel or not, and where
the authority was lodged for determining this question. The
real situation was that the bishops had not sufficiently studied

270 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
the Gospels to be able to judge, and the Protestants had
studied the Gospels and found them condemning the bishops.
How was the decision to be made? By the Pope, or General
Council of the Roman Cathohc Church, or by national re
forming Churches, or by the Individual himself?
The Doctrine of the Church of the Reformed Churches is
higher than that of the Lutherans, especially in their teach
ing under the influence of Calvin,* who distinguishes be
tween the visible and the Invisible Church, and between the
true Church and the false.
"As to the true Church we believe that it should be governed accord
ing to the order established by our Lord Jesus Christ."— ((raZ/icore, 29.)
"We believe and profess one Cathohc or universal Church, which is
a holy congregation and assembly of true Christian believers." . . .
"This Church hath been from the beginning of the world and will be
to the end thereof; which is evident from this, that Christ is an eternal
King."— {Belgic, 27.)
"We believe that this true Church must be governed by the spiritual
policy which our Lord hath taught us in His Word — namely, that there
must be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God, and to admin
ister the sacraments; also elders and deacons who, together with the
pastors, form the council of the Church." (30.)
It was just because of the high ideal of the Calvinistic con
ception of the Church that the conflict subsequently arose
in Great Britain over the divine right of Church govern
ment and what kind of government Christ instituted for
His Church; whereas the Lutherans left the government of
the Church for the most part to the civil government.
The Anglicans preserve the threefold ministry. The Re
formed assert the parity of the ministry. The Lutherans
vary in their church organisation in different countries, using
superintendents or bishops, but these not as a separate order.t
The Council of Trent treats of the ministry under the sac
rament of order.t
* I Helvetic, 15-20; II Helvetic, 17-18; Gallican, 25-32; Belgic, 27-32.
t This matter will be considered in connection with the conflicts of
British Christianity and the Westminster Confession.
t Sess. 23.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 271
Two things are mentioned in the Decrees of Trent as be
longing to priesthood: (1) the power of consecrating, offering,
and administering the body and blood of our Lord; (2) the
forgiving and retaining of sins.
Put this over against the Protestant function — the teach
ing of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacra
ments — and It is evident that the prophetic office Is empha
sised by Protestants, the priestly by Roman Cathohcs. The
antithesis appears in the Council of Trent, as follows:
"If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament a visible
and external priesthood; or, that there is not any power of consecrating
and offering the true body and blood of the Lord, and of forgiving and
retaining sins, but only an office and bare ministry of preaching the
Gospel; or, that those who do not preach are not priests at all: let him
be anathema." (Sess. 23, Canon 1.)
"If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hier
archy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and
ministers: let him be anathema." (Canon 6.)
Order is a sacrament to Roman Catholics, but not to
Protestants, who regard it as a sacred institution of Christ,
essential to the existence of the Church, yet not as having
the characteristics of a sacrament. This we shall consider
more fully under the head of the sacraments.
§ 7. Roman Catholics and Protestants alike recognised the
office of the Reason. The one claimed that it should bow to the
authority of the Church, the other to the Bible. Only some of
the Anabaptists and Socinians gave the inner light of the Rea
son an authority independent of Church and Bible.
Luther's conscience was bound in the authority of the
Bible. As he said at Worms:
"Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures,
or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the councils
alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted
themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and
my conscience is bound in the Word of God: — I cannot and will not recant

272 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the
conscience." Luther recognises " clear arguments," when evidently based
on the Holy Scriptures, Interpreting and explaining them. He
also recognises the authority of conscience; not, however, as
independent of Scripture, testing Scripture, as if the Bible
were like the Church, fallible, but as convinced and con
quered by Scripture. Luther's real attitude to the Reason
comes out in his conflict with Zwingll and the Anabaptists.
At the Marburg Conference he "protested at the outset
against arguments derived from reason and geometry." "I
believe," said Luther, "that Christ Is In heaven, but also in
the sacrament, as substantially as He was in the Virgin's
womb. I care not whether it be against nature and reason,
provided it be not against Faith." *
So the Roman Catholics, while recognising the Reason
and the Conscience, did not admit their right to determine
whether the teaching of the Church was in error or not.
Even the Anabaptists, who urged the Inner Light, and the
Soclnians, who emphasised the Reason in religion, did not
formulate their doctrine of the Reason Into an Independent
principle of knowledge. It was reserved for the eighteenth
century in the conflict of Christianity against Deism, Ra
tionalism, Pantheism, and Atheism, to determine the au
thority of the Reason in matters of religion.
In fact, it was necessary to bring the Reason Into its inde
pendent authority in order to avoid the antithesis between
the Bible and the Church, which the Reformation developed.
The subordination of the Reason to the Bible or the Church
was a mistake of both sides of the Reformation.
The reconciliation is In the recognition of the three inde
pendent fountains of divine authority — the Bible, the Church,
and the Reason. Each one of these may give final authority
and certainty. But they each and all need interpretation;
and it is just this interpretation that is fallible.
Where there is difficulty of interpretation, appeal to the
* V. Schaff, German Reformation, pp. 640 seg.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION 273
witness of the other two, and In their coincidence secure the
final decision.*
It follows from this that private interpretations of Scrip
ture should be submitted to the consensus of Interpretation
of the Church, and that private opinion should be carefully
distinguished from the verdicts of Reason. The concord of
Bible, Church, and Reason should be sought in the deter
mination of Faith and Morals.f
It is evident that those moderns who reject both the au
thority of the Church and the authority of the Bible In mat
ters of Religion have ceased to be Protestants, for they have
given up the fundamental Protestant principle. He who
builds his religion on the Reason, as it works itself out in his
experience in the use of his reasoning powers, his religious
feehngs and the will, may be a Christian, If he still adheres to
those things that are essential to Christianity; but he cer
tainly is outside Protestantism and Christianity Itself In his
theoretical position, though he may really belong to both by
using their institutions and the grace of God that comes to
him in their use, despite his errors of opinion and mistaken
practices. * V. Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture, pp. 26 seq.; Bible, Church, and
Reason, pp. 30 seq.; Defence, pp. 31 seg. The Vatican Council gives
an excellent statement of the concord of Faith and Reason, which we
have considered in our study of that Council.
t V. the chapter on Infallibility in my volume on Church Unity.

CHAPTER III
THE SACRAMENTS
Our study of the origin and progress of the Reformation
in Particular Symbolics made It evident that the primary and
fundamental differences between the reformers, Roman
Catholic and Protestant, were with reference to Christian In
stitutions, especially the Sacraments. The differences as to
Faith and Morals were really secondary, and arose out of the
institutional differences. Undoubtedly, Faith* and Morals
are more important than Institutions; but they cannot be
understood in their historic origin and in the comparative
study of the differences unless we discuss first the Sacraments
out of which they arose. Therefore, we must depart from the
usual a priori order, and use the historic and more natural
order. § 1. The Roman Catholics asserted the mediceval seven sac
raments; the Protestants usually only two. Baptism and the
Lord's Supper, although Confirmation and Penance were by
some regarded as sacramental in character. Orders, matrimony,
and unction were rwt recognised as sacraments by any of the
Protestants. The Augsburg Confession implicitly denies the seven in
limiting itself to the two. Luther, in The Babylonian Cap
tivity of the Church, recognised three sacraments: baptism,
penance, and the Lord's Supper, and argues against the sac
ramental character of the other four.
"Principio neganda mihi sunt septem Sacramenta, et tantum tria
pro tempore ponenda, baptismus, poenitentia, panis; et hsec omnia esse
274

THE SACRAMENTS 275
per Romanam Curiam nobis in miserabilem captivitatem ducta, Ec-
clesiamque sua tota libertate spoliatam."
Most Protestants recognise only two sacraments.*
§ 2. It was agreed that the Sacraments have form and mat
ter and require a receptive faith; the form being the word of in
stitution, which alone is efficacious; the matter being the exter
nal things used, or the exterrml act performed. The difference
is that the Roman Catholics assert that the sacraments are effi
cacious "ex opere operato"; the Protestants that they are signs
and seals of the working of the divine Spirit.f
All agree in Augustine's doctrine: "A sacrament is a visible
sign of an invisible grace. . . . The word is joined to the element,
and it becomes a sacrament." % They disagree as to the rela
tion of the divine grace to the Word of Institution. The Ro
man Cathohcs hold that when the word of institution has
been spoken, the authority and power of the divine grace are
gone forth into the Sacrament and through it to the re
cipient; and he will certainly receive and enjoy the sacra
ment, unless there are in him insuperable obstacles to its
reception. This does not mean that the word of institution
is efficacious of itself and apart from the divine Spirit; but,
as the Roman Catechism says:
"We know by the light of faith, that in the sacraments exists the
virtue of almighty God, by which they effect what the natural elements
cannot of themselves accomphsh." (Quest. 21.)
The Roman Catholics recognise that there may be in
superable obstacles in man himself to his receiving sacra
mental grace. Thus the Roman Catechism :
"Yet if we regard sanctifying £ind saving grace, we are all well aware
that by him who purposes to live according to the flesh, and not
* Cf. I Helvetic, 21; Gallican, 35; Articles of Religion, 25; Council of
Trent, Sess. 7.
t V. Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Canons 6-8; Augsburg Confession, 13;
I Helvetic, 21; Gallican, 38; Anglican Articles, 25.
t De Civitate Dei, IW ; in Joan, tract. 80.

276 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
according to the Spirit, baptism is received in vain and is void."
(Quest. 39.)
"For as natural food can be of no use to the dead, so in like manner
the sacred mysteries can evidently nothing avail that soul which lives
not by the Spu-it." (Quest. 48.)
The Roman Catholics make the sacraments means through
which the divine grace works upon the believer; they contain
grace, they confer grace.
Luther in his Catechism says:
"It is not water, indeed, that does it, but the Word of God, which
is with and in the water, and faith, which trusts in the Word of God in
the water. For without the Word of God the water is nothing but
water, and no baptism: but with the Word of God it is a baptism."
(Part 4'.)
"Eating and drinking, indeed, do not do them, but the words which
stand here: 'Given and shed for you, for the remission of sins.' Which
words, besides the bodily eating and drinking, are the main point in
the sacrament; and he who believes these words has that which they
declare and mean, namely, forgiveness of sins." (Part 5; ef. also
Gallican Confess. 38.)
One of the best statements is that of the Westminster Con
fession. " The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used,
is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a
sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth admin
ister it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution,
which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a
promise of benefit to worthy receivers." (27^.)
There is a spiritual relation or sacramental union between
the sign and the thing signified. That is the Protestant po
sition. Roman Catholics assert that the word of institution
carries with it and conveys the work of the divine Spirit to
those who use the Sacrament, and are not possessed by in
vincible obstacles to its reception. When the two positions
are defined, it is evident that they are different explanations
of the fact agreed to by both, that the sacraments are real

THE SACRAMENTS 277
means of grace to the worthy recipient. Nothing more should
ever have been demanded by either as an article of faith.
The Protestant position is especially open to attack in the
Sacrament of Baptism. The early Protestants all main
tained baptismal regeneration. Calvinists later confined It
to elect infants, and still later spiritual regeneration was
separated in time from the ceremony of baptism. But
these later changes in the Calvinistic position do not re
move the difficulties. Several questions emerge :
(1) Are the words of institution efficacious of themselves?
It Is agreed that the words are efficacious only as Instituted
by Christ, as bearing with them His authority; and also as
having In them, according to His promise, the power of the
divine Spirit. The practical difference Is whether the power
of grace is in the word of institution or with it as accompany
ing It.
(2) Are the words efficacious apart from the intention to
administer the sacrament? All agree that the intention of
the minister cannot obstruct the Intention of the Church,
whose minister he is, provided he uses the formulas of the
Church. If, however, he act as an individual, apart from
the Church, and without using her forms, his intention may
destroy the sacrament.
(3) Are they efficacious apart from a worthy recipient?
All agree that there must be no sufficient obstruction In the
recipient. He must have the Christian's faith, confessed by
himself, or, if an infant, by parent, godfathers, or god
mothers. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants agree to
this. Thus the Formula of Concord :
"Moreover, as concerns the consecration, we believe, teach, and con
fess that no human work, nor any utterance of the minister of the
Church, is the cause of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in
the Supper; but that this is to be attributed to the omnipotent power of
our Lord Jesus Christ alone. Nevertheless, we believe, teach, and con
fess by unanimous consent, that in the use of the Lord's Supper, the
words of the institution of Christ are by no means to be omitted, but
are to be publicly recited, as it is written, I Cor. 10'". . . . This bene
diction takes place by the recitation of the words of Christ." (72-^.)

278 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
§ 3. The Sacrament of Baptism was agreed to by all as
having the element of water, and the form, " I baptize thee in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
All agreed to infant as well as adult baptism. The differences
were as to other ceremonies connected with baptism, which the
Roman Catholics regarded as important, but not essential, and
which the Protestants rejected in whole or in part as supersti
tious. All regarded the faith of parents, or of the Church, as
competent for the faith of infants.*
Luther abolished the use of salt, spittle, and oil, but re
tained exorcism in an abridged form.
The Second Helvetic (20^) rejects all ceremonies. The
Anglicans retain the signing with the cross, objected to by
Puritans. It is true that the radicals of the Reformation, many of
them, objected to infant baptism and Insisted upon the hm-
itation of baptism to adults. They rebaptised infants, and
so were called Anabaptists. But these sects were outside
Historical Christianity and this doctrine does not appear in
Christian Symbols till the seventeenth century.
§ 4. Confirmation was the second sacrament in the mediceval
system. The Roman Catholics retain it as a sacrament, many
Protestant Churches as a sacred ceremony. Those which re
tain the episcopate regard confirmation as an episcopal pre
rogative. The Lutheran and Reformed Churches confirm by
the Presbyter, as does the Greek.
The Council of Trent hmlts itself to the maintenance that
confirmation is a sacrament, and that the ordinary minister of
it is the bishop. The Roman Catechism unfolds the Roman
doctrine.f The matter of confirmation is, according to Roman Cath
olics, chrism, an ointment, composed of oil and balsam, con
secrated for the purpose by a bishop.
* Compare Augsburg Confession, 9; Gallican, 35; Articles, 27; Belgic,
34; Westminster, 28'-".
t Sess. 12, Canons 1-3.

THE SACRAMENTS 279
The form is: "7 sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I
confirm thee with the chrism of salvation in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Chapter 3,
Quest. 2.)
In the Greek Church the form is: " The seal of the gift of the
Holy Spirit."*
In the Anglican Church the bishop lays his hand on the
head of every one to be confirmed, with the words:
"Defend, 0 Lord, this Thy child {servant) with Thy heavenly
grace, that he may continue Thine forever, and daily increase
in Thy Holy Spirit more and more, until he come unto Thy
everlasting kingdom."
The Lutheran and Reformed Churches simply have the
laying on of hands with a sentence and prayer.
Under the influence of Bucer a form was Introduced into
Hesse,t and Strasburg: "Receive the Holy Ghost, safeguard and
shelter against all malice, strength and help toward all good,
from the gracious hand of God the Father."
This usage went into Austria and other Churches of the
Reformation, and Is sacramental in character. The prevail
ing opinion, however, in both the Lutheran and the Re
formed Churches was that confirmation was only a ceremony
attesting the faith of those who had completed their cate
chetical training In preparation for the Lord's Supper.|
A third theory of confirmation is that it Is governmental
in character, admitting the catechumen to the full privileges
of church membership. §
The antagonism is clear from the Canons on Confirmation
of the Council of Trent.
"If any one saith, that the confirmation of those who have been bap
tized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament; or
that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, whereby they
who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face
of the Church: let him be anathema."
* Orthodoxa Confessio, Quest. 105; Larger Catechism, 308.
t Kirchenordnung, 1539. % V. Calvin's Institutes, IV : 17.
j Kliefoth, Die Confirmation, Liturgische Abhand. Ill, ss. 83 seg.

280 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
"If any one saith, that they who ascribe any virtue to the sacred
chrism of confirmation, offer an outrage to the Holy Ghost: let him
be anathema."
"If any one saith, that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation
is not the bishop alone, but any simple priest soever : let him be anath
ema." (Session 7, On Confirmation, Canons 1-3.)
Confirmation In the ancient Church and in the Greek
Church at present Is closely connected with baptism. It has
attached to It the laying on of hands, based on apostolic
practice, and unction, wliich arose In the second century In
connection with baptism,* based on the use of unction as a
consecrating material in the Old Testament. The separa
tion of baptism from confirmation in the West was due to
the feeling that the laying on of hands and unction were
episcopal functions, influenced also by the acts of confirma
tion of the apostles in the narrative of Acts in connection
with the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic
Church retained unction as sufficient; the Reformed Churches
reverted to the laying on of hands.
The ceremony of confirmation In the narrative of Acts was
an apostolic function, which foUowed baptism performed by
others than the apostles.
The Samaritans had been baptised, but did not receive the
Holy Spirit until confirmed by Peter and John by the laying
on of hands.f When those converted at Ephesus were bap
tised, Paul laid his hands upon them and they received the
Holy Spirit, t On the day of Pentecost and at Caesarea the
Holy Ghost came upon the hearers before the baptism; but
the baptism immediately followed, and, although no mention
is made of the laying on of hands, it is probable as In the
other two cases. § Thus, while usually the confirmation was
closely connected with baptism, yet, according to the two
passages given, it was an apostolic function to confirm, and
it was deferred in the case of the baptised at Samaria until
the arrival of the apostles. This justifies the separation of
* TertuUian, de baptismo, VII; cf. Cyril, Mystagogicae Catech. Ill, 2-6.
t Acts 8" »««• t Acts 19' ««• § Acts 2'-^, 10"-*«.

THE SACRAMENTS 281
the two ceremonies by the Church, especially in the case of
infants. § 5. The chief sacramental confiict of the Reformation was
as to the Eucharist. There was agreement that it was the chief
sacrament of the New Testament, that its matter was bread and
wine, that its form was the words of institution, and that
only the faithful enjoyed real communion with Christ. The
difference was as to tJie mode of the presence of Christ in the
Eucharist. The Roman Catholics maintained that transub
stantiation was a proper explanation of the church doctrine of
conversion. Luther denied transubstantiation and held to con-
substantiation, the Zwinglians to spiritual presence only, Cal
vin to a substantial presence to faith only.
The Roman Catholic doctrine is distinctly stated in the
Decree of the Council of Trent.
"By the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is
made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body
of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic
Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." (Sess. 13'';
cf. Canons 1-4.)
The Lutheran view is as follows:
"Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the (true) body and blood
of Christ are truly present (under the form of bread and wine), and are
(there) communicated to those that eat in the Lord's Supper." — {Augs
burg Confession, Art. 10.)
"It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the
bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and to drink, as it was
instituted by Christ Himself." — (Luther's Little Catechism, Pt. V.)
"We believe, teach, and confess that in the Lord's Supper the body
and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that they
are truly distributed and taken together with the bread and wine."
— {Form, of Concord, Art. 7, Affirm. 1.)
"We reject and condemn . . . : The papistical transubstantia
tion, when, to wit, in the Papal Church it is taught that the bread and
wine in the holy Supper lose their substance and natural essence, and
are thus annihilated, and those elements so transmuted into the body
of Christ, that, except the outward species, nothing remains of them."
— {Form, of Concord, Art. 7, Negative, 1.)

282 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The Lutheran view is called Consubstantiation because it
holds to the coexistence of two distinct and Independent
substances sacramentally united In the Eucharist. This does
not imply impanation, or the inclusion of the one substance
within the other, but the sacramental presence of the one
substance with the other.
Zwingll and the Swiss especiaUy attacked the Idolatry
connected with the mass, and they were unwiUing to admit
the presence of anything divine In the Eucharist that could
be worshipped. They asserted that the real body of our
Lord was in heaven and could not be in a number of different
places on earth. At the Marburg Conference the statement
of the agreement and disagreement of the Swiss and Ger
mans Is In the Fifteenth Article.*
Credimus et sentimus omnes de Coma Domini nostri Jesu Christi quod
utraque specie juxta institutionem utendum sit : quod Missa non sit opus
quo alter alteri, defuncto aut viventi, gratiam impetret: quod Sacramentum
Altaris sit Sacramentum veri corporis et sanguinis Jesu Christi, et spiritu-
alis istius veri corporis et sanguinis sumptio prascipue unicuique Christi
ana maxime necessaria. Similiter de usu Sacramenti consentimus quod,
sicut verbum, ita et Sacramentum a Deo traditum et ordinatum sit, id in-
firmas conscientias ad fidem et dilectionem excitet per Spiritum Sanctum.
Etsi autem an verum corpus et sanguis Christi corporaliter in pane et vino
Ccenae Domini prassens sit hoc tempore non concordavimus, tamen una pars
alteri Christianam dilectionem, quantum cuiusque conscientia feret, declar-
abit, et utraque pars Deum omnipotentem diligenter orabit ut nos Spiritu
suo in vera sententia confirmet. Amen.
They agreed as to the divine Institution of the sacrament,
the necessity of partaking of the bread and the wine, conse
crated by the words of institution, of partaking of the sacra
ment in both kinds, of real communion by eating and drink
ing of the flesh and blood of Christ, and as to rejection of the
transubstantiation of the Roman Mass. They could not
agree upon the corporal presence of Christ.
Bucer and Calvin took an intermediate position which was
adopted by all the Reformed Churches and the Church of
England, and which is best stated in the Gallican Confession:
* V. Schaff, German Reformation, p. 646.

THE SACRAMENTS 283
"We confess that the Lord's Supper, which is the second sacrament,
is a witness of the union which we have with Christ, inasmuch as He
not only died and rose again for us once, but also feeds and nourishes us
truly with His flesh and blood; so that we may be one in Him, and that
our life may be in common. Although He be in heaven until He come
to judge all the earth, still we believe that by the secret and incom
prehensible power of His Spirit He feeds and strengthens us with the
substance of His body and of His blood. We hold that this is done
spiritually, not because we put imagination and fancy in the place of
fact and truth, but because the greatness of this mystery exceeds the
measure of our senses and the laws of nature. In short, because it is
heavenly, it can only be apprehended by faith." (36.)
This view recognises a real substantial presence of the body
of Christ, but to faith, not to the senses; not a mere spiritual
presence or presence of the spirit of Christ, but a presence of
the whole Christ, body and spirit, to the behever, who dis
cerns Him by faith.*
As Schaff says:
" Nitzsch and Kostlin are right when they say, that both ZwingU and
Luther 'assume qualities of the glorified body of Christ of which we know
nothing; the one by asserting a spacial inclusion of that body in heaven,
the other by asserting dogmatically its divine omnipresence on earth.' " f
Indeed, this Is the difficulty with all theories of the pres
ence. They all depend upon theories as to the nature of the
glorified body of Christ which theologians have neglected to
study and which the Church has never defined.
The Council of Trent asserts that our Saviour is
"sacramentally present to us in His own substance, by a manner of
existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we,
by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most
firmly to beheve, to be possible unto God." (Sess. 13'.)
They assert that Christ was not only present to the disci
ples as Himself instituting the sacrament, but also in the
bread and wine, which He gave them at the first Institution.
* V. Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 263 seg.
t German Reformation, p. 625; cf. Kostlin's Luther, II, 96, 642;
Luther's Theologie, II, 172 seg.

284 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The presence was also not divided between bread and wine,
but in each entire, so in every drop of wine and every particle
of bread, the entire Christ. All spacial and arithmetical
ideas are excluded.
As the Roman Catechism says of priests:
"They must next teach, that Christ our Lord is not in this sacrament
as in a place. . . . For the substance of the bread is changed into the
substance of Christ, not into His magnitude or quantity." (42.)
The Roman Catholics and Lutherans hold that the glori
fied body of Christ is not subject to the laws of matter, but
is a spiritual glorified body. In the Eucharist it has no local
or numerical limitations. Its properties are not discerned
by the human senses. It has no weight or measure, no size
or shape. It has not the quality of impenetrabUity. It is
the same identical body that was born of the Virgin, lived In
Palestine, died on the cross: but when It rose from the dead
and ascended Into heaven, it became a spiritual and glorified
body, capable of multipresence, wherever the Son of God
wiUed to be present.
Zwingli made the mistake of thinking of the body of Christ
as locally limited to the right hand of God In heaven, and laid
stress upon the recollection of the absent Christ, especially
the Christ of the cross, in the Eucharist. In this he was In
error. The term "Do this in remembrance of me" Is not so
well sustained critically as the other words of Jesus at the
institution, and in itself is of dubious meaning. Calvin
recognised the real, substantial presence; but it is not
easy to determine what he meant by it — probably a dy
namic presence of the glorified body of Christ, and that not
to the body of the recipient but to faith only.
As I have said, the problem depends in great part upon
the nature of the glorified body of Christ. If we study the
body of Christ as it is made known to us in the New Testa
ment, we observe that it was changed at the resurrection.
It was visible or invisible, tangible or intangible, impene
trable or penetrable at pleasure, so that we must regard aU

THE SACRAMENTS 285
the manifestations of the risen Lord as Christophanies. A
still greater change was made at the ascension, when His body
rose from the earth as without weight, and not subject to the
law of gravitation, and disappeared In the sky. We have to
consider also the Christophanies to St. Paul, St. Peter, and
St. John, when the same body which was throned at the right
hand of the Father manifested itself at the same time on
earth, speaking to His apostles. We also have to consider
the statement of St. Paul as to the body of the glorified Lord.
He says It is a spiritual, heavenly, incorruptible, immortal,
and glorious body.* We know of no such body by human
experience; therefore we can form only a very imperfect and
indefinite opinion of the glorified body of Christ united in
indissoluble union with the divine person of the Second Per
son of the Trinity. How far the human body has been as
similated to the divine nature, how far attributes of divinity
have Influenced the humanity, we cannot say. If we must,
on the one hand, deny that the humanity has been deified,
and so possessed of all the attributes of divinity, we must
recognise, on the other hand, that human nature Is capable
of the divine to an indefinite extent and that its capacities
and powers must be immensely enhanced. I can see no ob
jection, therefore, to the doctrine of multipresence. We
know but little of the essential nature of substance or of
body. Is It a bundle of forces or of atoms? A spiritual body
cannot be a bundle of material atoms. Are there spiritual
atoms? If a bundle of forces, there must be a principle of
unity, a unifying force. If Calvinists think of dynamic pres
ence, may that not be interpreted as corporal presence?
The latter Is the better term because it is more comprehen
sive and leaves the nature of the presence less determinate
than the term dynamic presence. Roman Catholics, Luther
ans, and Calvinists ought to agree upon the real, substan
tial, corporal presence of Christ In the Eucharist. The chief
difficulty is as to the relation of the body of Christ to the ele
ments of bread and wine.
* V. Briggs, Fundamental Christian Faith, pp. 143 seg.

286 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
We may be guided to a better understanding of this rela
tion by a comparative study of three distinct Eucharlstic re
lations: (1) The relation of the glorified body of Christ to
the elements when St. Paul celebrated the Eucharist at Cor
inth, In accordance with his statement, I Cor. 11^'^*. (2) The
relation of the pre-existent body of Christ to the elements
when, in the wilderness of the wanderings, Moses celebrated
the Eucharist (I Cor. lO^"^). (3) The relation of the body of
Christ to the elements at the time of the institution on the
night of His betrayal (I Cor. 11^"^^).
The same essential relation was in these three Eucharists;
the same essential Christ must have been in His pre-exist
ence, in His life in this world, and In His postexistence. It
Is evident that, if we consider the Eucharist of Moses in the
wilderness, and that of the apostles before the crucifixion,
in the presence of Christ's human body, we cannot think of
any material substance of the body of Christ in the Eu
charist. We can only think of some virtue of grace imparted
by the Angel of the Presence to the water and the manna for
Israel, and by the still living Christ to the bread and the wine
which the apostles partook of in His presence; unless we sup
pose that the relation in all these cases alike was a symbolic
one. We have to consider that the manna and the water
were both given by the Angel of the Presence as miraculous
gifts. They were not ordinary water and manna, but miracu
lous water and manna. So St. Paul considered them. And
he certainly regarded them as miraculous gifts of Christ to
the Israelites: so that they ate and drank of something more
than manna and water; they also ate and drank of a miracu
lous virtue or grace that the miracle Imparted to these ele
ments. And It was because of this that St. Paul said: "They
did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same
spiritual drink; for they drank of a spiritual rock that fol
lowed them; and that rock was Christ."* By eating of the
manna and drinking of the water, they ate and drank spir
itual meat and drink; they ate and drank of Christ, the theo
phanic God of the Old Testament. * I Cor. 10»-<.

THE SACRAMENTS 287
So when Jesus, at the institution of the Eucharist, blessed
the bread and the wine, and said, This is my body, and
This is my blood of the New Covenant,* the bread and the
wine became eucharlstic; they had received a virtue from
Christ which they did not have before. We cannot think
of a material body, for Jesus was in their presence in a mate
rial body; no more can we think of a material blood, because
the blood of Christ was not yet shed; we can only think of
the virtue of the body and blood, or a power of grace from
the body and blood Imparted to the bread and the wine.
That which Is imparted in the Eucharist of St. Paul must be
the same. The glorified Christ communicates to the bread
and wine of the Eucharist the power of grace, or virtue, of
His glorified body for the eating and drinking of the faithful.
The fault of the Calvinistic theory is that It distinguishes
too sharply between the grace and the elements. If the eat
ing and drinking is by faith, and the elements are only signs
and seals of a grace which accompanies them, why may not
the grace be received by faith alone without the use of the
elements, as the Quakers and Salvationists think? Spiritual
communion with Christ may thus be much better enjoyed
apart from the elements than in the use of them. Unless
the elements are necessary to the Communion, they have no
essential value. But If they are essential, then they must
have a grace which cannot be received without them; they
must be. Indeed, real essential means of grace.
What, then, is the relation of the substance of the body
of Christ to the substance of the bread and wine?
Transubstantiation holds that the substance of the body
of Christ has displaced the substance of the bread, so that
only the accidents of the bread remain. Consubstantiation
holds that the two substances coexist In real union. Cal
vinists hold that the two substances coexist In relative
independence, the one to the body, the other to the soul of
believers only. The Roman Catholics admit that all the ac
cidents or qualities of the bread are there. Nothing else can
* Mark 1422-2^.

288 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
be detected by the senses. Can we by reasoning be sure that
the substance of the bread Is there also? The Protestants
contend that where the accidents of bread exist, there the
substance exists also; and that accidents without their proper
substance are Inconceivable and impossible. The Roman
Catholics recognise that such a situation does not exist apart
from the Eucharist; but they assert that It does exist, in the
Eucharist by a miracle, by the divine Christ coming with
the substance of His body and taking the place of the sub
stance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.
The Lutheran view is open to the objection that two hetero
geneous substances are so combined that the partaking of
the one is necessarily connected with partaking of the other.
The Roman Catholic view Is In this respect simpler and more
in accordance with the character of God, as revealed in the
Old Testament, Who abhors mixtures.
The Calvinistic view Is open to the objection that two
heterogeneous substances coexist without combination; and
therefore the question arises, what is the need of the unessen
tial substance when it Is only a sign and seal of the essential
substance, which may be useful for the immature Christian
to fix his faith on the essential, but can have little If any value
to the mature, who may feed on Christ by faith without
them? In fact, the Calvinists were influenced by these con
siderations; and the daily and weekly Mass of the Cathohcs
was commonly reduced to a communion service four times In
the year, and in many places only once a year.
The differences between the Churches are evidently due
more to philosophical opinions as to the nature of substance
and body than to Biblical teaching and experimental use of
the Sacrament, in which all agree in all essential particulars.
The Roman Catholic Transubstantiation depends upon the
scholastic distinction between substance and accidents, and
can only be understood by the scholastic philosophy. What
is substance? If it be essentially force or motion, then there
is no sufficient reason against the real presence of the virtue,
or power, or grace of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. I

THE SACRAMENTS 289
fail to see why that power or grace might not sustain the acci
dents of bread and wine by assuming their forms, just as In
Theophanies and Christophanies various other forms were
assumed by Christ. If this be true, then the Eucharist Is
essentially Christophanic In character.
The Calvinistic theory makes the connection between the
bread and the body of Christ so loose that, apart from the
faith of the communicant, and after the communion, the
elements are no more than common bread and wine. The
Anglican Church directs that the elements shall be entirely
consumed by the minister and others before leaving the place
of communion.
The Lutherans recognise that the connection Is so organic
that the body of Christ is taken into the mouth with the
bread, but does not benefit any but the faithful.
The Roman Catholics hold that after consecration the
bread remains the body of Christ untU every particle has
been consumed and the accidents of bread have disappeared.
Hence there Is Reservation for the sick and adoration of the
reserved Sacrament. I can see no difficulty in the supposi
tion that the virtue of the body of Christ would remain so
long as the elements are reserved for pious uses. But it
seems unworthy of our Lord that He may not withdraw His
presence at will, especially when the elements are to be put
to unworthy uses. The difficulties connected with this sub
ject are so very great, that charity is needed in the recog
nition and toleration of various opinions, and patience to
study these profound problems until better solutions are
found than any yet known.
The solution of the problem of the presence of Christ de
pends in great measure upon the solution of the problem of
sacrifice. § 6. The second great question as to the Eucharist is whether
it is a sacrifice and how far it is a sacrifice. The Raman
Catholics hold that it is a real propitiatory sacrifice; this the
Protestants all deny.

290 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The Protestant reformers, in their zeal against the Roman
Catholic doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, did
not sufficiently consider the words of institution. The term
blood of the covenant implies that the Eucharist was a sacri
fice of the New Covenant. St. Paul* represents it as the
Christian Passover and sets it in antithesis with the com
munion meals offered to idols. There should be no doubt,
therefore, that the Eucharist is in some sense a sacrifice of
the class of Peace-offerings, including the covenant sacrifice
and the Passover.
The Peace-offering is the most primitive sacrifice, and in
its original form comprehends the uses of all the later sac
rifices. It was in part a Mincha, or unbloody sacrifice, con
sisting of some kind of grain, and in part an animal sacrffice.
The ceremonies were (1) presentation, (2) slaughter, (3) use
of the flesh and blood at the altar, (4) use of the flesh and blood
by the offerer.
The Epistle to the Hebrews represents that Jesus Christ,
the great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, went
with His own fiesh and blood to the heavenly altar, the Holy
of Holies, to abide there as the perpetual sacrffice. The pres
entation, slaughter of the victim, taking of the flesh and
blood to the altar — these three parts of the sacrffice of Christ
could only be once for all, at His death and ascension to the
Father. The use of the flesh and blood at the heavenly
altar was, however, perpetual, as the high-priesthood was
perpetual. The Protestant contention that the sacrffice of Christ was
made once for all, and therefore cannot be repeated, was en
tirely right. But in the contention it was often overlooked
that It was once for all because it needed no repetition, be
cause the sacrifice once offered went to the heavenly altar to
remain there for ever.
So far as the use of the flesh and blood by the offerer is
concerned, that also must be perpetual, in order that the suc
cessive generations of Christians may enjoy its benefits. In
* I Cor. 5', 10" seg., 11^' seg.

THE SACRAMENTS 291
the Eucharist, therefore, we have the eating and drinking of
the sacrifice offered once for all by Jesus Christ Himself, but
of everlasting validity in the heavenly sanctuary. The flesh
and blood of Christ are not only always on the heavenly altar,
but are also given to Christians in the Eucharist on earth.
When partaken of In the Eucharist, the flesh and blood of
Christ are sacrificial flesh and blood; and, so far as the Eu
charist is a participation in a sacrffice, it Is and must be a
sacrifice. The mode of participation in the Eucharlstic flesh and
blood of Christ is that of the peace-offering, by eating and
drinking of the sacrifice.
The question now arises whether the benefit of the Eu
charist is limited to participation in Jesus Christ as a peace-
offering. A little consideration makes it evident that this
cannot be the case.
Jesus Christ is represented by St. Paul as being also a whole
burnt offering;* by St. Paul, St. John, and the Epistle to the
Hebrews as a sin-offering ;t and although it is not expressly
stated anywhere that He was a trespass-offering, yet this also
Is implied in the general statements of the Epistle to the
Hebrews.f If, now, Christ is the fulfilment of the entire sacrificial sys
tem of the Old Testament, it is improbable that the benefits
of His sacrifice should be limited to the peace-offering.
Inasmuch as participation in His sacrifice is given In the
Eucharist, it is altogether probable that that participation
involves a share in the entire sacrifice of Christ, that of the
sin-offering with its propitiation as well as that of the peace-
offering. In this sense we must admit, therefore, that the
Eucharist has some features of the propitiatory sacrifice;
only here again it is limited to the appropriation and par
ticipation in the beneflts of that sacrifice by eating and
drinking of the sacrificial flesh and blood.
At the Reformation there was a general misconception of
* Eph. 51. t Rom. 32»-2s, 8i-<; I John 2^-\
X Heb. 728-28, 911-16, 26^ 101-18^ I2ii'-i2.

292 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
the Biblical institutions of sacrifice. The stress laid in the
Middle Ages upon the atonement, and the sufferings and
death of Christ on the cross, limited the attention to the sin-
offering as the propitiatory sacrifice, and so serious mistakes
were made on both sides by faUure to consider other more
ancient, more frequent, and in some respects more impor
tant kinds of sacrifice.
The Roman Catholics were more correct than the Prot
estants because they retained ancient traditional statements,
coming down from a period when sacrffices were still offered
and so better understood. The reformers were objecting
more to popular abuses than to the real doctrine of the
Church, as the Augsburg Confession and the Anglican Arti
cles clearly show. They were zealous for the real sacrifice of
Christ, which they thought was dishonoured by the repeti
tion of the propitiatory sacrifice by earthly priests.
The Council of Trent, indeed, asserts that Jesus com
manded His apostles and their successors to offer the bread
and wine as an unbloody sacrffice.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the
Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody
manner. Who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of
the cross; the Holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitia
tory, and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy,
and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and
penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence.
For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the grace
and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the
victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of
priests. Who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of
offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that
bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one;
so far is this from derogating in any way from that. (Sess. 22^.)
The Council of Trent is not altogether clear in its statements. It
states that Jesus Christ "offered up to God the Father His own body and
blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of
those same things," He delivered [them] to be received by His apostles,
whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by
those words, Do this in commemoration of me. He commanded them and
their successors in the priesthood to offer [them]." (Sess. 22'.)

THE SACRAMENTS 293
The Council apparently uses offer here in the sense of
presentation to God; for the victim had not yet been slain on
Calvary. This ceremony of presentation is a part of the
ceremony of sacrifice, and so offer may be used of it prop
erly. This presentation of the bread and wine as an oblation
to God is not with the view that they have any value in
themselves, but only in order that they may be accepted by
Him and then united to the real sacrifice, the flesh and blood
of Christ.
This union is effected according to the Greek and Oriental
Liturgies by the action of the divine Spirit, who is invoked
by the priest to accomphsh this union. In the Latin Mass
the prayer is:
"We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these things to
be brought up by the hands of Thy Holy Angel to Thy altar on high
before the sight of Thy divine Majesty; that as many of us as by this
partaking of the altar shall have received the most sacred body and
blood of Thy Son, may be fulfilled with all heavenly benediction and
grace, through the same Christ our Lord."
There can be no doubt that gross views of the sacrifice pre
vailed in the Western Church before the Reformation, which
justified the Protestant opposition. This is most pointedly
expressed in the Articles of Religion :
"The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, pro
pitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both orig
inal and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that
alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly
said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have
remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous de
ceits." (31.)
Bishop Gore* states that only late in the history of The
ology do we find the opinion here rejected. He refers only
to a sermon of the late Middle Ages, wrongly attributed to
Albert the Great. On the other hand, he shows that the
* The Body of Christ, pp. 176-9.

294 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
great scholastics teach an entirely different doctrine. The
Lombard says: "That which Is offered and consecrated by
the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because It is a
memorial and representation of the true sacrifice and of the
holy immolation made once for all upon the Cross" {Sent.
IV: 12'). Thomas Aquinas says: "It is caUed a sacrifice
with reference to what is past: inasmuch as it Is commem
orative of the Lord's passion which is the true sacrifice. . . .
It is a representative image of Christ's passion, as the altar
represents the cross on which He was once immolated"
(IV : 73^ 831).
As Gore says:* "It is obvious that the language of dra
matic representation easily slides into that of real repeti
tion." That was the situation at the time of the Reforma
tion among many ignorant priests and people, and the
Article Is correct in its statement: it was commonly said.
It cannot be doubted that it was the supposed repetition
of the sacrffice of the cross that was blasphemous to them.
But in fact this was not then, and never has been, the doc
trine of the Roman Catholic Church. The sacrifice of the
Eucharist is repeated in a secondary sense only; not a repe
tition of the death of Christ as a sacrifice, but a repeated
participation in the sacrffice once offered yet perpetually
on the heavenly altar; a participation because of the coming
of the sacrfficlal flesh and blood of Christ to the altar-table
of the Church, whenever the Eucharist is celebrated. The
Protestants practically beheved the same thing, only they
refused the term sacrifice because It was associated In their
mind with the error mentioned above. A more comprehen
sive knowledge of the Biblical doctrine of sacrifice really over
comes the antithesis here and shows it to be a strife of
words rather than of doctrine, f
§ 7. Many differences arose as to the administration of the
Lord's Supper : (1) the withholding of the cup from the people;
(2) the adoration of the elements; (3) the reservation of the ele-
* L. c. p. 175. t V. Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 272 seg.

THE SACRAMENTS 295
ments; (4) private masses; (5) the use of the Latin language;
(6) various ceremonies and details, most of which were mediceval.
(1) The withholding of the cup from the people originated
from a dread of desecrating the blood of Christ by the falling
of drops to the ground, or upon the beard. The Greek
Church, which administers the bread and wine together in a
spoon put by the priest in the mouth of the communicant,
overcame the difficulty differently; and the Latin Church
always has recognised its propriety, officially at the Council
of Florence. The withholding of the cup was contested by
the Waldensians, by Wyckllf, and by Huss. All Protestants
insisted upon its restoration.*
The Roman Church had three interests in this matter: {a)
to maintain the authority of the Church, which had already
decided this question; (6) to maintain the sacredness of the
elements; (c) to maintain the sufficiency of communion un
der one kind.f
The Protestants insisted upon universal obedience to the
commands of the Lord Jesus. But they evidently had not
the same sensitiveness to a desecration of the elements as
had the Roman Church, because of a different conception of
the elements themselves. This indeed determines all the
other differences.
(2) Adoration of the elements. This was involved in the
doctrine of Transubstantiation. If the elements are really
Christ Himself, they must be adored. If they are not Christ,
to adore them is idolatry. The Lutheran and Anglican
Churches kneel at the Communion in reverential worship of
Christ really present, but refuse to adore the elements. The
Reformed Churches receive sitting or standing, for fear of a
suspicion of idolatry. The Church of England was agi
tated during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by this
question. The Puritans objected to kneeling as involving
adoration, and indulging the crypto-Romanists.
* Cf. Augsburg Confession, Pt. II, Art. 1; II Helvetic Confession, 21'2;
Articles of Religion, 30.
t V. Council of Trent, Sess. 21.

296 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The Church of England justffied itself by what is known
as the Black Rubric:
"Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the
Lord's Supper, that the communicants should receive the same kneeling;
(which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grate
ful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all wor
thy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in
the holy Commumon, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same
kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity,
or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; It is
hereby declared. That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be
done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received,
or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood.
For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural
substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry,
to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and
Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against
the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places
than one." (At close of Communion Service, in Anghcan Book of Com
mon Prayer.)
This did not satisfy either Puritans, or High Churchmen;
and it was not Included in the American Book of Common
Prayer. It really involves the error of Zwingll, that the
natural body of Christ is material and local.
This question is closely connected with that of non-com
municating attendance. This Is urged by Roman Catholics,
because thereby those not communicating may still adore the
elements. For the same reason it was opposed by the Prot
estants. Notice to the minister was required in the Church
of England; tokens were required in Scotland. But all pre
cautions have disappeared in the Protestant world; and the
communion-table is no longer guarded. Any one may at
tend, and any proper person communicate. Although warn
ing Is still given to the impenitent, the matter is left to their
discretion. (3) Reservation of the elements. There are two kinds of
reservation: one for the communion of the sick and absent,
the other for the adoration of the faithful. The former is

THE SACRAMENTS 297
defended by the Council of Trent as Ante-NIcene; * and un
doubtedly the Council is correct. The latter Is involved in
the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Protestants reject
both kinds of reservation and have special services for the
communion of the sick. This has long been a controversy
in the Church of England. The Articles f reject reservation,
and the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer orders that
aU the elements be consumed on the spot before the conclu
sion of the service. The question has again been raised in the
Church of England, and the Archbishops were asked to decide
the question as a matter of law. They had to decide that
reservation was unlawful. But a large number of the clergy
disobey the law.
(4) Private masses are defended by the Council of Trent J
but were rejected by all Protestants. § So Rubric 2 at the
close of the Anglican Communion Service:
"And there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper,
except there be a convenient number to communicate with
the Priest, according to his discretion." ||
(5) The use of the Latin language in the mass was defended
by the Council of Trent, H but rejected by the Protestants
who Insisted that the Holy Communion should be adminis
tered in the language of the people.**
However, Rome recognises the rites of the Greek and
Oriental Churches, and in Rome itself different languages
are used by the representatives of the different rites. The
Council of Trent puts the use of the Latin language on the
ground of expediency only. It is concerned simply to main
tain the authority of the Church as to what is expedient
and what Is not expedlent.ff
(6) Various ceremonies of the Eucharist are defended by the
* Seas. 138. -j- Art. 28. t Sess. 22=.
§ Augsb. Confess. Pt. II : 3.
II This is not in the American Book, however.
^ Sess. 228.
** Augsburg Confession, Pt. II : 3; Articles of Religion, 24.
tt In the United States the English Mass is in the hands of the people
and the worshipper may follow the Latin service in his English trans-

298 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
Council of Trent.* We may mention especially: (a) mystic
benedictions; (6) lights; (c) incense; {d) vestments; (e) secret
prayers of the priest; (/) mixture of water and wine; aU men
tioned by the Council. Add to these: {g) unleavened wafer;
{h) High and Low Mass; {i) Pontifical and other special
Masses; (j) processions; {k) the benediction ceremony; {I) fast
ing communion; (m) liturgies in general and particular.
{a) The Roman Catholics hold that the benedictions of the
priest bear with them a mystic power of grace. The Prot
estants regard them as intercessory.
(6) Lights are preserved by Lutherans and some Angh-
cans, but not by the Reformed Churches.
(c) Incense was rejected by Protestants altogether as un
lawful, but revived in the Church of England by some of
the Anglo-Catholic party.
{d) Priestly vestments were rejected by Protestants, but
revived in some Anglican churches.
The ordinary vestments of the Anglican are not open to
the Puritan objection that they are priestly in character.
The cassock, surplice, and stole belong to the ancient dress
of the ministry, and these are ordinarily worn at Holy Com
munion. However, some Anglo-Catholics insist upon their
right to use priestly vestments and ornaments.
(e) Secret priestly prayers were rejected by Protestants
with the possible exception of the Lord's Prayer at the be
ginning of the Communion Service of the Church of Eng
land. (/) The mixture of water and wine is approved by the
Council of Trent for its symbolism.f
{g) Wafers. The Greeks use leavened bread, the Latins
unleavened, Protestants common bread.
{h) The distinction of High and Low Mass was rejected alto-
lation. But undoubtedly the use of the same service with the same
ceremonies and the same language all over the world makes the Roman
Catholic at home in all countries and in every church service.
* Sess. 22'. The Protestant opposition is given in the Augsburg Con
fession, Pt. II : 3; II Helvetic, 21; Articles of Religion, 20.
t Sess. 22'.

THE SACRAMENTS 299
gether by Protestants, but has been renewed in the Church
of England In high or low Communion.
{i) The Pontifical or Bishop's Mass was rejected by Prot
estants. The only difference from the ordinary Mass was
in ceremonies. Other special masses. In honor of saints or
for the dead, were rejected also.
(j) Processions with litany were rejected by Protestants,
but restored in part in the Church of England.
{k) The Benediction ceremony Is a modern service in the
Church of Rome to give the people an opportunity of wor
shipping Christ in the Host and of being blessed by Him
from the Host.
(/) Fasting Communion has been revived in the Church of
England. (m) Various sacramental liturgies have always been recog
nised by Rome as valid. Uniformity Is only a matter of
propriety. The variety before the Reformation has been re
duced for the most part to conformity to the Roman mass.
There are many Lutheran and Reformed Liturgies, but the
Church of England insisted upon uniformity at the cost of
many conflicts and schisms.
§ 8. The Roman Catholic Church maintains the mediceval
doctrine that Penance is a sacrament, its form being, " I absolve
thee," pronourwed by a priest endowed with the power of the
keys; its matter, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, re
quired of all Christians for mortal sins at least once a year in
order to salvation.
Luther recognised Penance as a sacrament in a secondary
sense; so do many Lutherans and Anglicans; but most Prot
estants reject it as a sacrament.*
It is agreed that Penance is not a sacrament of the same
rank as Baptism and the Eucharist. It is also agreed that
it is necessary for salvation, and has all the parts: contri
tion, confession, satisfaction, and absolution. The differ-
* V. Council of Trent, Sess. 14; Luther's Little Catechism, Pt. 4; ^Im^s-
burg Confession, Pt. I, Art. 12; Pt. II, Art. 4.

300 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
ence between Penance and Repentance is verbal, not substan
tial. It should be agreed that repentance is sacramental
in a secondary sense.*
§ 9. It is agreed that it is necessary to secure absolution for
all sins committed after baptism, and that the absolution must
come from God Himself. Roman Catholics assert that the
priest by Christ's own commission has the power of absolu
tion; and that this absolution is necessary to salvation. Luther
and other Protestants recognised the value of ministerial private
absolution, but laid more stress upon public absolution. Most
Protestants, however, deny priestly absolution, and recognise
that the ministry has only authority to declare absolution to the
penitent, or to lead the people in penitential prayer with an ex
pression of faith that God gives absolution to the penitent con
gregation.^ The Power of the Keys is interpreted by Rome as chiefly
priestly power of absolution; by Protestants as chiefly dls-
ciphnary. The words of Jesus, Mt. 1&^, 18'^, John 2QP^,
seem to comprehend both functions.
The priest in the Roman Catholic Church pronounces
absolution after auricular confession. Some ministers in
the Lutheran and Anglican Churches do the same. All
make absolution in some form an initial part of public wor
ship. The difference is, in such cases, whether it is: (1) a
priestly authoritative act; (2) a ministerial declaratory act,
or (3) a ministerial precatory act of faith.
The Book of Common Prayer gives two forms expressing
the two Ideas:
"Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who desireth
not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wicked
ness, and live, (and) hath given power, and commandment, to His min
isters, to declare and pronounce to His people, being penitent, the Abso
lution and Remission of theu* sins: He pardoneth and absolveth all
* V. Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 251 seg.
t V. Augsburg Confession, Pt. II, An. 4; Heidelberg Cat. Pt. II,
Quest. 83-85.

THE SACRAMENTS 301
those who (them that) truly repent, and unfeignedly believe His holy
Gospel. Wherefore let us beseech Him to grant us true repentance,
and His Holy Spirit, that those things may please Him, which we do at
this present; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure, and
holy; so that at the last we may come to His eternal joy; through
Jesus Christ our Lord." Or tlds.
"Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of His great mercy hath
promised forgiveness of sins to all those who (them that) with hearty
repentance and true faith turn unto Him; Have mercy upon you; par
don and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in
all goodness; and bring you to everlasting hfe; through Jesus Christ
our Lord. Amen." *
The Mass has an ancient form of precatory absolution:
Indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem peccatorum nos-
trorum tribuat nobis omnipotens et misericors Dominus.
§ 10. It is agreed that contrition is a necessary part of re
pentance, but there is a difference of opinion as to its nature.
Roman Catholics distinguish between contrition and attrition.
The Council of Trent defines contrition "as a sorrow of
mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose
of not sinning for the future." (Sess. 14^.)
The Heidelberg Catechism defines it under the title of " the
dying of the old man," as " heartfelt sorrow for sin, causing
us to hate and turn from it always more and more." (Quest.
89.) There is no difference here.
The Council of Trent distinguishes between contrition
and attrition thus:
"And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, be
cause that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the
turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, it declares
that if, with hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does
not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a
gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost." (Sess. 14*.)
* In the Book of Common Prayer (English) the first form is given
alone for Morning Prayer, the second alone for Holy Communion. In
the American Book both are given for Morning Prayer.

302 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
There was an emphasis upon contrition by Puritans,
Pietists, and Methodists, especially upon the experience of
its guilt rather than upon dread of punishment. But un
doubtedly there is much practical, If not theoretical, use of
attrition among modern Protestants. Undoubtedly attrition
has been greatly abused in laxity of morals, especially by
Jesuit confessors; yet the discrimination of the Council is just.
§ 11. It is agreed that confession of sin is necessary.
Roman Catholics insist that all mortal sins must be confessed,
whether secret or public, in all their particulars. Some Prot
estants advise it, ivhen the conscience is troubled and needs ad
vice and relief. Most Protestants are opposed to the specifi
cation of sins in confession even to God, and disapprove of
confession to ministers. All agree, hoivever, that an offender
should confess his sin to the person offended.*
Sins are of three kinds: unpardonable, mortal, and ve
nial. Unpardonable sins are not to be forgiven by Church
or God. Mortal sins may be public or secret. All must be
confessed in auricular confession, according to Roman Cath
olic doctrine. Public sins must be pubhcly confessed ac
cording to Protestant doctrine, but not private sins. Ro
man Cathohcs require auricular confession for public sins,
and usually the priest gives absolution without requiring
confession before the Church. Certain grave sins are re
served for the decision of bishop or pope. Secret sins may
be confessed to God secretly according to Protestant doc
trine; but offences against individuals should be confessed
to the injured party; and other secret sins to the ministry
when help or consolation is needed. All secret mortal sins
must be confessed in auricular confession according to Roman
Catholic doctrine. General Confession in public worship Is
required by both Protestants and Catholics; but in addition
there Is particular confession of particular sins by Roman
Catholics to priests, by Protestants in secret to God.
* Heidelberg Catechism, Quest. 85; Westminster Confession, 15; Council
of Trent, Sess. 14=.

THE SACRAMENTS 303
Venial sins must be confessed in secret to God; but ac
cording to Roman Catholic practice they should also be con
fessed to the priest. Yet the Church does not require It.
Apart from mortal sins, confession to the priest once a year
is all that the law of the Church demands. The practice of
frequent confession is advisory, not legal. Over-anxiety as
to specification, urged by Roman Catholic advisers, es
pecially Jesuits, Is opposed by the Augsburg Confession,
which wisely says:
"But of Confession our churches teach that the enumeration of sins
is not necessary, nor are consciences to be burdened with the care of
enumerating all sins, inasmuch as it is impossible to recount all sins,
as the Psalm (19'2) testifies. . . . But if no sins were remitted except
what were recounted, consciences could never find peace, because very
many sins they neither see nor can remember." (Pt. II, Art. 4.)
§ 12. Satisfaction is regarded by the Roman Catholics as an
essential part of the Sacrament of Penance. It is partly "a
medicine of infirmity," and partly "the avenging and punish
ment of past sins." Protestants deny that satisfaction is a
necessary part of repentance, and assert that the satisfaction
of Jesus Christ does away with all temporal as well as eternal
penalties. The question of satisfaction originated from the contro
versy as to Indulgences sold by Tetzel.
Luther's Ninety-five Theses were directed against this.
Most of the abuses complained of were contrary to Canon
Law and Church doctrine, and are against the Decrees of the
Council of Trent.*
Nevertheless, there remained a serious difference between
Protestants and Catholics, not only as to Indulgences, but
also as to satisfaction.
The Council of Trent f gives the Roman Cathohc doctrine.
It caUs attention to chastisements inflicted on penitents in
Holy Scrlpture.l
* V. p. 305. t Sess. 148-s.
t The Roman Catechism (Quest. 61) refers to Gen. 3"; Nu. 12, 20;
II Sam. 12"; Ex. 32^ seq.

304 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
It asserts that the priests ought " to enjoin salutary and suitable satis
factions, according to the quality of the crimes and the ability of the
penitent; lest, if haply they connive at sins, and deal too indulgently
with penitents, by enjoining certain very light works for very grievous
crimes, they be made partakers of other men's sins." These satisfac
tions are "not only for the preservation of a new life, and a medicine of
infirmity, but also for the avenging and punishment of past sins."
They are not however the penalties due for sin, and do not at all
impair the value of the satisfaction rendered by Jesus Christ. "But
not therefore did they imagine that the sacrament of Penance is a tri
bunal of wrath or of punishments," etc.
The Roman Catechism mentions three species of satisfac
tion: prayer, fasting, almsgiving,* and asserts that before the
priests absolve the penitent, they must
"insist that if, perchance he has culpably injured his neighbour in
property, or character, he make abundant reparation for the injury
done; for no person is to be absolved, unless he first faithfully promise to
restore what belongs to another." (Quest. 73.)
The Council of Trent declares that there are three kinds of
works of satisfaction:
(1) " Punishments voluntarily undertaken of ourselves for
the punishment of sin"; (2) "those imposed at the discre
tion of the priest " ; (3) " temporal scourges inflicted of God."t
Protestants denied that satisfaction was a necessary part
of repentance; they did, however, recognise that as a fruit
of repentance amends must be made for all wrongs, and that
certain chastisements must be submitted to by those under
discipline before they were restored to the communion of the
Church. Works of all kinds they would exclude from re
pentance as well as faith; and they would deny that these
had any virtue of satisfaction for sin, lest they should impair
the satisfaction made for sin by Jesus Christ.
§ 13. Closely connected with the sacrament of Penance is
the doctrine of Indulgences. Luther and Protestants generally
agreed that the Church might grant indulgences from ecclesias-
* Quest. 70. t Sess. 14'.

THE SACRAMENTS 305
tical penalties. It was also agreed that indulgences could not be
granted from the eternal penalties due for sin. The question
was as to temporal penalties, both in this world and in purga
tory, which had the purpose of chastisement and purification
from sin. Roman Catholics asserted the power of the Church
to grant indulgences from these, which Protestants denied.
Undoubtedly, very great abuses arose from the doctrine of
Indulgences. The Council of Trent recognised these abuses
and made a decree for their removal.*
The Council puts the Decree concerning Indulgences after
the Decree concerning Purgatory, recognising that the ques
tion was about Purgatory chiefly. It is very cautious In the
treatment of both questions, and leaves the chief question of
controversy open. The Roman Catechism has nothing to say
about Indulgences.
The question is really as to indulgences for temporal
scourges inflicted by God.
Protestants and Catholics agree that there are such, and
many such, in this life, that should be "borne patiently by
us" as being disciplinary in character. But Protestants do
not recognise that there can be any indulgence for these;
although they recognise the value of petition by the sufferer
and intercession by his friends.
It is the temporal scourges inflicted by God in Purgatory,
about which there is the great question. Purgatory and
the whole doctrine of the Middle State is ignored or denied
by most Protestants; and therefore there is no room for
discussion of the subject with reference to purgatory; but
only as to life in this world. For those who think of a pur
gatory, or of an intermediate state between death and the
resurrection, the disciplinary grace of God extends into that
state of existence, and the question must arise as to the rela
tion of the Church in this world to that disclphne.
§ 14. The Roman Catholics make Order or Ordination a
sacrament of the Church. They count specifically seven orders,
* V. Sess. 25; cf Luther's Theses, 2, 5, 6, 20, 21, 22; v. also pp. 162 seq.

306 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
culminating in the priesthood, the essential order of the Church.
Protestants assert the necessity of ordination to the Christian
ministry, but deny that Order is a sacrament.
The Council of Trent* does not specify either form or
matter: but in Canon 4 the form implied Is: Receive ye the
Holy Ghost. The matter is by implication the ordaining
act, but what exactly constitutes that act is not specified.
In the Roman Catholic Church there was indeed a dispute
at the time, as to whether it was the laying on of hands or
the tradition of the instruments.
The Roman Catechism] makes the matter the handing by
the bishop to him who is being ordained " a cup containing
wine and water, and a paten with bread"; the form: "Receive
the power of offering sacrifice," etc. In this there Is a conflict
with the best and most ancient testimony In the Church,
which makes the form Receive the Holy Glwst, and the mat
ter, the laying on of hands. The Council of Trent does not
determine this question. It plays an Important part, how
ever, in the discussion as to the validity of Anglican and
other Protestant orders.
The Council of Trent J appeals to II Tim. 1^''', which
speaks of grace conferred by the Imposition of hands. But
the conferring of grace does not make a sacrament; otherwise
all the means of grace would be sacraments, including the
use of the Bible and prayer.
The Council of Trent emphasises priesthood, as if that were
the essential thing In the Christian ministry. This tends to
depreciate the prophetic function which Protestants, on the
other hand, emphasise. §
§ 15. The Roman Catholics claim that marriage is a sac
rament. This the Protestants all deny.
The Roman Catholics translate (iva-T'^piov, Eph. 5^^ sac
rament, and seem to base their doctrine upon it.
It is in accordance with their conception of marriage that
* Sess. 23. t Quest. 10. J Sess. 23'.
§ V. pp. 257, 271; also Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 110 seg.

THE SACRAMENTS 307
the Roman Catholics regard it as indissoluble, if it has been
rightly consummated. They may, for sufficient reasons,
declare a marriage invalid; but they cannot recognise a
divorce. Protestants regard marriage as a divine institution, but
not as a sacrament. The Council of Trent does not mention
the form and matter of marriage.
The form is usually regarded as the pronouncing them man
and wife; the matter is the first cohabitation without which
the marriage is not consummated. Many differences exist
as to the prohibited degrees, in which Roman Catholics fol
low Lev. 18; so also the Church of England.*
The question of marriage with a deceased brother's wife was
the great occasion of the English Reformation. The right
of dispensation is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church.f
The question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister Is
still mooted in England. The laws as to the deceased broth
er's wife are: Lev. 18'^ 20^^; an earlier law is in Deut. 25^.
The case of Onan and Tamar is given in Gen. 38'. Jesus'
words are in Mt. 22^' seq.
Divorce for adultery is recognised in all Protestant coun
tries on the basis of Jesus' words in Mt. 5'^ 19'.
Divorce for abandonment is recognised in Lutheran and
Reformed Churches. J
Divorce for many other reasons is recognised in many
Protestant countries, and in Roman Cathohc countries by
civil Law.
Religious marriage can only be regulated by ecclesiastical
Law. Civil Marriage must be regulated by civil Law.
Ministers should not be the servants of the state in civil
marriage ceremomes. They should only celebrate religious
marriages. The conflict of State Law and Church Law makes
difficulties of many kinds which might be avoided, if min-
* V. the last page of the Anghcan Book of Common Prayer. It is
not in the American Book. V. also Westminster Confession, 24^.
t Council of Trent, Sess. 24, Canons 3, 4.
t V. Westminster Confession, 24*' «.

308 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
isters should refuse the religious marriage until it has been
ratified by civil authorities.
§ 16. The Roman Catholics make Extreme Unction a sev
enth sacrament, which all Protestants deny.
The Council of Trent represents that the Sacrament of
Extreme Unction was regarded by the Fathers " as being the
completion not only of penance but also of the whole Chris
tian Life, which ought to be a perpetual penance." *
The matter is "oil consecrated by the bishop"; the form
is: By this holy unction may God indulge thee whatever sins
thou hast committed, etc.f The Sacrament is based on
James 5^^'^'', which recommends the anointing of the sick,
with prayer for the remission of sins. The Roman Cathohcs
employ unction for the dying, but the Greeks adhere to the
more ancient mode of using it for the healing of the sick.
The Council of Trent also takes the Greek position:
"For the thing here signified is the grace of the Holy Spirit, whose
anointing cleanses away sins, if there be any still to be expiated, as
also the remains of sins; and raises up, and strengthens the soul of the
sick person by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy;
whereby the sick being supported, bears more easily the inconveniences
and pains of his sickness, and the more readily resists the temptations
of the devil who lies in wait for his heel (Gen. 3"*); and at times obtains
bodily health, when expedient for the welfare of the soul." (Sess. 14,
Of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, 2.)
§ 17. The Roman Church maintains many ceremonies and
pious actions, which are rejected in whole or in part by Prot
estants. (1) The invocation of the Virgin and of saints is rejected by
all Protestants. The doctrine depends upon the views held
as to the future life. Protestants think that the intercession
of saints obscures that of Christ. They have no doctrine of
a state after death intermediate between death and the resur-
* Sess. 14, On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.
t Catechism, Quest. 5, 6.

THE SACRAMENTS 309
rectlon, in which the intercession of saints would be valu
able.* (2) The veneration of relics is rejected by all Protestants.
Undoubtedly there was a great amount of superstition con
nected with these relics in the age of the Reformation, and
there is always peril of it.f But there is a natural tendency
to honour the relics of great men; and modern Protestants
honour the relics of their statesmen and generals; why not
those of Christian saints also, ancient as well as modern?
(3) The use of images for worship was rejected altogether
by the Protestants at the Reformation. It was retained by
the Lutherans and Anglicans in their churches for instruc
tion, not for worship. J
(4) The distinction of meats in fasting was revised and re
formed by all Protestants. §
(5) The celibacy of priests was rejected by all Protestants
as a law for the ministry, but retained by Rome.ll The
Greeks and Orientals have married priests, but celibate
bishops. (6) Pilgrimages were retained In a reformed way by the
Roman Catholics, but given up altogether by Protestants.
(7) Vows were reduced and reformed both by Protestants
and by Roman CatholIcs.lT
(8) Holy days were reduced and reformed by Lutherans
and Anghcans; all but the Sabbath were rejected by Puri
tans.** * Augsburg Confession, Pt. 1:21; Articles of Religion, 22.
t Theses of Bern, 7; Articles of Religion, 22.
t Theses of Bern, 8; II Helvetic Confession, 4; Articles of Religion, 22;
Council of Trent, Sess. 25.
^Augsburg Confession, Pt. 1 : 15; II : 5; Articles of Zwingli, 24; II
Helvetic Confession, 24.
II Augsburg Confession, II: 2; Articles of Zwingli, 28; T^ieses of Bern, 9;
Articles of Religion, 32; Council of Trent, Sess. 24, Can. 9.
H Augsburg Confession, 1 : 15; II : 6.
** Augsburg Confession, 1 : 15; Articles of Zwingli, 25; II Helvetic
Confession, 24.

CHAPTER IV
THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS
The Faith of the Reformation, as we have seen in our
study of the principles of the Reformation, especially empha
sised the doctrine of divine authority and the application of
divine grace to the individual through justification by faith.
The entire Faith of the Church was considered and debated
from these points of view.
We have already studied the doctrine of divine authority
as the fundamental religious principle. We have now to
study first of all the doctrine upon which there was the great
est discussion; namely, the justification of the sinner by God.
Then from the point of view of this doctrine we shall be able
to study all the others.
We have already seen that the Church of Rome and the
three great Churches of the Reformation all alike reaffirm
their adherence to the Faith of the ancient Church as ex
pressed in the Nicene Creed; and all alike agree to the In
herited Augustinian doctrines of sin and grace, and the
Anselmic doctrine of the atonement In all essential particu
lars, rejecting all the ancient Trinitarian and Christological
heresies, as well as Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism.
These doctrines therefore will only come into our study so
far as they were modified by the new light cast upon them
by the deeper study of the application of the divine grace
and the atonement of Christ to the individual.
§ 1. The great material principle of the Reformation was
the justification of the sinner by the prevenient grace of God,
applying to him the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour.
310

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 311
The three chief things in this doctrine are: (1) divine jus
tification, (2) the prevenient grace of God, (3) the merits of
Jesus Christ. In these all the great Churches of the Ref
ormation, Protestant and Catholic, are in agreement. In
this they all make a decided advance in the definition of the
Christian doctrine beyond the pre-Reformation Church.
It is sufficient to quote the Council of Trent and the Augs
burg Confession. The Council of Trent says:
"The beginning of said justification is to be derived from the preve
nient grace of God through Jesus Christ." (Sess. 6^.)
"God justifies the impious by His grace through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus." (6°.)
"The meritorious cause (of justification) is His most beloved Only-
begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who when we were enemies, for the
exceeding love wherewith He loved us, merited justification for us by
His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction
for us unto God the Father." (6^)
The article of the Augsburg Confession is brief and does
not raise difficult questions.
" Also they teach that men cannot be justified [obtain forgiveness
of sins and righteousness] before God by their own powers, merits or
works; but are justified freely [of grace] for Christ's sake through
faith, when they beheve that they are received into favour, and their
sins forgiven for Christ's sake, who by His death hath satisfied for our
sins. This faith doth God impute for righteousness before Him.
Rom. 3 and 4." (Pt. I, Art. 4.)*
The only thing the Responsio of the Roman party objects
to in the article on Justification of the Augsburg Confession
is the clause: "by their own powers, merits or works." It
denies that these in any way depreciate the merits of Christ,
but asserts that they have some value in our justification In
accordance with the following passages of Scripture: II
Tim. 4'-8; Mt. 5'-'^; IICot.5">; Mt. 25; Gen. 15'; Is. 40";
Gen. 49; Mt. 20*; I Cor. 3*, which it quotes.
* Cf. Heidelberg Catechism, 56; Articles of Religion, 11; II Helvetic
Confession, 15.

312 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
Human merit in connection with justification is un
doubtedly excluded by the Protestant definition of justifi
cation, but not by the Roman Catholic definition. This
difference of definition does not appear in the Augsburg
Confession, except by implication from the difference as to
human merit and the interpretation of "through faith" as
through faith alone, to the exclusion of works and love.
These differences will be discussed later on. But, as to the
three great fundamental parts of the doctrine the Roman
Catholics and Protestants are in accord.
§ 2. Justification has two sides, a negative and a positive:
the negative, the forgiveness of sins; the positive, the justification
of the sinner.
The Roman Catholics and Protestants are agreed as to
this part of the doctrine.
Justification " is not remission of sins merely, but also the
sanctffication and renewal of the inward man through the
voluntary reception of the grace and of the gifts, whereby
man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that
so he may be an heir according to hope of hfe everlasting"
{Council of Trent, Sess. 6').
"Obtain forgiveness of sins and righteousness before God."
{Augsburg Confession, Pt. I, Art. 4.)
There have been Protestants who make justification sim
ply the forgiveness of sins, and deny the imputation or im-
partation of Christ's righteousness; but such a doctrine was
rejected by the Formula of Concord, as we shall see later.
§ 3. Protestants regard justification as an act of God, essen
tially forensic and declarative in character, an imputation of
righteousness; Roman Catholics regard this justification as a
work of God, a process of making the sinner righteous by the in
fusion of righteousness.
This difference does not appear in the Augsburg Confes
sion, except so far as it may be inferred from the use of the
word impute. But that is a Biblical term that Roman

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 313
Catholics would not object to, except so far as justification
was limited to such imputation. Luther and Melanchthon,
and the Protestants generally, Insisted upon justification as
altogether forensic and an imputation of righteousness. The
Council of Trent says:
"We, being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,
and we are not only reputed but are truly called, and are just, receiving
justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the
Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each
one's proper disposition and co-operation." (6'.)
In all the efforts for reunion this question was prominent.
At the conference at Ratisbon the intermediate party pro
posed a double justification, in accordance with the two dif
ferent senses of justification in the Bible; and it seemed for a
whUe as if concord would be reached on this subject; but the
concord was only temporary, and the two antithetic opin
ions prevaUed and became symbolical.*
The Formula of Concord states the Lutheran view.
"For His obedience's sake alone we have by grace the remission
of sins, are accounted holy and righteous before God the Father, and
attain eternal salvation." (Art. 3'.)t
But the Formula of Concord is troubled over the use of
the words Regeneration and Vivification in the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession, and represents that they are used In
two different senses: the one equivalent to justfficatlon, the
other " of the renewing of man, which is rightly distinguished
from the justification of faith" (3^). Indeed, several Lu
theran divines, as Osiander and Schwenckfeld, refused to
limit justification to imputation and urged the infusion of
Christ's righteousness; so also the Quakers of the seventeenth
century. If now we compare the chapters in the Westminster Con
fession, on Effectual Calling (10) and Sanctffication (13), it
* Pastor, Kirchliche Reunionsbestrebungen, 1879, ss. 245 seg.
t Cf. Gallican Conf 18; Westminster Conf 11'.

314 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
becomes evident that the Confession attaches the work of
the Spirit within the soul of man to these doctrines and ex
cludes it from justfficatlon itself (11), and limits justification
to the "imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ."
The difference therefore is more nominal than real: for
both Roman Cathohcs and Protestants recognise imputa
tion and infusion; the former includes both under justifica
tion, the latter assigns the one to justfficatlon, the other to
sanctlficatlon. The difference is one of definition and classi
fication of the operations of divine grace.
§ 4. All Protestants assert that justification is by faith only,
to the exclusion of external works and also of internal graces of
the spirit. Roman Catholics claim, on the contrary, that jus
tifying faith cannot be separated from hope and love, which are
infused at once and together by the Holy Spirit in the justified
one. The Council of Trent says:
"By the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is
poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those that are justified,
and is inherent therein: whence man, through Jesus Christ in whom
he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification, together with the re
mission of sins, all these infused at once, faith, hope and charity. For
faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man per
fectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For
which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and
profitless." (6'.)
The Augsburg Confession says:
"Also they teach that this Faith should bring forth good fruits, and
that men ought to do the good works commanded of God, because it is
God's will, and not on any confidence of meriting justification before
God by their works. For remission of sins and justification is appre
hended by Faith." (Pt. I, Art. 6.)
Good works are the fruits of Faith and are not included
with Faith as a condition of remission of sins. This puts
the difference mildly and chiefly from the point of view of

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 315
merit, which will be considered later. We have here only to
consider the implication that Faith only Is the instrumental
cause of justification, to use the more technical terminology
of the Formula of Concord when it says:
"We believe, also teach and confess, that Faith alone is the means
and instrument whereby we lay hold on Christ the Saviour, and so in
Christ lay hold on that righteousness which is able to stand before the
judgment of God; for that faith, for Christ's sake, is imputed to us for
righteousness. Rom. 4^." (3'.)
The difference is not so great as it appears to be, for the
Council of Trent says:
"The instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the
sacrament of faith, without which none was ever justified." (6'.)
"And whereas the apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely,
those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual con
sent of the Cathohc Church hath held and expressed, to wit: that we
are therefore said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning
of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification."
(6».) If Faith is the root of justification, as the Roman Catholics
teach, and all Christian graces spring from that root, how
does that differ from the Protestant teaching, that good
works are the fruits of faith f The difference here is reduced
again to the definition of justification itself. According to
Roman Cathohc doctrine It begins with Imputation and
faith, but is carried on with infusion and the fruits of faith,
which latter belongs according to Protestant doctrine rather
to sanctlficatlon. The Anglican statement is most excellent:
"Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow
after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of
God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ,
and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith, insomuch that
by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned
by the fruit." (Art. 12.)
The Westminster Confession also says:

316 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
"Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is
the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person
justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is
no dead faith, but worketh by love." (II2.)
There is thus no difference between the Churches as to
the relation of Faith and the graces of hope and love, but
only as to their relation to justfficatlon. There is no sepa
ration of Faith and these graces in fact or in time, but only
in order. If justification is a work including sanctffication,
the Roman Cathohc statement is certainly correct; if it is a
momentary act, the Protestant position is correct. It can
not be doubted that in the New Testament Justfficatlon is
used in both senses; and therefore both Protestants and
Catholics are correct, and they ought to get together and
agree on their terminology.
§ 5. The Roman Catholics make baptism the instrumental
cause of justification, through which the justifying grace of God
is infused by regeneration. Thereby the original righteousness,
lost at the Fall, is restored by the grace of God. Protestants or
dinarily separate justification from baptism and regeneration.
The Roman Catholic doctrine is definite and clear.* But
the Lutherans are not so clear in their idea of the relation
of justification to regeneration and baptism.f The Re
formed Churches are not clear either. J
The Westminster Confession puts regeneration under ef
fectual calling, and states that God justffies those whom
He effectually calls (10, 11).
While effectual calhng precedes or, at all events, accompa
nies justification: it is not an act but a process; and therefore
includes more than justification and passes over into the
sphere of sanctlficatlon and the internal change of the soul of
man. So also regeneration is more than justification, be
cause it changes the nature of man and begins the process
" Council of Trent, Sess. 6'.
t Luther's Little Catechism, 4 ; Formula of Concord, 5.
t French Confession, 22; Articles of Religion, 27.

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 317
of sanctlficatlon. Regeneration was attached to baptism by
the Protestant as weU as the Roman Catholic divines, and
has been separated from it only since the Pietistic and Meth-
odistlc movements of the eighteenth century.
The Roman Catholics attach effectual calling and regener
ation to justfficatlon. If they are separated and distin
guished from justification, and justification Is regarded as
merely a putative act of God, the Protestant position is jus
tified; but if they are combined with justification, the Roman
doctrine is correct.
There is then no real disagreement as to the realities, but
only as to doctrinal explanations.
§ 6. Catholics and Protestants agreed in the Augustinian
doctrine that the sin of our first parents resulted in the loss of
original righteousness and in the guilt of transgression, not
only for themselves but for all their posterity. Roman Catholics
assert that the original righteousness was a donum superad-
ditum, a gracious supernatural endowment; whereas Protestants
claim that it belonged to man as a natural endowment.
The Council of Trent discussed original sin in the fifth
Session immediately before justification, as if it considered
that a more fundamental doctrine upon which justification
depends; and so in fact it is.
The Roman Catholic doctrine adheres strictly to the Au
gustinian doctrine of original sin as held by the Church for a
thousand years before the Reformation. The Council rep
resented that Adam "lost the holiness and justice wherein he
had been constituted" (5^); that his loss and guilt were
transmitted to his posterity (5^) ; and cannot be taken away
"by any other remedy than the merit of the one Media
tor, our Lord Jesus Christ" (5^; that "by the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guUt
of original sin is remitted," and nothing but concupiscence
remains, which "the Catholic Church has never understood
to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born
again, but because it is of sin and incHnes to sin" (5^.

318 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The Augsburg Confession is brief and ambiguous where it
says: "Also they teach that, after Adam's fall, all men begotten after the
common course of nature are born with sin; that is, without the fear of
God, without trust in Him, and with fleshly appetite; and that this
disease, or original fault, is truly sin, condemning and bringing eternal
death now also upon all that are not born again by Baptism and the
Holy Spirit." (Pt. I, Art. 2.)
The Responsio of the Catholics finds fault with It only as
attributing to infants what really are sins of adults, and
criticises Luther for teaching that concupiscence remains
a sin after baptism. Melanchthon In ffis Apology explains
the Confession as teaching here that infants by natural
birth. lack the ability of fearing and trusting God. But, as
Mohler states, that makes the difference more evident; for
Roman Catholics teach that all that was lost by the Fall was
supernatural grace, whereas the Protestants assert that the
natural ability to fear God and trust Him was lost.
This difference of the Protestant from Cathohc doctrine
does not appear in the Augsburg Confession; but really it
was one of the most Important ones, as is evident from the
conferences concermng reunion. After considerable debate,
the irenic divines came to a temporary agreement on this
subject of original sin at the conference of Worms, 1541.*
But the agreement was only provisional, and the antithet
ical positions developed as foUows :
(1) The Protestants held that original sin was not merely
a loss of the supernatural endowment of man with the grace
of God, but also of his natural endowment as a man created
in the image of God; (2) that it was not merely a loss, but
also a positive corruption of the whole nature resulting in
total depravity; (3) that original sin was not removed by
baptism, but only forgiven; (4) that concupiscence was really
and in fact sin after baptism.
The Protestant position is well summarised in the Belgic
Confession. * Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen, ss. 216-7.

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 319
"We believe that, through the disobedience of Adam, original sin is
extended to all mankind; which is a corruption of the whole nature,
and an hereditary disease, wherewith infants themselves are infected
even in their mother's womb, and which produceth in man all sorts of
sin, being in him as a root thereof; and therefore is so vile and abom
inable in the sight of God that it is sufficient to condemn all mankind.
Nor is it by any means abolished or done away by baptism; since sin
always issues forth from this woful source, as water from a fountain:
notwithstanding it is not imputed to the children of God unto con
demnation, but by His grace and mercy is forgiven them." (Art. 15.)*
In all these differences the Protestants emphasised and
exaggerated Original Sin to an extent and degree unknown
before in the Church. This subject gave trouble to both
Lutheran and Reformed theologians in the differences that
arose among them, which will have to be considered later. It
may be regarded as significant that Mohler begins his dis
cussion of the differences between the Churches with two
chapters on original sin;t and that it is the Protestant rather
than the Roman Catholic doctrine that conflicts with mod
ern Anthropology.
§ 7. The Roman Catholics claimed that the prevenient di
vine grace is an assisting grace, with which the free will of man
co-operates in repentance as a preparation for the grace of jus
tification. Luther, Calvin, and most Protestants denied this
power of co-operation in man, and asserted that justification
was by the divine grace only.
This is a difference between high Augustinianism and low
Augustinianism. The Melanchthonians and Armimans took
essentially the Roman Catholic position, the Formula of
Concord an intermediate one. There can be no doubt that
the Roman Catholics adhered to the consensus of the Church
before the Reformation; and that the Protestants repre
sented a doctrine recognised as valid, but not as the teach
ing of the Church. The Augsburg Confession as composed
by Melanchthon does not teach anything on this matter of
* Cf. Gallic. Confession, 9-12; Articles of Religion, 9.
t Mohler, Symbolik, ss. 25-98.

320 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
assisting grace, or the co-operating free will; and Lutheranism
has not, in fact, followed Luther in his high Augustinianism
but has endeavoured to take an intermediate position.
It is agreed that man is unable to do anything toward his
salvation without the divine grace, and that there is prepara
tory grace as well as effectual grace. The question is sim
ply this: whether man is purely passive to the efficacious
grace of God or whether he is active, not before grace or
after grace, but in the grace itself. Thus the Council of
Trent: "While God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy
Ghost, neither is man himself utterly inactive while he receives that
inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by
his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto jus
tice in His sight." (6'.)
The Symbols of the Reformation ignore this antithesis.
It comes into prominence later.
§ 8. Sanctification may be considered either as consecra
tion or as a perfecting. In the former sense the Roman Cath
olics identify it with the positive side of justification. The
Protestants carefully distinguish sanctification even in this
sense from justification. The Roman Catholics also assert an
increase of justification, which corresponds with a perfecting
sanctification. The whole question of sanctification was left in a very
obscure and unsatisfactory condition at the time of the Ref
ormation and, indeed, subsequently till the present time.
For it was not clearly distinguished from justification by the
Roman Catholics, and the Protestants were so intent upon
the separation of the two and upon emphasising justifica
tion to the extent of identifying it with salvation that they
neglected to study and unfold the doctrine of sanctification.
The Council of Trent distinctly identifies sanctification with
justification, regarding it as the "Increase of Justification,"
thus:

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 321
"Having therefore been thus justified, and made the friends and
domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed,
as the apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of
their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto
sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of
God and of the Church, faith cooperating with good works, increase in
that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and
are still further justified." (6'°.)
The Belgic Confession gives the best Protestant statement
of sanctification of the period of the Reformation.
"We believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by the hearing
of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regen
erate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and
freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being
true, that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy
hfe, that on the contrary, without it they would never do anything out
of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. There
fore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man: for
we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith as is called in Scrip
ture a faith that worketh by love, which excites man to the practice
of those works which God has commanded in His Word. Which
works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and ac
ceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by
His grace." (Art. 24.)
Still better is the statement of sanctification in the West
minster Confession, chapter 13. But even here its relation
to justification is not clear, no attention is given to the two
kinds of sanctification, and modern Presbyterians have not
as a body held to the doctrine.
John Wesley, the Oberlin Theology, the Methodists, and
the Salvation Army have more advanced conceptions of this
subject; but they do not state their opinions clearly and in
dogmatic forms, and these have not become symbohcal.
Some Methodists and Plymouth Brethren assert immediate
sanctffication, thinking of the consecrating sanctification or
of some particular stage in the progress of sanctification, as,
for example, in the experience of holy love and absence of
the consciousness of known sin.

322 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
It is important that there should be a clear distinction
between the consecrating sanctification, which is identified
with regeneration, and the perfecting sanctification which is
progressive during the Christian's life and only perfected
after death in the Intermediate State.*
§ 9. The Roman Catholics maintained that the justified
were able by divine grace to keep the commandments of God, and
that good works were obligatory and necessary to final salvation.
Protestants claimed that good works were not necessary to sal
vation, though they were the fruits of a living faith.
The Council of Trent says:
"But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself ex
empt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make
use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anath
ema — that the observance of the commandments of God is impossi
ble for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities,
but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou art able,
and to pray for what thou art not able, and aids thee that thou mayest
be able; whose commandments are not heavy, whose yoke is sweet and
whose burden is light." (6".)
The antithesis is not so much with the Protestant Confes
sions as with Protestant theologians. Thus the Augsburg
Confession says:
"Moreover, ours teach that it is necessary to do good works; not
that we may trust that we deserve grace by them, but because it is the
will of God that we should do them. By faith alone is apprehended
remission of sins and grace. And because the Holy Spirit is received
by faith, our hearts are now renewed, and so put on new affections, so
that they are able to bring forth good works." (Pt. I, Art. 20.)f
The question is not as to the obligation to obey the divine
commands, but as to our ability to obey them perfectly in
this life. The Council is certainly correct in asserting that
" God commands not impossibilities," and that any lack of
* Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 338 seg.
t So essentially the Articles of Religion, 12 {v. p. 315).

¦ THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 323
abUIty in man is supplied by grace, if sought diligently by
prayer and effort of obedience. The Protestants think too
much of salvation in its beginning, and of the limitation of
opportunity by death, and of the experience of Imperfection
in mankind, even the best. It is easier for the Roman
Catholics to think of Christian perfection because they are
looking more at the goal, the ultimate tribunal of Christ,
and the progression of salvation in the Intermediate State
after death.
The Council of Trent in its Canons says:
"If anyone saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one
that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep: let him be
anathema." (18.)
"If anyone saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect so
ever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the
Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and
absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the
commandments: let him be anathema." (20.)
The Council of Trent undoubtedly stands for the teachings
of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New. To
deny the obligation of the divine Law is Antinomlanism,
which genuine Protestantism has always repudiated. To
deny the possibility of keeping the commandments impeaches
the divine justice of requiring of us more than we are able
to do, and cuts the nerve of human effort, for man will not
attempt impossibilities.
§ 10. Another difference arose as to the question of merit
and works of supererogation; both of which the Catholics as
serted, and both of which all Protestants denied.
The Augsburg Confession rejects the doctrine of human
merit as conflicting with the merit of Christ:
"He therefore, that trusteth by his works to merit grace, doth despise
the merit and grace of Christ, and seeketh by his own power, without
Christ, to come unto the Father. . . . Formerly men's consciences were
vexed with the doctrine of works; they did not hear any comfort out

324 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
of the Gospel. Whereupon conscience drove some into the desert,
into monasteries, hoping there to merit grace by a monastic hfe; others
devised other works whereby to merit grace, and to satisfy for sin.
There was great need therefore to teach and renew this doctrine of
faith in Christ; to the end that fearful consciences might not want com
fort, but might know that grace and forgiveness of sins and justification
are received by faith in Christ. . . . Moreover ours teach that it is
necessary to do good works; not that we may trust that we deserve
grace by them, but because it is the will of God that we should do
them." (Pt. I, Art. 20.)
The Gallican Confession says:
"We therefore reject all other means of justification before God, and
without claiming any virtue or merit, we rest simply in the obedience
of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us as much to blot out all our sins
as to make us find grace and favour in the sight of God." (18.)
The Council of Trent is very careful in its statement as to
human merit:
"Neither is this to be omitted, — ^that, although in the sacred writings
so much is attributed to good works that Christ promises that even he
that shall give a drink of cold water to one of His least ones, shall not
lose his reward; and the apostle testifies that, that which is at present
momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure
exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a
Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord,
whose bounty towards aU men is so great, that He will have the things
which are His own gifts to be their merits. And forasmuch as in many
things we aU offend, each one ought to have before his eyes as well the
severity and judgment as the mercy and goodness (of God) ; neitherought
anyone to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself
of anything; because the whole life of man is to be examined and
judged, not by the judgment of man, but of God, who will bring to
light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of
the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God, Who, as it is
written, will render to every man according to his works." (6''.)
The Protestants were chiefly concerned to rule out human
merit in the article of Justification. The Roman Catholics
could do that, so far as the Protestants' limitation of justi-

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 325
fication to the single act of God In initiating man's salvation
was concerned; but they could not do it when they regarded
justification as comprehending the whole process of grace.
The discussion as to merit is therefore from two entirely
different points of view. Furthermore, the Protestant argu
ments against human merit are chiefly from the abuses of
good works in the Church at the time of the Reformation,
and do not affect the doctrine of merit itself.
The Council of Trent easily brushes aside the Protestant
objections to human merit when it is properly defined. Hu
man merit is not at all involved in the pardon of sin, regen
eration, or the initial act of justfficatlon, but solely and alone
in the good works that are the fruit of faith.
The Belgic Confession in the following statement does not
differ appreciably from the Council of Trent:
" In the meantime we do not deny that God rewards good
works, but it is through His grace that He crowns His gifts."
(Art. 24.)
The question of merit does not depend upon the prior
fulfilment of all the requirements of God, but upon the abil
ity of man to do acts of love and self -sacrffice that are not
required by the commands of God. Thus there may be
merit for such works as are not commanded at the same
time that there is demerit for failure to do the works re
quired, or even for transgression of the commandments of
God. This does not in the shghtest degree impair the merits
of Jesus Christ. As the Council of Trent says:
"If anyone saith that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justifica
tion, by this holy Synod set forth in this present decree, the glory of
God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated
from, and not rather that the truth of our faith and the glory in fine of
God and of Jesus Christ are rendered illustrious: let him be anathema."
(Sess. 6, Canon 33.)
The question of works of supererogation does not appear
in the definitions of the Council of Trent; but it was promi
nent in the discussions of the theologians, especiaUy in con-

326 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
nection with the doctrine of indulgences. The Articles of
Religion have the strongest Article against them.
"Voluntary works besides, over and above God's commandments,
which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without ar-
rogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare that they do not only
render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do
more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ
saith plainly. When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say,
We are unprofitable servants." (14.)
The reference to Luke 17^"'" Is without force; for there
can be no works of supererogation that are commanded, but
only those "over and above God's commandments." No
one can understand the ethical teaching of Jesus who does
not discern His discrimination between lawful, obligatory
service and that of voluntary Christian love, Godlike and
Christlike. It is only in the sphere of voluntary acts of
love that supererogation is possible and real merit Is ac
quired.* So Hermas gives the primitive Christian doctrine based on
the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, In which there was
a consensus of the Church until the Reformation, when he
says: "If thou doest anything good outside of the commandments of God
thou wilt gain for thyself more abundant glory and thou wilt be of more
repute with God than thou wert about to be." — {Similitudes, V : 3^)
The abuse of the counsels of perfection in the times of the
Reformation did not justify their rejection.
§ 11. Another difference arose as to the loss of the grace of
justification and its recovery. This the Catholics asserted, but
many Protestants denied, insisting upon a justification once
for all.
The Council of Trent says:
* Briggs, Ethical Teaching of Jesus, pp. 207 seg.

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 327
"As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace
of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them,
through the sacrament of penance, they shall have attained to the
recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost." (Sess. 6".)
The Catholic position involves a series of justifications.
The second justification and later ones, according to Roman
Catholic teaching, are given through the Sacrament of Pen
ance. This difference does not appear In the Augsburg Confes
sion, but later when the Calvinists Insisted upon the Per
severance of the Saints over against the Arminians. Indeed,
the Arminian doctrine really implies a renewal of justifica
tion; and Fletcher, the chief theologian of the Wesleyans,
does not hesitate to teach it in his Checks to Antinomianism.
§ 12. Protestants and Roman Catholics agreed that the life
of man should be a state of continuous repentance; on the nega
tive side a turning away from sin, and on the positive side a
turning unto God. They differed as to the necessity of auricu
lar confession and absolution in order to the grace of repent
ance. The Council of Trent on the Sacrament of Extreme Unction
and Luther's First Thesis agree that the whole Christian life
ought to be a perpetual penance or repentance, and that re
pentance has the two sides of turning away from sin and
turning unto God. The difference is not as to the spiritual
grace, but as to the external actions which express it: whether
auricular confession is necessary, and as to the priestly func
tion of absolution, and compensation for wrong-doing, all of
which have been considered In the chapter on the Sacraments.
§ 13. Protestants and Roman Catholics agreed as to the final
state of heaven and hell after the resurrection and as to the de
termination of the future life in its main directions by the life
in this world. They differed as to the state between death and
the resurrection. The Roman Catholics asserted that it was a
purgatory for all the redeemed who had not rendered sufficient

328 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
satisfaction by temporal punishment. This the Protestants
denied. The question of the future life was involved in the doctrine
of Penance, especially in the part of Satisfaction. If suffi
cient satisfaction by temporal punishment or discipline had
not been rendered in this life, it must be completed in the
Intermediate state between death and the resurrection.
We have seen in our study of the Descent into Hell of the
Apostles' Creed that the ancients held to the continuation
of the processes of redemption after death, in Hades.* The
emphasis upon satisfaction by temporal punishment or chas
tisement, prior to the Reformation, involved necessarily
the continuation of that satisfaction in Hades. It was In
mediaeval usage called Purgatory, because purgation of sins
was emphasised rather than the completion of sanctification.
At the same time it cannot be said that theologians alto
gether lost sight of the process of sanctification In that state
of existence.
Undoubtedly, many abuses and errors existed in the time
of the Reformation in connection with the doctrine of Pur
gatory; but that did not justify the Protestants in so greatly
neglecting that doctrine or in denying the Roman Cathohc
doctrine without putting anything in its place. The Prot
estant Symbols of the period of the Reformation ignore the
Middle State altogether. The Articles of Religion content
themselves with saying that "The Romish doctrine con
cerning purgatory ... is a fond thing, vainly invented, and
grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather re
pugnant to the Word of God" (Art. 22); but they do not
give us any other doctrine In place of It. The Council of
Trent Is cautious In its statement of this doctrine:
"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has,
from the Sacred Writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers,
taught, in sacred Councils and very recently in this cecumenical Synod,
that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped
by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable
* V. pp. 63 seq.

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 329
sacrifice of the altar — the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they
diligently endeavor that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, trans
mitted by the Holy Fathers and Sacred Councils, be believed, main
tained, taught and everywhere proclaimed by the faithful of Christ.
But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to
edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of
piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated
multitude." (Sess. 25.)
The Greek Church holds to the same doctrine in The
Longer Catechism, which clearly states, with reference to the
souls of the faithful in Hades:
"That they may be aided toward the attainment of a blessed resur-
rection^by prayers offered in their behalf, especially such as are offered
in union with the oblation of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and
Blood of Christ, and by works of mercy done in faith for their mem
ory." (376.)
This doctrine is grounded:
"On the constant tradition of the Catholic Church; the sources of
which may be seen even in the Church of the Old Testament. Judas
Maccabeus offered sacrifice for his men that had fallen (2 Mace. 12*^.
Prayer for the departed has ever formed a fixed part of the divine
liturgy, from the first Liturgy of the Apostle James. St. Cjrril of Jeru
salem says: 'Very great will be the benefit to those souls for which prayer is
offered at the moment when the holy and tremendous Sacrifice is lying in
view.' {Led. Myst. V : 9.) St. Basil the Great, in his prayers for Pente
cost, says that the Lord vouchsafes to receive from us propitiatory
prayers and sacrifices for those that are kept in Hades, and allows us
the hope of obtaining for them peace, relief, and freedom." (377.)
There are differences as to the details of the doctrine be
tween the East and the West, but the symbohc definitions
are the same.
The Protestant theologians unanimously rejected the com
mon Roman Catholic doctrine of satisfaction for sin after
death, and usually also prayers for the dead, but some of
the masters of Theology have looked upon the Middle State
as a period of growth in grace and sanctification. Thus
John Calvin says:

330 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
"As, however, the Spirit is accustomed to speak in this manner in
reference to the last coming of Christ, it were better to extend the ad
vancement of the grace of Christ to the resurrection of the flesh. For
although those who have been freed from the mortal body do no longer
contend with the lusts of the flesh, and are, as the expression is, beyond
the reach of a single dart, yet there will be no absurdity in speaking
of them as in the way of advancement, inasmuch as they have not yet
reached the point at which they aspire, they do not yet enjoy the felicity
and glory which they have hoped for, and, in fine, the day has not yet
shone which is to discover the treasures which lie hid in hope. And, in
truth, when hope is treated of, our eyes must always be directed for
ward to a blessed resurrection as the grand object in view." — (Calvin
on Phil. 16.)
So also John Wesley says:
"Can we reasonably doubt but that those who are now in Paradise
in Abraham's bosom, all those holy souls who have been discharged from
the body from the beginning of the world unto this day, will be continu
ally ripening for heaven, will be perpetually holier and happier, till they
are received into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation
of the world?"— (Works, CXXVI, Sermon on Faith.)
I have endeavoured to open up this side of the doctrine of
the Middle State by teaching progressive sanctification after
death. The unpreparedness of the American Presbyterian
Church for this doctrine, which the Christian Church has
held from the beginning, was manifest by their rejection of it
as a heresy at the General Assembly in Washington in 1893.*
§ 14. The Protestants and Catholics agreed in the Anselmic
doctrine of the atonement in all essentials: (1) that Christ's
death was a satisfaction for the sins of the world, and (2) that
Christ's merit is the only ground of our salvation. They dif
fered in their opinion whether these doctrines were compro
mised by the institutions and practice of the Roman Church.
As we have seen, the Anselmic doctrine of the atonement
won the consensus of the Mediaeval Church; but there was
no symbolic definition of the doctrine until the Reforma-
* Defence of Professor Briggs, pp. 151 seg.

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 331
tion, when it appears in all the Confessions, but incidentally
only. The Augsburg Confession presents as the purpose of Christ:
"that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and might be a sacrifice,
not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." (3.)
"They are received into favour, and their sins forgiven for Christ's
sake, who by His death hath satisfied for our sins." (4.)
So Zwingli's Sixty-seven Articles:
"Christ . . . has redeemed us from death, and reconciled us with
God, by His innocence." (2.) "Christ . . . offered Himself once for
all and is the eternal sacrifice, affording satisfaction for the sins of all
believers." (18.)
The First Helvetic confesses that Jesus is the only Media
tor, Intercessor, Sacrifice, High Priest, Lord, and King, our
reconciliation, redemption, sanctification, expiation, wisdom,
and protection. (11.)
The French Confession:
"We believe that by the perfect sacrifice that the Lord
Jesus offered on the cross, we are reconciled to God, and
justified before Him." (17.)
The Articles of Religion:
"He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by the sac
rffice of Himself once made, should take away the sins of
the world." (15.)
The Roman Catholic doctrine is given by the Council of
Trent: "Ii any one asserts, that this sin of Adam ... is taken away either
by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit
of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God
in His own blood, being made unto us justice, sanctification and redemp
tion," etc. (Sess. 5'.)
"Him God hath proposed as a propitiation through faith in His blood,
for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole
world." (62.)
The meritorious cause of justification is "our Lord Jesus Christ, who,
when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith He loved us.

332 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
merited Justification for us by His most holy passion on the wood of the
cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father." (6'.)
"He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer
Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of
His death, there to operate an eternal redemption," etc. (22^.)
There can be no doubt that Rome and Protestants agree
in all these essential points. Details of disagreement belong
to theological controversies which will appear later on.
§ 15. The Roman Catholics and Protestants also agreed as
to the essential constitution of the Church as the one, holy, cath
olic, apostolic Church of the ancient Creeds, and as to the me
diceval emphasis upon the Church as Christ's body and bride,
and that Christ as the head of His Church imparted to it His
authority and diffused His grace through all her institutions.
Thus Zwingli in his Sixty-seven Articles maintained that
Christ is the head of His body, the Church, and all Chris
tians are members of His body, and that the Cathohc Church
is the communion of saints, the bride of Christ. (Art. 7, 8.)
The Belgic Confession:
"We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church, which is a
holy congregation and assembly of true Christian believers, expecting
all their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified
and sealed by the Holy Ghost. This Church hath been from the be
ginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof, which is evident from
this, that Christ is an eternal king," etc. (27.)
"As for the ministers of God's Word, they have equally the same
power and authority wheresoever they are, as they are all ministers of
Christ, the only universal Bishop, and the only Head of the Church."
(31.) § 16. The most important difference was as to the nature of
the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. There was agreement
as to the presence but difference as to the mode, whether tran-
substantial, consubstantial, dynamic, or memorial.
These differences involved later discussions as to the
nature of the glorified body of our Lord and of the commu
nication of properties of the divine nature to the human,
differences which do not appear in the Symbols of the Ref-

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 333
ormation period, but first in the Formula of Concord and
the Saxon Visitation Articles. The Eucharlstic differences
have already been considered in the chapter on The Sacra
ments.* § 17. The second Christological difference was as to whether
the headship of Christ over the Church excludes the headship
of the Pope.
The Pope may assume prerogatives that belong exclusively
to Christ, but this Is not involved In the papacy as defined
by the Roman Cathohc Symbols.
The Pope Is the head of the Church as the vice-regent of
Christ. If the Church on earth is to have a head, it is diffi
cult to see why an executive head should intrude on Christ's
prerogative any more than a legislative head like an ecu
menical Council, or why a pope as the head of the whole
Church should interfere with the crown rights of Christ any
more than a primate of a national Church, a bishop of a
diocese, or a pastor of a local church, except In the extent
and to the degree in which he may do it. So an ecumenical
Council has a more extensive jurisdiction than a provincial
Synod or a Presbytery; but any one of them acting as of
divine right may intrude upon Christ's prerogative just as
truly as any other.
All earthly jurisdictions should be on their guard in claim
ing the jus divinum; and there is a peril in exaggerating their
authority. History shows that Protestant Church govern
ment has no more escaped that danger than the Papal.
The difference here is not in doctrine; but it Is a question
of fact asserted by Protestants when they claim that the
Pope is antichrist, but denied by Roman Cathohcs, who
assert that the Pope is the vicar of Christ.
§ 18. The third difference is as to whether the one eternal
priesthood of Christ is opposed to the priestly hierarchy in the
Church of Rome. * V. pp. 281 seg.

334 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
Thus Zwingli asserts that those who give themselves out
to be the chief priests are adversaries to the honour and power
of Christ, and reject Him. (17.)
Rome, on the other hand, maintains that the priesthood
in the Church Is the priesthood instituted and directed by
the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, Christ Him
self; and that the hierarchy is only in several stages of juris
diction above the priest, and, in fact, is not higher in priest
hood than the simplest priest.
The Protestants recognise a priesthood in the ministry in
some sense. The difference really is as to the nature of
priesthood, and not as to Christ's high-priesthood or the
relation of the earthly priesthood to the heavenly.
§ 19. The fourth difference is as to whether the sacrifice of
the mass is opposed to the one eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Zwingll denies that the mass is a sacrifice. He says on
the basis of the statement as to Christ's sacrifice:
"From this it is gathered that the mass is not a sacrifice, but the com
memoration of the sacrifice once offered on the cross, and as it were a
seal of the redemption effected by Christ." (18.)
The Council of Trent, on the other hand, refuses such a
thing. The sacrifice of the mass is a representation of the
sacrifice once offered on the cross. The elements offered on
earth have their only validity by their union with the one
sacrifice of the flesh and blood of Christ in heaven. The
mass, what is It but the real body and blood of Christ? noth
ing else, according to Roman Catholic doctrine. Therefore
there can be no such interference as Protestants urge. On
the other hand, it is claimed that the sacrifice of the mass
compels attention to the one sacrifice of Christ as the great
central fact of the Christian religion; whereas in Protestant
worship it is entirely dependent on the minister whether the
people are called to consider the sacrifice of Christ or not.
When the atonement was emphasised in preaching the sac
rifice of Christ was sufficiently before the minds of the

THE DOCTRINES OF FAITH AND MORALS 335
people. But in these days, when the atonement is no
longer so prominent In Theology, it is to be feared that the
one sacrifice is not sufficiently before the minds of the people
in the Protestant world.
§ 20. The fifth difference is as to whether the mediatorship of
Christ and His heavenly intercession exclude the intercession
and mediation of saints.
Thus the Theses of Bern :
"As Christ alone died for us, so is He to be prayed to as the only
mediator and intercessor between God the Father and us believers.
Therefore, the proposal to pray to other mediators and intercessors,
existing outside of this life, fights against the foundation of the Word
of God." (6.)
Undoubtedly, the Invocation of saints, and reliance upon
their mediation and intercession may and does interfere
with reliance upon Christ, the one mediator and intercessor;
but not necessarily so. The intercession of the Church and
of pious people is urged In the Protestant Churches. Why, it
may be asked, should this intercession and mediation cease
when they depart into the other world into closer communion
with Christ?
The basis of the Protestant opposition is not Christological
so much as eschatologlcal; opposition to the doctrine of
Purgatory and neglect of the Middle State between death
and the resurrection.
§ 21. The sixth difference is as to the merits of Christ: do
they exclude the merit of good works f
The Roman Catholic Church in the Council of Trent as
serts no less strongly than the Protestant Confessions that
justfficatlon and sanctification are due to the merits of Jesus
Christ alone; and they claim that the merit of good works
has notffing whatever to do with the question. Undoubt
edly, if men rely on good works for their salvation they in
trude on the merits of Christ. But the Roman Catholics

336 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
renounce this as truly as the Protestants. The question is
not a Christological one at all, but an ethical and practical
one, as to the relation of the Christian to the Law of God,
as to the question of works of supererogation, and as to
the relation of works to faith and sanctification, upon
which Protestants themselves disagree no less than they do
with the Roman Cathohcs.

CHAPTER V
THE FORMULA OF CONCORD AND ITS OPPONENTS
We have already given in Chapter V of Particular Sym
bolics an account of the origin and history of the Formula of
Concord. We have now to consider its definitions and state
ments in their relation to the controversies of the time.
§ 1. Original sin is defined as a moral and rwt a physical
defect, adhering to and corrupting human nature, not to be re
moved till the Resurrection. Manichceism is rejected in its
original form and in its more refined form of Flacianism.
On the other hand, not only are Pelagianism and Semi-Pela
gianism repudiated, but also the milder Augustinianism of the
Catholic Church and the immediate imputation of Adam's sin
of the Reformed Scholastics.
Matthaias Flacius lUyrlcus, a pupil of Luther, building on
some unguarded statements of Luther, that original sin was
"a sin of nature, personal and essential," revived the Man-
ichaean dualism, although in a more refined form, teaching
that Original Sin was of "the very substance or essence of
the natural man, who after the Fall ceased to be in any sense
the image of God, and became the very image of Satan." *
He distinguishes, however, between the physical and moral
nature, and makes only the moral nature essentially sinful, t
Flacius' views came into the field of conflict in 1560, at a
* Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I, pp. 269 seg.
t This view has been revived in recent times by the Plymouth Breth
ren in England, who so emphasise the distinction of the inward and out
ward man of Rom. T^-'^ as to make two distinct natures in the regener
ate man: the old, u:redeemable; and the new, created in regeneration
and alone capable of salvation. 337

338 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
colloquy at Weimar, and continued to trouble the Lutheran
Churches till long after his death (1575).
As we have already seen, Luther was an extreme Augus
tinian in the matter of sin as well as of grace, and he led
Lutherans into grosser views of original sin than the Catholic
Church had ever sanctioned. The Formula of Concord tries
to be faithful to Luther and yet to reject the extravagances
of Flacius. The Article first gives a statement of the alter
natives, then affirms the right alternative and rejects the
wrong. As to the simple alternative, there can be no ques
tion that the Formula of Concord decides in accordance with
the New Testament and the historic Faith of the Church
when it says:
"The nature itself is one thing, and Original Sin another thing, which
adheres in the corrupt nature, and also corrupts the nature." (Art. I,
Statement.) But it goes into such details in the rejection of supposed
errors that it comes into conflict not only with Manichae-
ism and Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, but with other
opinions of ancient, mediaeval, and modern times. Thus It
rejects: (1) immediate imputation of Adam's sin to his pos
terity, the doctrine of the scholastics of the Reformed
Churches, and still maintained by the Princeton school of
theology; (2) the doctrine that depraved concupiscences are
not sin, which conflicts with the Council of Trent. (3) It
then rejects Pelagianism, which asserted "that the nature of
man after the Fall is incorrupt." It also rejects various
forms of Semi-Pelagianism, as (4) that original sin is like a
birthmark, not impairing man's spiritual powers; (5) that it
is a stain which may be easily removed; (6) the milder Au
gustinianism of the Catholic Church that " man's nature and
essence are not utterly corrupt, but that there is something
of good still remaining in man even in spiritual things";
(7) Manichceism; that "Original Sin is, as it were, something
essential and substantial"; then (8) Flacianism; "that Orig
inal Sin is properly and without distinction the very sub-

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 339
stance, nature and essence of fallen man; so that between his
corrupt nature after the Fall considered in itself, and Original
Sin, there is no difference at all."
It also asserts the extreme doctrine that original sin can
not be removed until the Resurrection, which is against the
Catholic doctrine that it is removed by regeneration In
baptism. It is evident that the Formula of Concord does much more
than reject the new Manichaeism of Flacius; it rejects the
milder Augustinianism of the Catholic Church and of many
Protestant divines, and sows the seeds of numberless con
troversies which continue until the present day. There are
few theologians in Germany, or elsewhere, who can accept
all of its statements on this subject.
Furthermore, the difficulties of the doctrine of Original Sin
are not really faced. No adequate solution of the difficult
problem is given. It rules out from orthodoxy the greater
part of the Christian world at the time this article was writ
ten; also almost the entire Christian world before the Refor
mation, and all but a very small minority of Protestants, and
even of German Lutherans at the present time. We shall
meet the same problems In better form later in the contro
versies in the Reformed and Anglican Churches.
§ 2. The Formula of Concord asserts the entire bondage of
the will to sin before regeneration. It rejects the Melanchtlio-
nian synergism, which recognises that unregenerate man has
still a slight remnant of freedom of the will, which he may use
in co-operating with the grace of God. It also rejects the Cath
olic doctrine that the regenerate may in this life fulfil the Law
of God and gain the merit of his righteousness.
Luther asserted in the baldest form the bondage of the
human will and waged a fierce war with Erasmus on this
subject. Erasmus maintained the common doctrine of the
Catholic Church before the Reformation.*
Melanchthon was undoubtedly Influenced by Erasmus as
* 7. pp. 127 seg.

340 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
well as by his general humanistic and milder tendencies.
The controversy was opened by Pfeffinger (Professor in
Leipzig), in 1550, who maintained the freedom of the will;
not much freedom Indeed, but a hmited freedom; as Pfef
finger says: "the contribution of a penny toward the dis
charge of a very large debt."
The radical Lutherans appealed to the teaching of Luther
and maintained the entire bondage of the will. The For
mula of Concord states the case with reference to fallen and
unregenerate man thus:
"Whether by his own proper powers, before he has been regenerated by
the Spirit of God, he can apply and prepare himself unto the grace of
God; and whether he can receive and apprehend the divine grace
(which is offered to him through the Holy Ghost in the Word and sac
raments divinely instituted), or not."
The Formula of Concord asserts the negative.
We cannot notice all the opinions rejected, but only the
most Important:
(1) It repudiates Pelagianism, which asserts "that man
by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Spirit, has
ability to convert himself to God."
(2) Semi-Pelagianism, which teaches "that man by his
own powers can commence his conversion, but cannot fully
accomplish it without the grace of the Holy Spirit."
(3) The common Catholic doctrine before the Reforma
tion, stated in the Council of Trent, and put in the modffied
form of the PhUIppists:
"If the Holy Spirit, by the preaching of the Word, shall have made a
beginning, and offered His grace in the Word to man, that then man, by
his own proper and natural powers, can, as it were, give some assistance
and co-operation, though it be but slight, infirm, and languid, towards
his conversion, and can apply and prepare himself unto grace, apprehend
it, embrace it, and beheve the Gospel."
(4) Also the common Catholic doctrine that "man after
regeneration can perfectly observe and fuffil the Law of

THE FORMULA OP CONCORD 341
God, and that this fulfilling Is our righteousness before God,
whereby we merit eternal life."
In the justification of Luther it is maintained that man
may resist In unwillingness the divine Spirit, but that he Is
purely passive in conversion, and that the only two efficient
causes in conversion are the Holy Spirit and the Word of
God, which is the instrument of the Holy Spirit whereby He
effects the conversion of man.
This, as Schaff says,* Is against Melanchthon, who "taught
that there are three causes of conversion closely combined;
namely, the Holy Spirit (the creative cause), the Word of
God (the instrumental cause), and the consenting will of man."
It is evident that the modern Lutherans would for the
most part follow Melanchthon In this doctrine rather than
Luther and the Formula of Concord. We shall meet the
same question more thoroughly considered in the Reformed
Churches. But it is evident that the Formula of Concord
gave no irenic settlement of these problems, but only an
authoritative decision in favour of a party in the Lutheran
Churches. § 3. The Formula of Concord asserts the imputation of
Christ's righteousness in justification, both of His active and
passive obedience, and according to both natures, the human
and the divine, over against partial views of Christ's righteous
ness; and it rejects the infusion of Christ's righteousness as
taught by Osiander.
Luther asserted justification by faith only, an immediate
act of God, faith being the instrument by which man
receives it. Andreas Osiander was one of the Reformers
of Nuremberg (1522), afterward Professor at Konlgsberg
(1549). He objected to the forensic doctrine of justifica
tion, and taught that it was by an act of infusion. The
righteousness of Christ was infused by regeneration, and it
thus became our righteousness. He still regarded justifica
tion as immediate and as an act of God, and so differed
* Creeds of Christendom, III, p. 113.

342 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
from the Roman Catholic doctrine of a gradual justification
by gradual infusion of grace. He also held that the Incarna
tion of Christ and the regeneration of man were not due to
the Fall and Original Sin, because in any case man must
receive the righteousness of Christ In order to be a partaker
of the essential righteousness of God. He thus raised many
profound problems, the most of which were Ignored by the
Formula of Concord. The question considered was as to
whether the righteousness of Christ becomes ours by impu
tation or by infusion. Oslander's views were opposed by
Francesco Stancaro, an Itahan, who also became Professor
in Konlgsberg. He asserted that Christ was our Mediator
according to His human nature only, reviving an opinion
proposed by Peter Lombard. Karg, in Bavaria, opposed
the doctrine of imputation, and limited the redemptive work
of Christ to His passive obedience in His passion, and re
garded justfficatlon as essentially forgiveness of sins.
The Formula of Concord affirms:
(1) That we are justified by faith only, and (2) that Christ
alone is our righteousness, (3) according to both natures, the
human and the divine, (4) by His absolute obedience as well
as by His sufferings for sin; and (5) that His righteousness is
imputed and not infused.
The following are some of the errors rejected:
(1) "That Christ is our righteousness only according to His divine
nature." (2) "That Christ is our righteousness only according to His human
nature." (3) "That we through love infused by the Holy Ghost, through the
virtues and through the works which flow forth from charity, become
in very deed righteous before God" (the Roman Cathohc doctrine).
(4) "That believers in Christ are righteous and saved before God
both through the imputed righteousness of Christ and through the new
obedience which is begun in them."
The distinction between the active and the passive obedi
ence of Christ, and between the human and the divine na
tures in the matter of the righteousness of Christ and our

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 343
appropriation of it, is rightly rejected by the Formula of
Concord. But many modern scholars do not favour the sola-
fidean position of the Formula of Concord, or the external and
merely forensic imputation of Christ's righteousness, which
seems to them not reality but fiction. It does not make the
regenerate really righteous, but only putafively so; that is, it
regards and treats them as if they were very different from
what they really are.
The views of Osiander have been more clearly stated and
more strongly enforced by the Quakers, or Friends, who orig
inated out of the Church of England in the seventeenth cen
tury. These insist upon the Christ within us as the ground
of our justification, rather than the Christ without us. And
that opinion is more In accordance with modern thought, as
it gives us possession of a real righteousness within us, which,
though Christ's, is ours because Christ is really ours. This
does not solve the problem; for the problem of justification
depends upon the solution of the problem of sanctification
and of the relation of Christ's righteousness to the personal
righteousness of the believer as acquired by the process of
sanctification. Here again the Formula of Concord does not
solve the difficulties of the sixteenth century, but raises new
ones. This question also was more fully discussed and bet
ter solutions reached at later times In the British Churches.
§ 4. The Formula of Concord asserts, over against the Ro
man Catholics, that good works are voluntary and not obliga
tory to the Christian; that they are wholly to be excluded from
any necessity or merit as regards our eternal salvation, as well
as our justification. It also rejects the Reformed doctrine of
the eternal perseverance of the saints.
Luther, in his zeal for faith only and contention against
human merit, threw love into the background and seemed to
make good works unimportant as regards salvation. Me
lanchthon was a better theologian. He taught the necessity
of good works as the fruits of faith, but not as a preliminary
condition of salvation, which is a gift of God, not due to

344 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
human merit. The pupils of Luther and Melanchthon came
into conflict on this question. Major, Professor at Witten
berg, declared in 1552 that good works are necessary to
salvation, making the often-neglected distinction between
justfficatlon and sanctification. This was bitterly contra
dicted by Amsdorf, who asserted. In 1559, that good works
are dangerous to salvation. A synod held at Eisenach in
1556 decided that Major's proposition was true only in
abstracto and in foro legis, but not in foro evangelii; and that
it should be avoided as liable to be misunderstood in a popish
sense. Christ delivered us from the curse of the law, and
faith alone is necessary both for justfficatlon and salvation,
which are identical.*
The Formula of Concord analyses this question Into two:
(1) whether "good works are necessary to salvation" or
"detrimental to salvation"; (2) whether "the new obedi
ence flows from a voluntary spirit" or "is not left to our mere
will, and, therefore, is not free, but that regenerate men are
bound to render such service."
(1 and 2) The Formula of Concord rejects the statements of
both Major and Amsdorf, and takes an intermediate posi
tion, which is not altogether consistent. It asserts that good
works are the sure fruits of a true faith, that the "regener
ated and renewed are debtors to do good works," but that
they render obedience "not of constraint or compulsion of
the Law, but of a free and spontaneous spirit." It maintains
that " good works are wholly to be excluded, not only when
the righteousness of faith is treated of, but also when the
matter of our eternal salvation Is discussed."
(3) It rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of the merit
of good works, even in the regenerate man, and also (4) the
Calvinistic doctrine of the eternal perseverance of the saints,
and maintains, as regards the latter, that faith and grace
may be lost after regeneration.
Here again the Formula of Concord stands as near Luther
as possible, and comes Into conflict with Roman Catholics,
* V. Schaff, Creeds, I, p. 276.

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 345
Reformed, and the Philippists as well, and really takes an
unethical position, which was in later times repudiated by
most Lutherans. The identification of justification with sal
vation was a mischievous position, which made it impracti
cable to unfold the doctrine of sanctffication and kept Lu
theran theology for ever battling over the technicalities of
the Initial step in human salvation. The Reformed and An
ghcan Churches take better positions here, as we shall see
later on.
§ 5. The Formula of Concord sharply distinguishes be
tween the Law and the Gospel, the former being anything in
the Bible which convicts of sin, the latter the good tidings of sal
vation. The proper uses of the Law are: (1) an external disci
pline, (2) to bring men to a knowledge of their sins, (3) as a rule
of life. Antinomianism is rejected on the one hand, and legal
obligation on the other.
The battle over the use of the Law was really earher than
that over good works. We discuss it here in the order of the
Formula of Concord. Agricola, one of the Saxon Reformers,
in 1527 attacked Melanchthon for preaching the doctrine
that the Law should be used to bring men to repentance, and
urged that the Law had been superseded by the Gospel.
Luther opposed Agricola here, and maintained that the Law
produced the negative side of repentance, knowledge of sin
and sorrow for it; but that the Gospel produced the positive
side, the resolution to lead a better hfe. The Formula of
Concord makes Law "whatever is found in the Holy Scrip
tures which convicts of sins,"* and therefore Law is in the
New Testament as well as in the Old. The Gospel is thus
defined: "That it behooves man to believe that Jesus Christ
has expiated all his sins, and made satisfaction for them, and
has obtained remission of sins, righteousness which avails
before God, and eternal life, without the intervention of any
merit of the sinner." This is a merely theoretic distinction
between Law and Gospel, but upon it is based the doctrine
*Art. V:3.

346 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
as to the uses of the Law and the Gospel. The Formula
accordingly makes this very remarkable statement:
"We reject, therefore, as a false and perilous dogma, the assertion
that the Gospel is properly a preaching of repentance, rebuking, ac
cusing, and condemning sins, and that it is not solely a preaching of the
grace of God. For in this way the Gospel is transformed again into
Law, the merit of Christ and the Holy Scriptures are obscured, a true
and solid consolation is wrested away from godly souls, and the way is
opened to the papal errors and superstitions."
The Formula of Concord gives three uses of the Law: (1)
external discipline; (2) to bring men to acknowledgment of
their sins; (3) as a rule of life for the regenerate. Contro
versy is as to the third, whether the regenerate are to be
urged to the observance of it or not. The Formula of Con
cord takes the former alternative and repudiates the other
as false and permcious dogma.
Here, again, more difficulties are raised than solved by
these definitions. The distinction between Law and Gospel,
though based on Luther himself, is purely theoretical, diffi
cult to carry out, and really impossible, as it involves an
arbitrary assignment of the material throughout both the
Old and the New Testaments, in accordance with Luther's
distinction as to what Law and Gospel reaUy are. Indeed,
the greater portion of the Bible cannot with any degree of
certainty be assigned either to the one or to the other. This
distinction is not recognised by any other body of Chris
tians but the Lutherans; and so they separated themselves
from the whole Christian world, ancient and modern, on
this question. We shall meet with this question in the Re
formed Churches also, especially in the Wesleyan view that
the Gospel is a new Law, the very antithesis of the Lu
theran position.
§ 6. The Formula of Concord asserts that the body and
blood of Christ are truly and substantially present in the Eu
charist, are distributed with the bread and wine, and are taken

THE FORMULA OP CONCORD 347
into the mouth by all who use the sacrament, whether worthy or
unworthy. It rejects: (1) the Roman Catholic transubstan
tiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the withholding of the cup from
the laity, and the adoration of the elements; (2) the supposed
Zwinglian theory that the bread and wine are only symbols,
figures, similitudes, types, or memorial signs; (3) the supposed
crypto-Calvinist view, that only the virtue, operation, and
merit of the absent body of Christ are dispensed.
The antithesis between Luther and Zwingli in the doctrine
of the Eucharist was softened by the mediation of Melanch
thon and Bucer, and at last by Calvin, whose views were
essentially accepted by Melanchthon in the edition of the
Augsburg Confession of 1540, called the variata as distin
guished from the original of 1530, which was named the
invariata.* The extreme Lutherans, however, could not be reconciled
to the intermediate position of the PhUIppists.
Westphal of Hamburg in 1552 renewed the battle by an
attack on Calvin, Peter Martyr, and also the PhUIppists, who
were called crypto-Calvinists.
The Formula of Concord thus states the controversy :t
"It is asked whether in the Holy Supper the true body and true blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and substantially present, and are
distributed with the bread and wine, and are taken with the mouth by
all those who use this sacrament, be they worthy or unworthy," etc.
The Formula of Concord distinguishes two kinds of sacramentarians:
(1) the "gross sacramentarians" who "profess . . . that in the Lord's
Supper there is nothing more present than bread and wine, which alone
are there distributed and received with the mouth";
(2) the "astute and crafty" ones who declare "that they too believe
in a true presence of the true, substantial, and living body and blood of
Christ in the Holy Supper, which presence and manducatlon, neverthe
less, they say to be spiritual, such as takes place by faith."
The Formula of Concord asserts: (1) that "on account of
the sacramental union the bread and wine are truly the body
and blood of Christ"; (2) that the cause of the presence is
* V. pp. 176 seg. t Art. VII.

348 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
not in any utterance of the minister (the words of consecra
tion), but "the omnipotent power of our Lord Jesus Christ
alone"; (3) that "the body and blood of Christ are taken
with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith,
but also by the mouth, nevertheless not Capernaltlcally [by
biting, chewing, digesting], but after a spiritual and heavenly
manner, by reason of the sacramental union"; (4) "that not
only true believers . . . but also the unworthy and unbeliev
ing receive," the one for "consolation" and "life," the other
for "judgment and condemnation."
They reassert Luther's position: that "Jesus Christ is
true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in unity of
person, inseparable and undivided"; that "the right hand
of God is everywhere, and that Christ, in respect of His
humanity, is truly and in very deed seated thereat"; that
God "has in His power various modes in which He can be
anywhere, and is not confined to that single one which phi
losophers are wont to call local or circumscribed."
The Formula of Concord rejects (1): (a) "papistical tran
substantiation," {b) "the papistical sacrifice of the mass,"
(e) the sacrilege of withholding the cup from the laity, and
{d) the adoration of the elements of bread and wine; (2)
the theories "that the bread and wine are only symbols or
tokens,". . . "figures, similitudes, and types," "signs insti
tuted for a memorial," supposed to be the Zwinglian opinion;
(3) the theory that "only the virtue, operation, and merit
of the absent body of Christ are dispensed," supposed to be
the usual Reformed opinion.
It firmly rejects every theory that localises the heavenly
body of Christ in heaven, or asserts that this is an essential
property of human nature that even the divine omnipotence
cannot change. It finally leaves to "the just judgment of
God all curious and blasphemous questions." The Formula
of Concord is here presumptuous and inconsistent, as if the
authors of the Formula of Concord could define the limits of
inquiry as to the Eucharlstic presence. They have them
selves asserted the most difficult, delicate, and seemingly

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 349
impossible things, and then reject as blasphemies any more
searching Inquiries into the question.
Here, again, the Formula of Concord solves no problems;
it rather narrows the lines of the Lutheran dogma so as to ex
clude Melanchthon and all the Philippists, and to drive mul
titudes of them either into the Reformed Churches, or back
to Rome, or to secret, hypocritical conformity. This latter
perpetuated itself In Lutheranism as a leaven, until at last
the whole structure of the Lutheran dogma was overthrown.
There are few scholars in Germany at present who could
defend these statements of the Formula of Concord.
§ 7. The Formula of Concord asserts that Christ always
had the divine majesty in virtue of the personal union of the
divine with the human nature; that, in His state of humilia
tion He divested Himself of it, and only made occasional use
of it; but that after His resurrection He laid aside the form of a
servant and made plenary use of the divine majesty; that the
communicatio idlomatum was real, true, and in very fact and
deed, and not merely nominal, verbal, or titular as the Reformed
were supposed to teach; that Christ therefore, not only as God,
but also as man, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Luther's doctrine of the person of Christ was based upon
German mysticism, and is an unfolding of the scholastic
doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum.
It became especially connected with his doctrine of the
Eucharist; but Dorner* shows that this Chrlstology was
held and taught by him before his Eucharlstic doctrine was
disclosed. The communicatio idiomatum involves the com
munication of divine attributes to the human nature of
Christ by virtue of the personal union.
As Dr. Schaff says:
"The mediaeval scholastics ascribed omnipresence only to the divine
nature and the person of Christ, unipresence to His human nature in
heaven, multipresence to His body in the sacrament"; the last "from the
miracle of transubstantiation, and not from any inherent specific quality
* Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, II, ss. 568 seg.

350 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
of the body." Luther "adopted the scholastic distinction of three kinds
of presence: 1 Local, or circumscriptive . . . 2 Definitive (local, without
local inclusion or measurable quantity) ... 3 Repletive (supernatural,
divine omnipresence). He ascribed all these to Christ as man, so that
in one and the same moment, when He instituted the Holy Communion,
He was circumscriptive at the table, definitive in the bread and wine, and
repletive in heaven." — {Creeds of Christendom, I, pp. 286 seq.)
Melanchthon was opposed to the doctrine of ubiquity and
the communicatio idiomatum. The disagreement between
Luther and Melanchthon did not Involve conflict during
Luther's lifetime. The conffict first arose in 1564 at a col
loquy at Maulbronn between the Swabians and the Pala
tines. The strict Lutherans followed Luther but divided
Into two parties: the one led by Brenz of Wiirtemberg, who
agreed more closely with Luther in maintaining an omni
presence of the body of Christ; the other headed by Chem
nitz, the Saxon divine, who held to a multipresence depend
ing altogether on the will of Christ. Brenz held that the
human nature of Christ had, from its origin in the Virgin's
womb, divine attributes by a deification of His human na
ture. These attributes were usually concealed during His
earthly life, and only publicly revealed after His resurrec
tion. Chemnitz held that the Logos may temporarily com
municate a divine attribute to the human nature as a donum
superadditum.* The Formula of Concord endeavoured to reconcile the dis
putants to the Lutheran Churches by its definitions. Thus
it says:
"The principal question of this controversy has been whether the
divine and the human nature in the attributes of each are in mutual
communication really, that is, truly and in very fact and deed, in the
person of Christ, and how far that communication extends."
The most important section of the affirmative statement
Is the following:
"That majesty, in virtue of the personal union, Christ has always
had, but in the state of His humiliation He divested Himself of it . . .
* Schaff, I. c, pp. 290 seg.

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 351
Wlierefore He did not always make use of that majesty, but as often as
seemed good to Him, until after the resurrection. He fully and forever
laid aside the form of a servant, but not the human nature, and was
established in the plenary use, manifestation, and revelation of the
divine majesty, and in this manner entered into His glory (Phil. 2' seq.).
Therefore now not only as God, but also as man, He knows all things,
can do all things, is present to all creatures, has under His feet and in
His hand all things which are in heaven, in the earth and under the
earth." (Article 8; Affirm. 11.)
(1) The ancient errors of the Nestorians, Eutychians,
Arians, and Marcionites are rejected. (2) Then the For
mula of Concord goes on to reject, on the one side, theories
which make the personal union of the human and divine
natures nothing more than "common names and common
titles," "a certain mode of speaking," or "only a verbal
communicatio idiomatum"; in other words, as having no
reality. (3) On the other hand, it rejects gross views, as
"that the human nature (of Christ) has been made equal to
the divine in respect of Its substance and essence or of the
essential divine attributes," or that it "is locally spread out
into all places of heaven and earth." It then rejects all
opinions contrary to its own thesis: as (4) "that it Is Im
possible for Christ, on account of the propriety of His
human nature, to be in more places than one"; (5) that
"according to the humanity He is not at all capable of omnip
otence and other properties of the divine nature."
There can be little doubt that this discussion opened up
important questions relating to the human nature of Christ
and what it gained from personal union with the Deity, and
that the later discussions between the Tubingen theologians
and the Giessen school stUl further advanced the problem In
their battle over the Kenosis, whether it was a simple Kerw-
sis, as the men of Giessen maintained, or a Krupsis, as was
asserted by the Swabians. Both agreed that the human
nature was in full possession (wTijcrt?) of the divine attributes
from the moment of incarnation; the question was whether
their use (XP»?o"«) was altogether laid aside except In the
working of miracles, or whether it was secretly used (/c/juif-w).

352 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The extravagances of the discussion prepared the way for the
modern Kenotic theories, which have passed from Germany
all over the Protestant world as the chief modern problem
of the Incarnation, still in debate and yet unsolved.
The real gain from the controversy is the distinction be
tween the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation,
which now took an important place in Chrlstology, and has
become the common property and consensus of the Church.
This involved distinctions which make the humanity of
Christ more real and the life of Christ on earth a real human
growth. It also, for the first time, made full use of the Paul
ine doctrine of the Kenosis, which also gained a permanent
place in Chrlstology. The exaggerations of the communicatio
idiomatum and of the Kenosis by Lutheran divines do not
decrease the value of this consensus.
The Reformed theologians could not accept the Lutheran
Chrlstology and the Melanchthonians gradually passed over
to the Reformed Churches. They adhered strictly to the
Chalcedonian formula and avoided the communicatio idio
matum of the scholastics, and were accordingly unjustly ac
cused of a tendency to Nestorianism.
The Lutheran theologians, on the other hand, because of
their exaggeration of the communicatio idiomatum, are ac
cused by the Reformed theologians of tendencies toward
Monophysitism. In fact, the Reformed theologians were re
actionary here from scholastic Chrlstology to Chalcedon;
the Lutherans advanced beyond scholastic Chrlstology into
dubious and perilous opinions, which have been almost uni-
versaUy abandoned.
The human nature of Christ, by virtue of the hypostatic
union with the person of the Logos, must have been the sub
ject of influence and power from the Logos which could only
have enhanced the qualities of the human nature beyond
that of ordinary human nature. How far this went Is the
problem. It is best approached from the theory of a gradual
incarnation, in which the divine Influenced the human and
imparted itself to the human gradually, so far as the human

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 353
was made capable of the divine. The New Testament is cer
tainly against the theory that the human nature was in pos
session of divine attributes from the beginning of the Incar
nation. And yet, on the other hand, the human nature of
Christ from the beginning had certain negative and positive
qualities that were unique, such as sinless flesh, incorrupti
ble flesh, and a life-giving spirit, a spirit of holiness; and
Jesus exercised, especially late in His ministry, powers which
no merely human being could have used, in the walking on
the sea, the transfiguration, the Christophanic appearances
after the resurrection, the ascension to heaven, the Christoph
anies to Paul, Peter, and John after the resurrection, etc.,
and, most mysterious of all, in His Eucharlstic presence.*
The positions of the Formula of Concord cannot be main
tained, for they rest upon a very partial and inadequate con
sideration of the subject. They did not solve the difficult
problems; they did not stay discussion; they gave a basis for
renewed discussion. On this question, however, there seems
to have been a general agreement as to the recognition of the
right of difference which, while inconsistent with the official
attitude of the Formula of Concord on other less Important
questions, was yet of wholesome influence upon the subse
quent development of German theology.
§ 8. The descent of Christ into Hades, between His death
and resurrection, was not to suffer the penalty of human sin,
but to triumph over Hades for us.
The controversy was started by Jd]plnus of Hamburg in
1544. He claimed that Christ descended into Hades to
suffer the pains of hell for the salvation of men. Luther, in
1524, Incautiously explained Psalm 16^" In a similar way, but
elsewhere took a different position. Melanchthon held that
the question was unimportant and to be avoided, but
thought it most probable that Christ descended to Hades to
conquer the devil, destroy his power, and to raise the dead.
The Formula of Concord states the question thus:
* V. Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 280 seq.

354 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
"It has also been disputed whether this article is to be
referred to the passion, or to the glorious victory and tri
umph of Christ."
It decides for the latter, but advises that the discussion is
unprofitable. The question would not down, however. Later divines
take a different view from either of the alternatives, and hold
that the descent belongs rather to the state of humiliation
than to that of exaltation, and that it was to preach the Gos
pel for the salvation of the dead.*
§ 9. Public authority may ordain rites and ceremonies
which are not contrary to the Word of God and do not involve
questions of conscience. Such are adiaphora, and they should
be observed in the interests of peace and charity. If, however,
they should be imposed in times of persecution for the sake of
conformity with Papists, such conformity offends the conscience,
and they should be rejected.
The battle-ground of the Reformation was largely rites
and ceremonies, which had become a burden to conscience
and to life. As to the most important of these, such as
those essential to the celebration of the sacraments, the
Churches of the Reformation had taken their position;!
but there was a large number of rites and ceremonies, some
connected with the sacraments, others with public worship
and other religious uses, that were not of so great impor
tance and with reference to which there was much difference
of opinion. There was a practical difficulty in such cases;
for these questions were not merely differences of opinion,
but were also differences of practice, and In large measure
of public practice, in which agreement was necessary for
joint participation in them. With regard to rites and cere
monies. It was evident that there must be a distinction be
tween those that were essential and those that were not
essential; those which involved doctrine and morals and
questions of conscience, and those which did not involve
* V. pp. 65 seq. t V. pp. 274 seg.

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 355
questions of conscience and might be regarded as aZidj>opa^
res mediae — intermediate things. The Augsburg Confession
recognised: "that it is lawful for Bishops or pastors to make ordinances, whereby
things may be done in order in the Church; not that by them we may
merit grace, or satisfy for sins, or that men's consciences should be bound
to esteem them as necessary services, and think that they sin when they
violate them, without the offense of others. . . . Such ordinances it
behooveth the Churches to keep for charity and quietness' sake, so that
one offend not another, that all things may be done in order, and without
tumult in the Churches." (Pt. II, Art. 7.)
The Confession does not, however, make specifications
except in the case "of the Lord's Day, of Easter, of Pente
cost and like holidays and rites." It gives the principle
by which the discrimination may be made. But It Is not
easy to apply the principle, and great differences unavoid
ably arose In its application. The Interims endeavoured to
regulate this matter.
The Augsburg Interim, 1548, only yielded to the Protes
tants the marriage of priests and the administration of the
cup to the laity.* The Leipzig Interim,^ which Melanch
thon and other Lutheran divines prepared for Electoral
Saxony, saved Lutheran doctrine, but required conformity
to the Roman ritual in confirmation, episcopal ordination,
extreme unction, the greater part of the canon of the mass,
and also fasts, processions, and the use of Images. This
was a compromise, and the best that could be accomplished
at the time; but it divided the Lutherans more sharply than
any other question, and was probably, after all, the radical
question, which created such animosity that all other ques
tions in dispute were infected with rancour and misunder
standing. The great majority of Lutherans were hostile to
the Interim and Melanchthon over this question, and Me
lanchthon himself subsequently recognised that he had
yielded too much in the interests of peace. In fact, the
whole question as to rites and ceremonies was raised both in
* V. pp. 187 seg. t V- P- 190.

356 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
principle and in practice by this prolonged controversy, and
it continued to rankle in the discussion between the strict
Lutherans and the Philippists until the Formula of Concord
determined the question.
The question is thus stated:
"Whether in time of persecution . . . with a safe conscience, certain
ceremonies already abrogated, which are of themselves indifferent, and
neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may, on the urgent demand
of our adversaries, again be re-estabhshed in use, and whether we can
in this way rightly conform with the Papists in ceremonies and adi
aphora of this sort."
The Formula of Concord takes the negative as follows:
(1) "Ceremonies or ecclesiastical rites (such as in the Word of
God are neither commanded nor forbidden, but have only been in
stituted for the sake of order and seemliness) are of themselves neither
divine worship, nor even any part of divine worship."
(2) "It is permitted to the Church of God anywhere on earth, and
at whatever time, agreeably to occasion, to change such ceremonies, in
such manner as is judged most useful to the Church of God and most
suited to her edification."
(3) "Account should be taken of the weak in faith, and forbearance
shown towards them."
(4) "In times of persecution, when a clear and steadfast confession
is required of us, we ought not to yield to the enemies of the Gospel
in things indifferent. . . . For in such a state of things it is no longer a
question of adiaphora, but of the restoration and maintenance of the
truth of the Gospel and of Christian liberty."
(5) "One Church ought not to condemn another because it observes
more or less of external ceremonies, which the Lord has not instituted,
provided only there be consent between them in doctrine and all the
articles thereof, and in the true use of the sacraments."
In this article the Formula of Concord made a wise deter
mination, which has been acquiesced In by Lutherans ever
since. This controversy, so early, and so fierce during the
time It raged aU over Germany, was thus worked out to
Irenic results for the Lutherans. The same controversy we
shall meet in Great Britain, where, however, it was not so
easily solved, and where it still continues to trouble the
Church until the present day.

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 357
The principle is liberty in non-essentials. Essential are
those things only that are prescribed by the divine Word.
AU ecclesiastical ordinances are within the sphere of liberty.
This liberty is, however, restricted to national Churches.
It is not given to local congregations or to individuals. It
is not even given to the ecumemcal Church. There is no
authority over the national Church. Each national Church
is Independent in this regard, and the only agreement that
is necessary is in doctrine and In the true use of the sacra
ments. There is no liberty for the local church or the in
dividual conscience. The individual must submit to the
authority of the sovereign or suffer punishment for viola
tion of ecclesiastical Law just as truly as for violation of
civil Law. It remained for Great Britain to fight the battle
for congregational liberty and individual liberty of con
science. § 10. The Formula of Concord distinguishes between the
foreknowledge of God and predestination; the former extends to
both evil and good, but is not causative; the latter extends only
to the good and is the cause of their salvation. The provision,
promise, and offer of salvation are universal. It rejects the
common Calvinistic doctrines of reprobation and limited atone
ment. This controversy arose in the free city of Strasburg, where
Calvinists and Lutherans came into conflict.
Luther and Calvin ahke were high Augustinians; both
maintained the bondage of original sin and divine predes
tination; only Luther emphasised the former, and Calvin
more the latter. Melanchthon was milder as regards predes
tination as well as bondage to sin.
The rigid Lutherans maintained Luther's doctrine of the
bondage of the wIU, and many of them were high predesti-
narians; but the majority of Lutherans gradually became hos-
tUe to the high predestinarlans, whom they attacked as Cal
vinists. In this they followed Melanchthon rather than
Luther. Melanchthon and Calvin disagreed, but never came

358 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
into conflict on this subject, which shows that Calvin did
not make it the corner-stone of his system, as some think.
The battle over predestination began with an attack on
Calvin by Heshuslus in 1560, who was answered by Beza.
Soon after Marbach, a pastor of Strasburg, attacked Zan-
chius, pupil and successor of Peter Martyr as professor there,
for his maintenance of the Calvinistic doctrine of predes
tination and the perseverance of the saints.
The Formula of Concord (Art. XI) distinguishes " between
the foreknowledge and the predestination, or eternal election
of God. . . . This foreknowledge of God extends both to good
and evil men; but nevertheless it is not the cause of evil, nor
is it the cause of sin." . . . "But the foreknowledge of God disposes
evil and sets bounds to it, how far it may proceed and how long
endure, and directs it in such wise that, though it be of itself
evil, it nevertheless turns to the salvation of the elect of God."
(An admirable statement.) ..." The predestination or eternal
election of God extends only to the good and beloved chil
dren of God, and this is the cause of their salvation."
" Christ calls all sinners to Him, and promises to give them
rest." . . . His call is universal, the offer of salvation is uni
versal, and the promises are to all.
"But as to the declaration (Mt. 22"), 'Many are called, but few are
chosen,' it is not to be so understood as if God were unwilling that all
should be saved, but the cause of the damnation of the ungodly is that
they either do not hear the Word of God at all, but contumaciously
contemn it, stop their ears, and harden their hearts, and in this way
foreclose to the Spirit of God His ordinary way, so that He cannot
accomplish His work in them; or at least when they have heard the
Word, make it of no account, and cast it away. Neither God nor His
election, but their own wickedness, is to blame if they perish. (II Peter,
21 seq.; Lk. 2". =2; Heb. 1226 seq.)" (11.)
It rejects as error:
"That God is not willing that all men should be saved, but that
some men are destined to destruction, not on account of their sins, but
by the mere counsel, purpose and will of God, so that they cannot in
any wise attain to salvation." (3.)

THE FORMULA OF CONCORD 359
This decision did not really amount to much. It was not
a question in which there was much interest among Lu
therans except so far as they came into conflict with Calvin
ists, and even then it was subordinate to the doctrine of the
sacraments. As the article says : " Touching this article there
has not, indeed, arisen any public controversy among the
divines of the Augsburg Confession."
§ 11. The Formula of Concord flnally describes and re
jects, as intolerable and imperilling salvation, the heresies of
Anabaptists, Schwenckfeldians, New Arians, and Antitrin-
itarians. The Anabaptists cannot be tolerated either in the Church
or by the civil government, or in domestic and social life.
The others hold errors which all the godly " ought to beware
of and avoid, unless they wish to hazard their own eternal
salvation." The Formula herein rejects opinions advocated later by
Baptists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Socialists of every kind.
Thus the Formula of Concord, in Its efforts to give peace
to the Lutherans, only succeeded In part. It became a
standard for the greater part of the Lutherans during the
period of Scholastic Protestantism, until Pietism and Ration
ahsm combined to overthrow it. It has now passed out of
use, except among some minor Lutheran bodies in Germany
and the United States.

CHAPTER VI
THE SYNOD OF DORT AND ARMINIANISM
In Chapter V of Particular Symbolics we have given a his
tory of the origin of the Synod of Dort and its work. We
have now to consider its decisions in their relation to Ar
minianism and other kindred doctrines.
§ 1. The Synod of Dort composed the Canons of Dort, de
fining the flve points of Scholastic Calvinism over against Ar
minianism: The five points of Scholastic Calvinism are:
(1) Absolute predestination; (2) limited atonement; (3)
human inability; (4) irresistible grace ; and (5) perseverance
of the saints.
The antithesis of Scholastic Calvinism and Arminianism
was in these five points, which had become burning ques
tions in the course of the controversy.
§ 2. Arminians hold to a divine predestination, conditioned
upon a divine foreknowledge of man's faith and perseverance.
The Synod of Dort asserts absolute predestination as an act of
divine sovereignty, altogether unconditioned.
The Remonstrants, in Article I, state:
"That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ
His Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of
the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and
through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall be
lieve on this His Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience
of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to
360

THE SYNOD OP DORT AND ARMINIANISM 361
leave tlte incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to con
demn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel
in John III : 36 : 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and
he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him,' and according to other passages of Scripture also."
Over against this, the Synod of Dort states:
"Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the
foimdation of the world. He hath, out of mere grace, according to the
sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human
race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive
state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons
to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Media
tor and head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation."
"This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more de
serving than others, but with them involved in one common misery,
God hath decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually
to call and draw them to His commumon by His Word and Spirit; to
bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctffication; and hav
ing powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally to
glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy, and for the praise of
the riches of His glorious grace," etc. (1'.)
" This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of
faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the
prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen
to faith and to tlte obedience of faith, holiness, etc." (1'.)
"The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election;
which doth not consist herein that God, foreseeing all possible qualities of
human actions, elected certain of these as a condition of salvation, but that
He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain
persons as a peculiar people to Himself." {V.)
"What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal
and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scrip
ture, that not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by
in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just,
irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave
in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged them
selves," etc. (l"^.)
The Westminster Confession, adopts the doctrine of Dort
and uses, especially in the doctrine of reprobation, stiU
stronger language.

362 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
"These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain
and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished." {3*.)
"The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable
counsel of His own wUl, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as
He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures,
to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of His glorious justice." (3'.)
These statements were one of the chief reasons for the sep
aration of the Cumberland Presbyterians and for the recent
revision of the Confession by the American Presbyterian
Church. The fundamental fault here both of Scholastic Calvinists
and of Arminians Is the attempt to range the divine decrees
In an order, whether chronological or logical. The divine
decree is not separate and apart from ommscience, but in
separable from it. The decree is not the antecedent of the
foreknowledge. The foreknowledge is not the antecedent of
the decree. They are inseparable in the mind of God. The
limitation of predestination by foreknowledge by the Ar
minians is therefore reprehensible.
The Scholastic Calvlmsts were also still more to blame for
their maintenance of an absolute, arbitrary decree of par
ticular election and particular reprobation, especially when
the latter is as positive as the former.
It is quite true that the Synod of Dort limits the abso
luteness of the decree by putting: out of mere grace before
"according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will";
but It is evident that they meant to limit the grace by the
good pleasure more than the good pleasure by the grace; for
it Is stated that the good pleasure of God is the sole cause of
this gracious election. (10.)
So the Westminster Confession makes the statement that:
" God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel
of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever
comes to pass." (3^.)
The ordination is, therefore, conditioned by the divine

THE SYNOD OP DORT AND ARMINIANISM 363
wisdom and holiness, and is not "according to the good pleas
ure of His wiU" apart from the divine wisdom and holiness.
How can foreknowledge be excluded from the divine wisdom?
Foreknowledge may be excluded as a ground and reason of
predestination; but it cannot be excluded from the decree
itself, any more than any other kind of divine wisdom.
Again, how can arbitrariness of mere sovereign will be rec
onciled with divine holiness? The decree of sovereignty is
not Independent or precedent of the divine holiness, but is
inseparable from hohness; so that the decree must be a holy
decree as well as a wise one. So, again, if the decree is " out
of His vaexefree grace and love" (3^), it must be a decree con
ditioned by divine grace and love. Nothing in the decree
can be inconsistent with the love of God.
The Westminster Confession also emphasises that the de
cree of God Is for the manifestation of His glory (3^) ; there
fore nothing in the decree can be inconsistent with the glory
of God.
Thus, in the Scholastic Calvinism of the Synod of Dort
and the Westminster Confession, the divine sovereignty is a
sovereignty of wisdom, holiness, grace, love, and glory; and
within these limitations it is not arbitrary and absolute.
The fault of the statements Is that the absoluteness and
arbitrariness of the will of God are emphasised, and the
attributes of God that condition the sovereignty and the
wUl are retained only In the background of the thought, as
if they were limited by the sovereign will rather than the
wUl by them. The decree of God In predestination, there
fore, Is not the arbitrary decree of an absolute sovereign
whose wUl cannot be resisted. It Is the decree of a Sovereign
who is in His being all wise, all holy, all loving, and all glori
ous. Such a God wiU elect and reprobate only In accordance
with His wisdom, holiness, and love; and will elect as many
as possible and reprobate as few as possible; and that rep
robation will not be a positive act of ordination, as the
Scholastic Calvinists represent, but a negative one, of pass
ing by, as the milder Calvinism, like the milder Augustinian-

364 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
ism of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches, has
always held. This milder Calvimsm has always prevailed
in the Church of England and has persisted in many of the
Reformed Churches, especially in Germany; although in
others, especially at certain times, it has been compelled by
scholastic intolerance to take refuge with the Arminian
Churches, without, however, adopting the technical Armin
ian position as to the order of the divine decrees.
The debates in the Westminster Assembly show that the
divines did not wish to be too rigid in this matter. Thus
Mr. Whitakers said: "If you take the same decree in refer
ence to time, they are all simul and semel: in eterna there is
not prius and posterius." " Our conceptions are very various
about the decrees." Reynolds said: "Let us not put in dis
putes and scholastic things into a Confession of Faith."
Gillespie said: "This shows that in ordine naturae God or
daining man to glory goes before His ordaining to permit
man to fall." *
Furthermore, the fact that the Westminster Confession is
largely based on the Irish Articles and that the divines de
liberately inserted the qualifying clauses the most wise and
holy before counsel of His own Will (3*), and out of his
mere free grace and love (3^) and for the manifestation of His
glory (3^), shows that they wished to soften and limit the
supposed arbitrariness of the decree.
§ 3. The Arminians assert that Christ died for all men, on
condition of their repentance and faith. The Canons of Dort
affirm that Christ died only for the elect.
Article II of the Remonstrants is as foUows:
"That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world,
died for all men and for every man, so that He has obtained for them all, by
His death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins ; yet that
no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, ac
cording to the word of the Gospel of John (3i*)," etc.
* Minutes, pp. 150-1.

THE SYNOD OF DORT AND ARMINIANISM 365
The Synod of Dort asserts the infinite worth and sufficiency
of the Atonement:
"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice
and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly suf
ficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." (2'.)
It also asserts that the declaration and offer of salvation
is universal:
"Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth
in Christ crucffied shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This
promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be
declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously
and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends
the gospel." (2*.)
But nevertheless salvation is limited to the elect:
"For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and pur
pose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the
most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for be
stowing upon them alone the gfft of justifying faith, thereby to bring
them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ
by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant,
should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and lan
guage, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation,
and given to Him by the Father," etc. (2*.)
The Westminster Confession takes the same position:
"All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only. He is
pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His
Word and Spu-it, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are
by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ," etc. (10^.)
"Others, not elected, although they may be caUed by the ministry of
the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet
they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore can not be saved : much
less can men, not professing the Christian religion," etc. (10*.)
It is agreed: (1) that only the elect are saved; there is no
universal salvation of men; (2) that the provision of salva-

366 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
tion is sufficient for all; (3) that the public offer of salvation is
made to all; (4) that only those who repent and believe In
Christ, are actually saved.
The question is, whether the purpose or intent of Christ's
death was particular, or universal. This question Is a logi
cal consequence of the previous one. If the election is In
dependent of, or precedent to, the foreknowledge, then a
limited atonement is necessarily involved. But if the fore
knowledge is antecedent, or if It is not separable from the
election, then there is no sufficient reason to think of a lim
ited atonement. This question is reserved for fuller discus
sion in the controversy between the scholastic theologians
and the French school of Saumur.
§ 4. It was agreed that the divine grace is prevenient; but
the Arminians held that it is resistible, and that human co
operation is necessary to salvation; whereas the Synod of Dort
claimed that the divine grace is irresistible, and that man is
altogether passive in regeneration.
The Arminian position is thus stated:
"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accom
plishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man him-
seff, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co
operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any
temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be
conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as
respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible,
inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy
Ghost ; Acts 7 and elsewhere in many places." (Art. 4.)
The Synod of Dort, in antithesis, gives the foUowing:
"But when God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works
in them true conversion. He not only causes the gospel to be externally
preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy
Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the
Spirit of God, but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He
pervades the inmost recesses of the man; He opens the closed and soft
ens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised;

THE SYNOD OP DORT AND ARMINIANISM 367
infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He
quickens; from being evil, disobedient and refractory. He renders it
good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that, like a
good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions." (3-4'^)
"And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture and
denominated a new creation : a resurrection from the dead ; a making alive,
which God works in us without our aid. But this is nowise effected merely
by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode
cf operation that, after God has performed His part, it still remains in the
power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted or to continue uncon
verted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the
same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not
inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead, as the
Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares ; so that all in whose
hearts God works in this marvelous manner are certainly, infallibly, and
effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus
renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but, in conse
quence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore, also, man
is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace
received." {3-A^K)
The Synod of Dort is milder and more diffusive and ex
planatory in this Article than In the others; but the doctrine
is clear enough. The divine grace is supernatural; and re
generation is, like creation and resurrection, a divine act In
which man has no share whatever. "After God has per
formed His part" it does not "remain in the power of man
to be regenerated or not," "to be converted or to continue
unconverted." The human will Is "dead" and not free to
act until the regeneration has taken place.
The Arminians agree with the Philippists and the Roman
Catholics here, the Synod of Dort with the Formula of
Concord. The Westminster Confession takes the same position as
the Synod of Dort, only more definitely:
"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wlioUy lost all ability of
will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man,
being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able,
by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself there
unto." (9=.)

368 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
"When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of
grace. He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His
grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually
good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth
not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that
which is evil." (9*.)
"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from
any thing at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein,
until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby
enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and con
veyed in it." (102.)
There are two questions here, as they are treated in two
different chapters of the Westminster Confession : (1) human
inability or bondage of the will; (2) irresistibility of the
divine grace.
The first question we may discuss better in connection
with the controversies raised by the School of Saumur. It
is sufficient to state here that the Synod of Dort denies the
freedom of the will altogether, not only prior to regenera
tion but in regeneration Itself, and asserts the High Augus
tinianism of Luther and Calvin, which had never been ac
cepted by the ancient and mediaeval Church. As regards
the latter, it also consistently carries out the extreme Au
gustinianism, and makes the divine grace irresistible and
man simply passive. Faith, repentance, the ability of man
to act in salvation, are all infused by the divine grace.
The Synod fixes the attention upon the momentary di
vine act of regeneration and leaves out of consideration the
processes of grace that precede as well as follow. So far as
the order of salvation that follows regeneration is concerned,
the Synod would not deny the freedom of the wUl or the
ability of man to co-operate with the divine grace. It de
nies human abUity to co-operate with the divine act of re
generation. When God acts the man is purely passive. The
irresistibility of the divine grace in the moment of regenera
tion can hardly be denied. But how about the processes of
grace prior to regeneration? Of course, if there is no human
freedom before regeneration, and no human ability, then we

THE SYNOD OF DORT AND ARMINIANISM 369
must suppose that all the processes of grace prior to regener
ation are also irresistible, that preparatory grace In all its
stages is irresistible: but that is contrary to human experi
ence and the statements of Holy Scripture; for It cannot be
maintained that the divine grace is absent from the means of
grace, or being present is inoperative until its efficacy is put
forth in regeneration. How often is the gospel heard and its
influence felt before regeneration takes place!
The Protestant theologians have always been troubled
where exactly to put regeneration in the order of salvation.
There can be no justification without faith; and, according
to the Synod of Dort, no faith without regeneration; there
fore logically regeneration should precede justification. But
then the question arises: Can a man be regenerated before
he is justified? Not according to the teaching of St. Paul
and the reformers. If faith is infused in regeneration, as
the Synod of Dort teaches, then human salvation is begun
by infusion and not by a declaratory act of God in justifi
cation. If regeneration Is an infusion, why so much polemic
against the Roman Catholic view that justification Is a proc
ess of infusion?
Protestants cannot maintain the position that a sinner is
first regenerated by an irresistible act of God, which infuses
faith into him, and only afterward has his sins forgiven and
the righteousness of Christ imputed to him; for human sal
vation would then depend not upon the righteousness of
Christ imputed to him, but solely and alone upon the divine
election and effectual calling in regeneration. If, however,
it should be said that in regeneration the righteousness of
Christ is infused into him by the vital union with Christ thus
initiated, then there is no place left for Imputing to him in
justification what he has already In regeneration.
How, then, is regeneration related to justification? The
Roman Cathohcs hold that It is one step in the process of
justification. But if justification is a momentary act of God,
and regeneration also a momentary act, they must either coin
cide or differ in order. We have seen the grave difficulties

370 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
that present themselves if regeneration precedes justifica
tion; but if it follows, then we have justification without
faith, and justification by faith is cut in two; justfficatlon
and faith are separated by regeneration.
We seem to be shut up to regard regeneration and justifi
cation as coincident; but if so, then as regeneration is an
infusion, so far as it is coincident with justification, justifi
cation is an infusion also.
But Oslander's view that justification was an infusion
was rejected by the Formula of Concord, and the similar
views of the Quakers have been rejected by the Reformed
Churches. The Westminster Confession leaves out of view
regeneration altogether and substitutes for it effectual call
ing; but does not thereby avoid the difficulty, for it is com
pelled to put effectual calling first in Chapter X, and justifi
cation afterward In Chapter XL It says:
"Those whom God effectually calleth. He also freely justffieth; not
by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and
by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous." (11'.) But
effectual calling has already saved them "out of that state of sin and
death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus
Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to under
stand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving
unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty
power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing
them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made
willing by His grace." (10*.)
For those already In a state of salvation by Jesus Christ,
effectually drawn to Jesus Christ, with faith infused and
other saving graces, what need is there of a subsequent
justification? They are already united to Christ. Christ
is their own by a faith infused. Why should they need par
don of sin and Imputation of Christ's righteousness? There
is an inconsistency here, which Protestantism, in none of its
divines, has ever been able to overcome. Regeneration was
pushed Into the background by the scholastic divines and
only revived again in the practical theology of the Pietists

THE SYNOD OF DORT AND ARMINIANISM 371
and Methodists, who were for the most part Moderate Cal
vinists or Arminians in their Theology.
The chief difficulty here is due to the exaggeration of the
bondage of the will and in the concentration of the mind
upon salvation as an immediate act of God Instead of upon
the whole process of grace. Such a concentration merely
puts regeneration, or effectual calling, into an Irreconcilable
relation to justification.
§ 5. The Synod of Dort asserts that, notwithstanding falls
of various degrees of enormity, the elect persevere in the divine
grace to the End. The Arminians were unwilling to teach this.
There Is agreement: (1) that the elect may fall into very
great, and Indeed enormous, sins; (2) that it is not within
their own strength to keep themselves from falling; (3) that
it is owing to the grace of God that they are able to per
severe in grace.
The difference is as to whether they may forfeit the divine
grace altogether. The Remonstrant Arminians did not pos
itively affirm this. They only went so far as to refuse to
affirm its opposite:
"But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking
again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to
this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which
was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid
of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy
Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our
minds." (Art. 5.)
On the other hand, the Synod of Dort positively affirms
the final perseverance of the saints:
"But God, who is rich in mercy, according to His unchangeable pur
pose of election, does not wholly withdraw the Holy Spirit from His own
people, even in their melancholy falls; nor suffer them to proceed so
far as to lose the grace of adoption and forfeit the state of justification,
or to commit the sin unto death; nor does He permit them to be totally
deserted, and to plunge themselves into everlasting destruction." (5".)
"For in the first place, in these falls He preserves in them the incor-

372 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
ruptible seed of regeneration from perishing or being totally lost; and
again, by His Word and Spirit, He certainly and effectually renews
them to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that
they may seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may
again experience the favour of a reconciled God, through faith adore His
mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out their own salva
tion with fear and trembling." (5'.)
So the Westminster Confession:
"They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called
and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away
from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end,
and be eternally saved." (17'.)
In all these articles the Arminians revert to the milder
Augustinianism of the Roman Catholic and Pre-reformation
Church; the Canons of Dort maintain the Higher Augustin
ianism and Scholastic Calvinism.
The Synod of Dort simply took the position already
taken by the English, Scotch, and Irish Puritans, and was
therefore welcomed by them. But the Anglicans gradually
by antithesis took the Arminian position, which the most
of them have maintained ever since. In the Churches of
England the Puritans are still Calvinistic, the Anglicans
Arminian. The Canons of the Synod of Dort were officIaUy indorsed
by the Reformed Church of France in 1620 and 1623. The
other Reformed Churches received them with respectful
consideration, but did not adopt them. The only Church
outside of Holland that now officially holds to them is the
Reformed (Dutch) Church of America; although Scholastic
Calvinists in Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist
Churches stiU adhere to them. The Baptists divided on
this question into two denominations, so did the Method
ists; the Arminians being stronger among the Methodists,
the Scholastic Calvinists among the Baptists.

CHAPTER VII
OLD AND NEW SCHOOL CALVINISTS
In Particular Symbolics we have considered the rise of the
so-called New School Calvinists in France and the attacks
upon them by the Swiss scholastics. These latter assumed
that they were the orthodox Calvinists and endeavoured by
the Helvetic Consensus to exclude the theologians of Saumur
from orthodoxy. We now have to consider the variations
in doctrine between these two schools.
§ 1. The Helvetic Consensus went still further than the
Synod of Dort in rigidity of scholastic Calvinism, and rejected
all the special doctrines of the French school of Saumur.
This Formula has twenty-six Articles which maintain :
(1) The literal inspiration of the Bible and the integrity
of the traditional Hebrew text, vowel points and all. (Art.
1-3.) (2) The infralapsarlan order: Creation, Fall, Election,
and Reprobation. (Art. 4-6.)
(3) The Covenant of works before the Fall and the Cov
enant of Grace in Christ, over against the three Covenants
of Amyraut, natural, legal, and evangelical. (Art. 7-9, 23-
25.) (4) Immediate imputation and also mediate through in
herent depravity, the latter dependent on the former. (Art.
10-12.) (5) Limited Atonement: Christ died only for the elect,
in intention and internal caU, as well as in fact. (Art.
13-20.) 373

374 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
(6) The denial of natural as well as moral ability. (Art.
21-22.) (7) The forbidding of the teaching of doubtful and un
authorised doctrine and the insisting upon adherence to the
Second Helvetic Confession and the Canons of Dort, which
they interpreted in support of their own doctrine.
The difference between the School of Saumur and the
scholastic Calvinists extended gradually throughout the Cal
vinistic world. In England this School was represented
chiefly by Calamy and Baxter, and divided the English
Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists. In Amer
ica the theology of the School of Saumur first came into
prominence through Jonathan Edwards and the New Eng
land theology. This brought on a conflict of theologians,
especially in the Middle and Southern States, that divided
Calvinists into the Old School, which adhered essentially to
the Helvetic Consensus, and the New School, which differed
from the Old in the direction of the School of Saumur, al
though not adopting their views altogether, but taking in
many respects newer and better views of the questions in
dispute. The conffict continued, especially in the American Pres
byterian Church, until the third quarter of the last century,
as to immediate and mediate imputation, general and par
ticular atonement, natural and moral inabUIty — a conflict in
which Charles Hodge was the chief representative of the
Old School party. Then came the battle over verbal inspira
tion, and inerrancy, and Biblical criticism. The division
of opinion still persists in the United States, although It is
less pronounced. In all other parts of the world it has dis
appeared. The Westminster Assembly of divines was divided on
these questions. A large proportion of the British divines
were moderate Calvinists in sympathy with the School of
Saumur, but there were also theologians who sympathised
with the Swiss School. The Westminster Confession, there
fore, did not decide any of these mooted questions.

OLD AND NEW SCHOOL CALVINISTS 375
§ 2. The Helvetic Consensus asserts that the sin of Adam
is imputed to all his posterity immediately prior to their com
mission of actual sin. The New School theologians deny
immediate imputation and recognise only mediate imputation
through inherited depravity and its consequences.
The Helvetic Consensus says:
"Sicut autem Deus foedus operum cum Adamo inivit non tantum
pro ipso, sed etiam in ipso; ut capite et stirpe, cum toto genere liumano,
vi benedictionis naturae ex ipso nasciturae, et eandem integritatem, si
quidem in ea perstitisset, haereditaturo: ita Adamus tristi prolapsu, non
sibi duntaxat sed toti etiam humano generi, ex sanguinibus et voluntate
carnis proventuro peccavit, ex bona in foedere promissa perdidit.
Censemus igitur, peccatum Adami omnibus eius posteris, iudicio Dei
arcano et iusto, imputari." (10.)
"Duphci igitur nomine post peccatum homo natura, indeque ab ortu
suo, antequam uUum actuale peccatum in se admittat, irae ac male-
dictioni divinae obnoxius est; primum quidem ob icapiictutia et inobe-
dientiam, quam in Adami lumbis commisit: deinde ab consequentem in
ipso conceptu haereditariam corruptionem insitam, qua tota eius natura
depravata et spiritualiter mortua est, adeo quidem, ut recte peccatum
originale statuatur duplex, imputatum videlicet, et haereditarium in-
hierens." (11.)
The Westminster Confession is much simpler:
Our first parents "being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this
sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature con
veyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary genera
tion" (6=).
There is here no assertion of either mediate or immediate
imputation. The statement admits of both opinions, but
rather favours the reahsm of the early reformers in the
terms "the root of aU mankind" and the "corrupted nature
conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by
ordinary generation."
§ 3. The New School theologians recognise only moral in
ability in unregenerate man. The Helvetic Consensus asserts
natural as well as moral inability.

376 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The Helvetic Consensus says:
"Moralis quidem ea impotentia dici possit, quatenus scilicet circa
subiectum et obiectum morale versatur: Naturalis tamen esse simul
et dici debet, quatenus homo tfiau, natura, adeoque nascendi lege,
inde ab ortu est filius irae, illamque ita congenitam habet, ut cam baud
aliter, quam per omnipotentem et vorticordiam Spiritus Sancti gratiam,
excutere possit." (21.)
"Censemus igitur, minus caste, neque sine periculo loqui illos, qui
impotentiam illam credendi moralem vocant, ac naturalem dici non
sustinent, adduntque, hominem, quocunque in statu constituatur, posse
credere si velit, et fidem, quacunque demum ratione, esse iii. -z&y if'
fitAtv; quam tamen Apostolus consignatissimis verbis Dei donum nun-
cupat." (22.)
The Westminster Confession says:
"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of
will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man,
being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able,
by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself there
unto." (9^.)
This seems, in the denial of "all ability of will," to favour
the assertion of both natural and moral inability; but it has
never been so interpreted by New School divines, and it is
improbable that those of them in the Westminster Assembly
would have consented to this clause unless they could have
interpreted it as not rejecting their views. In fact, they
could agree to it, because they also taught that the moral
inability of man was such that he had " lost all ability of will
to any spiritual good accompanying salvation."
As Henry B. Smith says:
"Man has the natural ability to repent, while he is morally unable,
and the two are consistent with each other. This is the New England
statement, the position of Edwards. . . . Though the sinner has the
natural ability (in the sense assigned) to repent and believe, yet on
account of his depravity, for the exercise of that ability, he is dependent
on divine grace. The whole simple truth is contained in what the
Apostle Paul says, Rom. 7'*, taking his statement in a strict metaphys
ical sense: 'To will is present with me but (how) to perform (I find) is

OLD AND NEW SCHOOL CALVINISTS 377
not.' . . . He has the ability in will as the power of choice, to accept
or reject the grace offered to him, to obey or disobey the calls,— has the
efficiency, though not the sufficiency." — {System of Christian Theology,
pp. 327 seg.)
§ 4. The Helvetic Consensus asserts a limited atonement as
to intention and offer as well as to election. New School Cal
vinists assert the universality of intention and offer, and make
the only limitation in the divine election.
Thus the Helvetic Consensus says:
"Hsec omnia cum ita se omnino habeant, baud sane probare pos-
sumus oppositam doctrinam illorum, qui statuunt, Christum propria
intentione et consiho tum suo, tum Patris ipsum mittentis, mortuum
esse pro omnibus et singuUs, addita conditione impossibUi, si videlicet
credant." (16.)
The Westminster Confession does not distinguish between
the intention of Christ's salvation and effectual grace, but
simply asserts effectual calling, in which both parties were
agreed. As to the offer, it says:
"Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry
of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet
they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved."
(10*). This recognises the gospel call and common operation of
the divine Spirit upon others than the elect, but says noth
ing whatever of the intention of salvation. There is
nothing here to which a New School Calvlnist need object.
It does not enter into the question in dispute.
In fact, there was a great debate in the Westminster As
sembly on this subject. The chief English divines were of
the New School, such as Edmund Calamy, Stephen Mar
shall, Lazarus Seaman, Richard Vines. The following cita
tions from the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly* show it:
Calamy says: "Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently
for aU, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in
* Pp. 152 seg.

378 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
giving Himself did intend, to put all men in a state of sal
vation in case they do believe."
Seaman says: "All in the flrst Adam were made liable to
damnation, so all liable to salvation in the second Adam."
Marshall says: "There can no falsum subesse to the offer
of the gospel."
Calamy says again: "There is a double love: general and
special. A general love to the reprobate, and the fruit of
this, a general offer, and general grace, and general refor
mation." Vines says: "Is not the Gospel a covenant, and Is not that
propounded to every creature? — This word denotes an inten
tion in the gift and in the love. We could not live if there
were not a general love of (God) to mankind."
Vines says again: "He that believes not shall be damned.
This is so positively set down as that It implies not only to
be a sin against a law, but a sin against a remedy."
A statement to which these divines agreed, made in view of
such expressions of opinion, could not rule out these opinions.
If American divines had known of these Minutes of the
Westminster Assembly, they could never have battled over
these questions as they did. But unhappily the Minutes
were lying unknown in the Wilhams Library, London, until
a few years ago.
The Helvetic Consensus unfortunately became the Symbol
of the Old School Calvinists of America, which they followed
rather than the Westminster Confession. The Institutions
of Francis Turrettin became their text-book, and the West
minster divines were ignored, and became altogether un
known. And so the American Calvinists were plunged into
a century of unnecessary and unfruitful conflict, for which
the Princeton divines have been chiefly responsible. In a
recent publication Francis L. Patton goes so far as to name
Francis Turrettin the "Thomas Aquinas of Protestantism."
Blondel, In 1655, said, at the Walloon Synod of Amster
dam, that there were three parties In the Synod of Dort:
(1) The Supralapsarians, represented by Gomarus; (2) the

OLD AND NEW SCHOOL CALVINISTS 379
Infralapsarians, represented by the majority of the Synod;
and (3) the milder Calvinists of the type of the professors of
Saumur, represented by the Church of England, Carleton,
the Bishop of Llandaff, Joseph Hall, Davenant, and Samuel
Ward, the representatives of Bremen, Martlnlus and also
Isselburg and Croclus; and that therefore the decrees of
Dort could not be quoted against the theologians of
Saumur.* So the same three parties were represented at the West
minster Assembly. The majority were Infralapsarians; but
Twisse represented the few Supralapsarians. The chief Eng
lish divines were in thorough sympathy with the School of
Saumur. Therefore the Westminster Confession cannot be
quoted against the so-called New School of Theology.
§ 5. The Helvetic Consensus asserted the verbal inspira
tion of the Bible and the integrity of the traditional text, vowel
points and all. The French School insisted upon a text to be
determined by a rejection of the Massoretic apparatus as not
original, and by the critical study of MSS. and Versions.
The Helvetic Consensus says:
"In specie autem Hebraicus Veteris Testament! Codex, quem ex
traditione Ecclesiae ludaicae, cui olim Oracula Dei commissa sunt, ac-
cepimus hodieque retinemus, tum quoad consonas, tum quoad vocalia,
sive puncta ipsa, sive punctorum saltem potestatem, et tum quoad res,
tum quoad verba 6e6xveuoi;o<;, ut fidei et vitae nostrae, una cum Codice
Novi Testamenti sit Canon unicus et ilhbatus, ad cuius normam, ceu
Lydium lapidem, universae, quae extant, Versiones, sive orientales,
sive occidentales exigendae, et, sicubi deflectunt, revocandae sunt." (2.)
The great Biblical scholars of the seventeenth century
stood by the French theologians in this discussion and re
jected the uncritical and unhistorical dogma of the Helvetic
Consensus.f * Blondel, D., Actes authentiques des Eglises Reformies, 1655, pp. 11
seg. t Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, pp. 222

380 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The Westminster Confession ignores this dispute. Noth
ing is said in it of the inspiration of vowel points, the in
errancy of texts or of verbal inspiration, but only a general
statement Is made to which Cappellus and New School theo
logians could cordially agree.
"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of
the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at
the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations),
being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and prov
idence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical." (1^.)
In other respects the Westminster Confession simply ad
heres to the Symbols of the Reformation in Its doctrine of
the Bible, and its statements have been accepted as valid by
modern Biblical scholars.
However, the errors of the Helvetic Consensus have con
tinued to exert an unfortunate influence upon Old School
theologians in Great Britain and America until recent times.
They soon were obliged to abandon the inspiration of the
Massoretic apparatus of the Old Testament; but they con
tinued to insist upon the verbal inspiration of the Hebrew
and Greek texts and to resist the correction of these texts
by ancient MSS. and versions. W. H. Green, as president
of the American Company of Revisers of the Old Testament,
would not consent to the very moderate action of the British
revisers In putting the readings of the ancient Versions in
the margin of the Revised Version. And the American Re
visers say in their appendix: "Omit from the margin aU
renderings from the LXX, Vulgate, and other ancient ver
sions or authorities." *
Again when they were compeUed to retreat from the in-
faUibllity of the traditional texts of the Bible, they took
refuge In the novel theory of the "inerrancy of the original
autographs." t The Princeton divines, A. A. Hodge, F. L.
* V. Briggs, Revised Version of the Old Testament, in Presbyterian Re
view, July, 1885, pp. 492 seg.
t Briggs, General Introduction, pp. 634 seq.

OLD AND NEW SCHOOL CALVINISTS 381
Patton, and B. B. Warfield, insisted upon this doctrine as
essential; and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America In 1893 indorsed
their position, and so placed themselves athwart the Biblical
scholarship of the world. But a large minority protested
against this decision and refused to regard It as valid, and
it is sufficiently evident that this decision cannot be enforced.

CHAPTER VIII
THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AND THE CON
FLICTS OF BRITISH CHRISTIANITY
The history of the conflicts leading up to the Westminster
Assembly has been given in Chapter V of Particular Sym
bolics. We have now to consider the Westminster Confes
sion itself, and the conflicts about its doctrinal statements.
§ 1. The Westminster Confession enlarges the definitions
of doctrine so as to give a complete system of theology. It is
not, indeed, really complete; but it does, in fact, give important
definitions in advance of any previous symbol.
Chapter I, Of the Holy Scripture, is admirable; by far the
best Symbolic statement; one which in no particular stands
in the way of Biblical criticism. It does not follow the
Helvetic Consensus In its insistence on verbal inspiration and
the originality of the Hebrew vowel points. The opinion
of some scholastic divines who, compelled to abandon the
inerrancy of the Hebrew and Greek texts, urge the inerrancy
of a supposed original text, finds no representation.
Chapter II, Of God and of the Holy Trinity, is entirely in ac
cord with the Nicene Faith; only its feeble statement of the
doctrine of the Trinity in Section 3 was altogether inade
quate to resist the Unltarlanism, which came in like a flood
early in the eighteenth century and eventually captured the
entire Presbyterian body in England.
Chapters III, Of God's Eternal Decree; IV, Of Crea
tion; V, Of Providence; VI, Of the Fall of Man, of Sin,
and of the Punishment Thereof; VII, Of God's Covenant with
382

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 383
Man; IX, Of Freewill; X, Of Effectual Calling, all take the
High Calvinistic position of the Synod of Dort over against
Arminianism: and no kind of revision can change them
into an admission either of Arminianism or of the moderate
Augustinianism of the Roman Catholic Church, of the Lu
theran Church, of the Articles of Religion of the Church of
England, or of Modern Thought. They are excessive in
their elaborate statements, and rigid and polemic in their
doctrine. Chapter VIII, on Christ the Mediator, is in accord with the
Chalcedonian Formula and the Nicene Creed, in four sec
tions, which are relatively inadequate to set forth the great
central and fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion.
Section 5 gives a very limited and altogether unsatisfactory
statement of the doctrine of the atonement, which has given
endless trouble to the Presbyterian Church until the present
time. It follows the Scholastic Calvinists by emphasising
the idea of purchase and satisfaction, and omitting every
thing else. It also unfortunately abandons the Anselmic
view of the divine Majesty as offended and needing satisfac
tion, and limits the atonement to the satisfaction of the sin
gle attribute of justice. I reserve this for further considera
tion. In Section 6 it simply states what was the consensus
of Christianity, that the Old Testament saints had a share
in the salvation of Jesus Christ. Section 7 unfortunately
follows the Reformed Scholastics in their antagonism to the
Lutheran commumcation of attributes, and limits It to a
merely nominal one. Section 8 is simply a reassertion of the
limited atonement of the Synod of Dort.
Chapter XI, on Justification, is an admirable statement of
the great doctrine of the Reformation, except so far as High
Calvinism warps its statements and so puts it in conflict with
the Chapter on Effectual Calling and confuses the order of
salvation. Chapters XII-XV, on Adoption, Sanctification, Saving
Faith, Repentance unto Life, are new chapters In Symbolic
Theology, and the choicest parts of the Confession and the

384 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
chief contribution of Puritan theology to the enrichment of
the Christian Faith. Unfortunately these have been ig
nored by the theologians and the ministry, because they were
apart from the theological conflicts between Arminianism
and Calvinism, and between the Old and the New School
Calvinism. Chapter XVI, on Good Works, influenced by the previous
chapters, is also, in the main, excellent, and Its statements far
superior to those of the Formula of Concord. But Sections 4
and 7 are unfortunate in their polemic against Roman Cath
ohc doctrine; for they not only deny works of supereroga
tion, or the ability of man in the liberty of love to do more
than God requires, but even his ability to do all that God
requires, and so antagonise the possibility of human perfec
tion. Section 7, in its assertion that the good works of
unregenerate men are sinful and cannot please God, offends
the moral sense and was one of the chief grounds of a call
for the revision of the Confession by many Presbyterians.
Chapter XVII, on the Perseverance of the Saints, simply
adheres to the Synod of Dort.
Chapter XVIII, is another admirable chapter because it
is an advance upon all previous Symbols in a normal, and not
a polemic, direction. It distinguishes between Faith and the
Assurance of Faith, and clearly explains the nature of each.
Chapter XIX on the Law of God, is also admirable, far in
advance of the Formula of Concord, and not open to the crit
icism to which the statements of the latter are open.
Chapter XX, on Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience,
is another Symbolic advance, making the discrimination
that the battle for liberty of conscience had involved in
British Christianity. This we shaU consider in a subsequent
section. Chapters XXI-XXV take up questions of Religious In
stitutions, which, also, I reserve for the present.
Chapter XXVI, on the Communion of Saints, is also an
admirable statement to which no valid exception can be
taken.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 385
Chapters XXVII and XXIX, on the Sacraments, are care
ful, thorough, and most excellent statements of the Cal
vinistic position, in entire accord with what the Churches of
England and Scotland had maintained since the Reforma
tion, and still maintain officially, however much Individuals
may have departed from them.
Chapter XXVIII, to which Baptists do not agree, we shall
reserve for the present.
Chapters XXX-XXXI, on Church Censures and Synods
and Councils, were rejected by the Parliament of England,
and are refused by Congregationalists. These must be re
served for further consideration.
Chapters XXXII-XXXIII, on the State of Man After
Death, the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Last Judgment,
state the ordinary Protestant positions with great reserve.
The most serious defect Is the ignoring of the Intermediate
State between death and the resurrection, owing to the com
mon repugnance to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purga
tory. The statement In XXXII : 1, that " besides (heaven and
hell) these two places for souls separated from their bodies,
the Scripture acknowledgeth none," is most certainly based
on ignorance of Scripture, which does in fact in both Testa
ments teach that the place of departed spirits is ^INl^, or Hades,
and that this place is distinct from heaven on the one hand,
and from Gehenna, Abaddon, the Pit (various names for the
ultimate place of punishment),* on the other. The Confes
sion is altogether silent as to the condition of souls in that
period. Immense for most of them, between death and the
resurrection. Thus inadequacy on the one hand, unscrlptural
and positive assertions on the other, have given occasion to
serious controversy and differences in the Church ever since.
§ 2. The Westminster Confession narrows the doctrine of
the Atonement by putting the emphasis upon the expiatory char
acter of Christ's sacrifice, once offered on the Cross, the satis
faction of divine justice and the purchase of reconciliation
* V. Briggs, Fundamental Christian Faith, pp. 125 seg.

386 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
with God, thereby involving British Christianity in controver
sies which have endured till the present time.
We have seen that the doctrine of the Atonement first
originated as a definite doctrine with Anselm's Cur Deus
Homo; and that his doctrine In its essentials became the con
sensus of the Mediaeval Church without any symbohc defi
nition.* We have also seen that the symbols of the Refor
mation, both Protestant and Catholic, agreed in the essentials
of the same doctrine, mentioning it, however, only incidentally
in connection with the doctrine of justification; the CouncU of
Trent also in its definition of the sacrifice of the Eucharlst.f
The Roman Catholic Church never felt the necessity of
making any symbolic definition of this doctrine. The state
ments of Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and other scholastic
divines, have been regarded as sufficient, and a considerable
amount of liberty of opinion has been recognised in the de
tails of the doctrine.
So in the Anglican Articles of Religion the Atonement Is
only referred to incidentally and in simple terms which have
never occasioned any controversy in the Church of England
or her daughters.
Article II, Of the Word or Son of God : "Who truly suffered, was cru
cified, dead and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sac
rffice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."
Article XV, Of Christ alone without sin : "Who, by the sacrffice of
Himself once made, should take away the sins of the world."
Article XXXI, Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross:
"The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propi
tiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original
and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone."
The Westminster Assembly revised Article XI on the
Justification of Man, by the insertion of the following clause:
"His whole obedience and satisfaction being by God imputed
unto us, and Christ with His righteousness being apprehended,
and rested on (by faith) only."
* 7. pp. 137 seq. t V. pp. 292, 330 seg.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 387
It was a serious mistake of the Protestant scholastics that
they were not content to maintain the attitude of the Re
formers and the Mediaeval Church in the doctrine of the
Atonement, and especially of the Westminster divines that
they were not content with the statements of the Articles of
Religion, on this subject.
(1) They agreed with the emphasis upon the expiatory
character of the sacrifice of Christ, which marked the late
Middle Ages, to the neglect of other more important features
of that sacrifice as taught in the Bible. They laid stress
upon the immolation of the victim rather than upon the
use of the flesh and blood, which latter certainly was the
most signfficant tffing in all the sacrifices of the Old Testa
ment and of their New Testament fulfilment. The Roman
Catholic doctrine of the Mass was attached so closely to the
sacrifice of Christ Himself that, while its expiatory character
was emphasised, yet the neglect of the other important ele
ments of the sacrifice was prevented by the nature of the
Eucharist itself, in which the flesh and blood were both
offered to God and partaken of by the offerer, and the con
tinuous nature of the sacrifice, as attached to the eternal
High Priest and Victim In heaven, was maintained. On the
other hand, the Protestant scholastics, by their agreement
with the Protestant Reformers in their rejection of the ex
piatory sacrificial character of the Eucharist and their neglect
of other features of the sacrifices of the Bible as fulfilled in
Christ, thought of the sacrifice of Christ as exclusively ex
piatory, and so attached it to the Cross as offered thereon
once for all. Thus the sacrifice was reduced to expiation,
and expiation limited to the death of the Cross. The doc
trine of the expiatory sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, once
made on Calvary, Is orthodox doctrine so far as it goes; but
it is only a part of a much greater whole, the neglect of which
puts the doctrine Into an awkward and questionable position,
open to attack from many sides.
(2) The attachment of the doctrine of the Atonement to
the doctrine of justification as a momentary forensic act of

388 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
God, urged to an exaggeration of the divine forensic justice
in the atonement also; and thus the divine love and mercy
were pushed into the background, or veiled by their special
manifestations in the divine grace, which itself was usually
limited by the divine sovereignty. The doctrine of Anselm
contemplated the divine majesty, the divine honour, the throne
of God itself as offended by human sin, rather than the divine
justice as such in the court of the judge. In the divine maj
esty all the divine attributes were summed up and har
monised, and justice could not so well be exalted above mercy
and love. The justice of the judge demands the execution
of the penalty of the Law upon the transgressor. The judge
has no discretion in the matter. All governments recognise
the right of appeal from the judge to the sovereign, because
all Law, even divine Law, as is evident from its development
in the Old Testament, is from the nature of the case imper
fect. It is given in general comprehensive terms, and it
does not and cannot discriminate between all the immense
variety of cases of infraction. The judge cannot take into
consideration all mitigating circumstances and general in
terests apart from the particular case. The executive must
have the last word to say; for his justice is not bound to the
particular law, but Is free to rise above statutes and custom
ary Law to the source of all Law and the fundamental prin
ciples upon which it is based, which will determine cases be
yond the scope and power of any given law. The sovereign
may consider other interests In the case as well as the legal
interest. The Protestant scholastics insisted on the justice
of the judge in the doctrine of the Atonement, and would not
recognise the liberty of justice of the sovereign; and so they
commonly said: "God must be just; but He may at His dis
cretion be merciful."
This distinction between justice and mercy is entirely con
trary to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the historic
Theology of the Church, wffich emphasise the love rather
than the justice of God. In fact. In the Bible justice is an
attribute of the monarch rather than of the judge, and is

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 389
constantly associated with redemption in the vindication of
God's people against their enemies, especiaUy in the Psalter
and the second Isaiah, and so In St. Paul.
The satisfaction of the divine Majesty is one thing, the sat
isfaction of the divine justice is another and much more
hmited thing; for the satisfaction of the divine Majesty re
quires the satisfaction of all the other attributes of God no
less than His justice, and of the interests of His throne and
kingdom as well. And so the Scholastics, Thomas Aquinas
and Duns Scotus, both rightly hold that the method of sal
vation was entirely dependent upon the divine sovereign
wiU. There was no absolute necessity in the Divine Being
that His justice should be satisfied by the visitation of the
penalty either upon the guilty man or his substitute, Jesus
Christ the Saviour. The sovereign has in his very sover
eignty the right to pardon or to punish in accordance with
his wisdom and the best interest of his kingdom; and if he
punishes, to determine the extent and degree of punish
ment. The Protestant scholastics in their exaggeration of
punitive justice, and indeed of exact distributive justice,
overlooked and neglected the more fundamental Biblical con
ception of the pardon and remission of sins to the repenting
sinner, trusting in the forgiving love of God.
Shakespeare was more orthodox than the scholastic Prot
estant when he wrote:
" And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice."
Undoubtedly the justice of the executive as truly as the
justice of the judge demands adequate satisfaction — that is
the teaching of Holy Scripture; but the satisfaction of the
court of justice is one thing, that of the sovereign another
thing. Sinful man is
"justffied freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiatory (or propitiation) through
faith, in His blood, to shew His righteousness, because of the passing

390 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
over of the sins done aforetime in the forbearance of God; for the shew
ing of His righteousness at this present season : that He might Himself
be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." (Rom. S'*-^.)
The satisfaction that the divine justice required for sin
ners according to the Old Testament was satisfaction at the
propitiatory n"lS3 of the altar by the application of the blood
of the victim, there to cover over, 'ISD obliterate, expiate,
Ktan, the gmlt, which stained the altar and obstructed union
and communion with God there. It was not the death of the
victim that expiated sin; it was the life-blood of the victim,
which had cleansing and quickening power. The immo
lation of the victim was simply and alone to secure its flesh
and the blood. So Jesus Christ became the propitiatory or
mercy throne of the Christian dispensation, and His blood
the propitiation on the altar throne. It was not Christ's
death on the Cross that made the propitiation; it is His
blood, ascending to the presence of the Father and remain
ing ever present there in Christ Himself, the Propitiator,
that continuaUy obhterates the guilt of human sin and
makes the access of His people to the throne of God ever
open. The divine Majesty was offended by the sin of the first
Adam and all his race. Their offence was obliterated, and
satisfaction therefor rendered by the presence at His right
hand of His only begotten and well-beloved Son, the second
Adam, the Mediator of a new regenerate humamty, in vital
union and ever-living communion with Him.
(3) It Is undoubtedly true that sinful man is at enmity
with God; and that God Is and must be angry with the sin
ner, so far as he is and remains a sinner. There must be a
reconciliation with God in order to salvation. But it is
man who needs reconciliation rather than God. God's grace
is ever prevenient, anticipatory, and provocative of any and
every disposition for reconciliation on the part of man. The
only thing that man can do is to thankfully acknowledge,
receive, and yield himself to the power of the divine recon
cihng grace. As the apostle says:

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 391
"But all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through
Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning
unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of
reconcihation. We are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as
though God were entreating by us: we beseech (you) on behalf of
Christ be ye reconciled to God. Him who knew no sin He made sin
on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
(II Cor. 518-21.)
There Is undoubtedly an imputation here both of sin and
of righteousness; not, however, of a nominal or judicial kind,
but of a real and sovereign kind, initiated by God the Father
Himself. To Christ is imputed sin, though He knew no sin,
because by His Incarnation He was incorporated in the race
of Adam, and, therefore, made liable to all the consequences
of sin incurred by the race as such, the penalties of suffering,
death on the cross, and descent Into Hades. He was not a
sinner personally, but by His own act He became identified
with a sinful and offending race and assumed all the conse
quences of His Incarnation. On the other hand, to mankind
is imputed the righteousness of Christ. Man has it not per
sonally; but, because he has been united to Christ by regen
eration and is in Christ a new creature (II Cor. 5^'), he shares
in the righteousness of the second Adam, his spiritual pro
genitor, and in all the benefits of that righteousness. "There
is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ
Jesus" (Rom. 80- "Who shall lay anything to the charge of
God's elect? It Is God that justffieth; who is he that con-
demneth? It Is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was
raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ?" (Rom. 8^^-^''). Justification is
not and cannot be a matter of debit and credit.
Merit and demerit undoubtedly played too Important a
part in the later Middle Ages; and it was one of the most
important results of the Reformation that It did away with
the estimation, both Protestant and Catholic, of merit and
demerit In terms of barter and sale. However, the fault re-

392 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
malned in the estimation of the Atonement among Protes
tant scholastics. The emphasis upon the momentary act of
justification led the scholastic Protestants to think of the
immediate imputation of human sin to Christ and of Christ's
righteousness to man, a purely external, nominalistic, jurid
ical estimation. Such a purchase of reconciliation with God
on the part of Jesus has no BIbhcal support whatever. It is
true the term imputation is used both In the Old Testa
ment and the New; not, however, in a commercial sense, but
in the sense of the estimation or non-estimation of guilt,
entirely parallel with remembering or not remembering, an
act of the mind of God rather than of His will, and ordinarily
used in parallelism with forgiveness, as in Psalm 32.
"Happy the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered:
Happy the one unto whom Yahweh imputeth not iniquity. "
There is no suggestion of sacrifice of any kind in this Psalm.
It is the sovereign good pleasure of God to forgive, cover
over, and not impute sin in its various forms.
The narrowing of the doctrine of the Atonement in the
Westminster Confession, and the emphasis upon an external,
juridical, nominalistic theory of It, brought on the contro
versies of the subsequent centuries. The governmental
theory of Grotlus was a reaction toward the mediaeval doc
trine by its substitution of rectoral for distributive justice,
but it was still too much involved with legal conceptions.
The moral-influence theories of modern times, in their re
action against juridical theories, went to the other extreme,
and did away altogether with the sacrificial character of the
Atonement. The doctrine of the Westminster Confession is
orthodox so far as it goes. It is defective in that it neglects
the depths and breadths of the Biblical doctrine, and nar
rows the mediaeval Anselmic doctrine, to which the Roman
Catholic Church still adheres. It would be enriched by
recognising that the Atonement was not a momentary act
attached to the cross, but a continuous work of Christ from
His Incarnation to His Second Advent. It is necessary to

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 393
maintain the sovereign right of God to forgive sins, and
not to regard or treat sinners as sinners when they repent
and seek refuge in Him. We must hold that the Atonement
was not merely an external act of Christ, by which He pur
chased sinners from the devil either as a person or as Sin and
Penalty personffied, but an act of Christ as the Incarnate
One, the second Adam uniting mankind to Himself by re
generation in a kingdom of redemption, so that all the
redeemed share with Him in all His redemptive acts.
His people are still more truly one with Him as the second
Adam by supernatural birth than they were by natural
birth with the first Adam. They are reconcUed with God,
not by external purchase, but by vital union and eternal
communion with Christ their Advocate, Surrogate, Inter-
poser, Intercessor, and Guarantor.
§ 3. The Westminster Assembly divided the Protestants of
Great Britain into three kinds of Church government: Episcopal,
Presbyterian, and Independent or Congregational.
The Church government established In Great Britain at
the Reformation was episcopal, the bishops representing the
crown, which had supreme authority in the Church and
State. The government of the crown was limited in some
respects by Parliament, that of the bishops by convocation.
But Parliament could not seriously resist the determinations
of the crown until the reign of Charles I, whose absolutism
became intolerable and so brought on the civil wars of
England. Just so the dominion of the bishops became in
tolerable, and Archbishop Laud of Canterbury brought the
Churches of the four nations to rebellion.
The Church of Scotland differed from the Churches of
England, Wales, and Ireland, in the relation of the bishops
to the Church. The First Book of Disclphne (1560) provided
ten superintendents, or bishops, for the Church of Scotland;
but they were subject to the General Assembly of the whole
Church, in whch all notables, civil and ecclesiastical, were
gathered.

394 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The bishops, however, became subservient to the crown;
and so in 1578 the General Assembly adopted the Second
Book of Discipline, and in 1580 resolved to do away with
bishops. A National Covenant was drawn up and signed in
1581 by the king of Scotland, the nobles, ministers, and people,
and the Church was reconstructed on a thoroughly Presby
terian system: Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assembly,
without bishops. In 1584 King James and his nobles re
stored episcopacy and the Presbyterian leaders were forced
into exile. In 1585 they returned, and the General Assembly
in 1586 consented to a modified episcopacy responsible to the
General Assembly.
In England, Thomas Cartwright and William Travers ad
vocated a Presbyterian polity. A Book of Discipline was
prepared and adopted by a synod meeting in London with
out authority in 1584, and was revised, adopted, and sub
scribed to in 1590 by some five hundred ministers.*
Presbyterianism was secretly organised in England, but
was so persistently persecuted by the bishops that the or
ganisation could not be continued. In the meanwhile Rob
ert Browne advocated a voluntary association by covenant
of true believers living Christian lives, and that each con
gregation had exclusive right of choice of its own officers
and discipline. He organised ffis first congregation at Nor
wich in 1580 or 1581. He subsequently submitted to the
Church In 1585, and served as schoolmaster and pastor for
forty years. Henry Barrow agreed essentially with Browne,
although he put the government of the congregation in the
hands of elders rather than of the congregation. His prin
cipal work was written in 1589.t
The views of these early Congregationalists were some
what modified by later leaders, who sought refuge in Holland
from persecution by the bishops.
In 1592 the bishops were again overthrown in Scotland;
* It is given in Briggs, American Presbyterianism, Appendix, pp. ii-xvii.
t A True Description out of the Word of God of the Visible Church ; v.
H. M. Dexter, Congregationalism, 1880, pp. 61 seg.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 395
but after James of Scotland became king of England, in 1603,
he determined to restore episcopacy on the theory, "No
bishop, no king"; the bishops were restored in Scotland, and
absolutism in Church and State ruled all over the British
Isles until his death.
The Church of Ireland, consisting of a minority of Prot
estants in the midst of a Roman Catholic population, did
not escape altogether the conflict of parties, but under the
Irish Parliament and Archbishop Ussher the contest was
softened, and his conception of episcopacy, reduced to a
synodlcal form, was entirely acceptable to Presbyterians.*
The people of Scotland were excited by a continued at
tempt to force upon them English ceremomes and forms of
worship, beginmng in 1617 and continuing to become worse
and worse until 1638. Then the nation revolted and signed
the Second National Covenant, compelling the king, Charles
I, to do the same, while the General Assembly, meeting in
Glasgow, compelled the bishops to resign, so that Presby-
teriamsm again became established by Law. In the mean
while the Irish Church in 1634 had been browbeaten and
compelled by the crown to adopt the English Articles and
Canons of Law, the Irish archbishop being simply ignored.
In 1641 the civil war broke out between the king and the
three Parliaments, Scottish, Irish, and English; and the
Westminster Assembly was summoned to settle the Church
government for the nation. Instead of pursuing a harmoni
ous course, it adopted a rigid Presbyterianism and rejected
Episcopacy on the one hand and Congregationalism on the
other. Theoretically, the Churches of England, Ireland, and
Wales were governed by Convocation, a deliberative assem
bly of bishops and clergy of each province under the presi
dency of their archbishops. The relation of bishops to
convocation is a variable one and capable of various modi
fications. The bishop is essentiaUy an executive. He may
* This is given in Briggs, American Presbyterianism, Appendix, pp.
xvii seg.

396 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
usurp legislative and judicial functions; and this he did from
the time of Elizabeth until the civil wars in England, but not
in Scotland or Ireland, where Convocation and General As
sembly had their rights until they were deprived of them by
the interference of the crown. Convocation in England was
deprived of dehberative powers in 1717 and has only begun
to recover them since 1861. The bishops have gradually lost
the greater part of their authority, and, indeed, there Is very
little government of any kind at present in the Church of
England. In the meanwhile the American Episcopal Church has
organised itself with diocesan and general conventions in
which aU government is lodged. The House of Bishops In
the General Convention has only co-ordinate authority with
the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies. In the diocese the
bishop has only executive functions. Episcopacy is capable
of all these modifications.
If the Westminster Assembly had adopted the model of
Archbishop Ussher, retaining bishops and synods, as in the
historic plan of the Churches of Scotland and Ireland since
the Reformation, there would have been no great difficulty
in preserving the unity of these Churches, so far as Presby-
terlamsm and Episcopacy are concerned. That which pre
vented the Assembly from taking this position, and led them
in their Form of Government to reject bishops altogether, was
the experience of the Church of Scotland for nearly a hun
dred years, in which the bishops had constantly violated the
rights of General Assemblies and Synods, and had made
themselves subservient to the crown in its despotism in
Church as well as in State.
Indeed, the Westminster Confession of Faith does not de
fine the church offices or deny the bishop. It simply says:
"The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein ap
pointed a government in the hand of church officers, distinct from the
civil magistrate."
"To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed,
by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 397
sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word
and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of
the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require."
(301-2.) These sections were directed against Erastianism, as it is
called, which makes the State supreme in religious as in
civU affairs. They assert the sole authority of the officers
of the Church in church affairs. So they say:
"As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit
persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if
magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ,
of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons,
upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assem
blies." (312.)
This recognises the right of magistrates to call synods,
but also maintains that. If magistrates are open enemies of
the Church, the ministers of the Church may meet in syn
ods of their own authority.* This section was thrown out
by the American General Assembly in the interest of the
entire separation of Church and State.
The Presbyterian Form of Government, as organised in
London in a provincial synod and twelve classes, or presby
teries, best shows the conception of the Westminster divines
as to Church government. And the fullest statement of
their position is given in the official Jus divinum, 1647, in
answer to the questions proposed by Parliament to the As
sembly. "The receptacle of this power of church government is not the civil
magistrate, as the Erastians contend, nor the coetus fidelium or body of
the people, as presbyterated, or unpresbyterated, as the Separatists and
Independents pretend, but Christ's own officers which He hath created
jure divino in His Church. These officers are (1) pastors and teachers;
(2) ruhng elders; (3) deacons. The power of the keys or proper eccle
siastical power is distributed among these church officers so that the
deacons have the care of the poor, the ruhng elders and pastors com-
* The Church government of the Westmmster divines is given in their
Advice concerning Church Government, 1645.

398 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
bined the power of jurisdiction, the pastors and teachers the preaching
of the Word and administration of sacraments. The Presbytery is the
body of ruling elders and pastors having this power of jurisdiction
which may be the lesser Assemblies, consisting of the ministers and
ruling elders in each single congregation, called the parochial Presbytery,
or congregational eldership; and the greater Assemblies, consisting of
church governors sent from several churches and united into one body
for government of all those churches within their own bounds. These
greater Assemblies are either Presbyterial or Synodal-Presbyterial, con
sisting of the ministers and elders of several adjacent or neighbouring
single congregations or parish churches, called the Presbytery or Clas
sical Presbytery; Synodal, consisting of ministers and elders sent from
Presbyterial Assemblies to consult and conclude about matters of com
mon and great concernment to the Church within their limits; and
these are either Provincial, embracing ministers and elders from several
Presbyteries within one province; National, ministers and elders from
several provinces within one nation; and (Ecumenical, ministers and
elders from the several nations within the whole Christian world. These
are all of divine right, and there is a divine right of appeals from the
lower to the higher bodies, and of the subordination of the lower to the
higher in the authoritative judging and determining of causes eccle
siastical." *
The bishops are altogether omitted from Christ's otvn
officers, jure divino. The Westminster divines would not
deny that they might be jure humano. They could not re
gard them as of a higher order than presbyters except in
jurisdiction. Their chief insistence was upon the equality
of presbyter and bishop, according to the New Testament.
They did, however, make the ruling elder a lower order In
the ministry between pastor and deacons, and both jure
divino, and so really recognised three orders of the ministry,
but all parochial and not diocesan.
The most important thing they did was to distinguish the
ruling elder as a separate order by divine right. This is most
characteristic of historic Presbyterianism, except that the
divine institution of the ruling elder has given place in the
United States to the conception that he is a representative
of the people.
Congregationalism differs from Presbyterianism and Epis-
* V. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp. 70-71.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 399
copacy by denying any jurisdiction or authority to any
synod or general body above the congregation. All the offi
cers of the Church are officers of the congregation. In that
Presbyterianism and Congregationalism agree. They differ
as to Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies. Congre
gationalists recognise the Importance of such gatherings of
ministers for purposes of conference and ordination of minis
ters, but they refuse to these any superior jurisdiction what
ever. All church power is In the congregation. The difference
here is more nominal than real. This is evident from certain
facts. The Congregationalists of New England adopted the
Cambridge Platform in 1648 in a Synodlcal meeting. The
Congregationalists of England adopted the Savoy Declaration
in 1658 in a conference of ministers. These were regarded
as tests of orthodoxy; and in the subscription controversy
in England, in 1719, in the battle against Unitarians, the
Presbyterians were opposed to subscription by a majority
of fifty to twenty-six, whereas the Congregationalists voted
for subscription in a majority of twenty-three to seven.*
The authority of the Synod or General Council was just
as imperative — yes, more so, with the Congregational theory
of advice and subscription than with the Presbyterian
theory of jurisdiction without subscription. The Scotch,
Irish, and American Presbyterians, Indeed, at last adopted
subscription also, but only after considerable controversy in
Scotland, Ireland, and America. The Enghsh Presbyteri
ans never had subscription to articles of any kind.f
There were, as we have seen In the references to Barrow
and Browne, J two kinds of Congregatlonahsts or Inde
pendents. So in this Jus divinum of 1647 two kinds are dis
criminated: (1) the Presbyterated; (2) the Unpresbyterated.
The former agreed with the Presbyterians In putting the
government of the congregation In the hands of the presby
ters of the congregation; the latter put it in the hands of
the whole body of the people.

* Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp. 197 seg.
t V. Briggs, American Presbyterianism, pp. 194 i

seq. t V. p. 394.

400 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
§ 4. The Baptist Churches separated from the Presbyterian
and Congregational Churches, net because of differences of
Faith, but only for differences as regards the institution of
Baptism. The Westminster Confession does not differ in the Chap
ter on Baptism in any essential matter from the consensus
of the Christian Church prior to the Reformation and sub
sequent thereto. It does, however, in order to avoid com
mon errors In the Roman Catholic Church, take the follow
ing position:
"Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet
grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that
no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are
baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
"The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein
it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordi
nance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and
conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that
grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in
His appointed tune. " (28«' K)
(1) Baptism is not essential for salvation. While it is a sin
to neglect baptism, yet a person may be "regenerated and
saved without It." This seems to be directly opposed to
the Roman Catholic doctrine as defined in the Council of
Trent, which anathematises any one who says, "that bap
tism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation." *
This is qualified, not by the Council of Trent, but by the
consensus of Roman Catholic theology, in the recognition
of the baptism of desire, but no further.
Undoubtedly, the Westminster Confession would go fur
ther: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ
through the Spirit, Who worketh when, and where, and how He
pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of
being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." (10^)
* On Baptism, Canon 5.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 401
(2) Not all who are baptised are regenerated. This was
designed to limit regeneration to the elect. The Roman
Catholics and Lutherans regard faith as necessary on the
part of the person baptised, or his parents or sponsors. But
this question has never been thoroughly explored by theo
logians, and there is a great amount of variation in their
opinions. (3) The efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of time
wherein it is administered.
This was designed as ruling out the Roman Catholic opus
operatum: but It involves an inconsistency; for whUe 28"
states that "by the right use of this ordinance the grace
promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and con
ferred by the Holy Ghost" in God's "appointed time," it rep
resents that the grace is conferred by the use of the sacra
ment, although it may not be at the time of the sacrament.
It may be offered and exhibited at a different time from
the conferring of it. But it is difficult to see how it may
be conferred by the sacrament and yet at a different time
from the sacrament. It Is also difficult to see how the
sacrament of Baptism can be a seal of grace conferred sub
sequently. These explanations and inconsistencies are due to efforts
to explain baptism in accordance with sovereign election;
but they do not change the fundamental doctrine that bap
tism is a sacrament instituted by Christ for perpetual ob
servance as the means of the grace of regeneration, which
is not only promised, offered, exhibited, and signed, but also
conferred and sealed thereby.
The Congregationalists agreed to the Westminster doctrine
of baptism. The Baptists disagreed, especially as the Con
fession ruled them out by its statements:
"Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism
is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person."
"Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto
Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be
baptized." (28'' K)

402 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
The Baptist Confession of 1688 substitutes for the West
minster Chapter on Baptism the following:
(1) "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament ordained by
Jesus Christ to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with
Him in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;
of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus
Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
(2) "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in
and obedience to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this
ordinance. (3) "The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water,
wherein the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
(4) "Immersion or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to
the due administration of this ordinance."
(1) The chief Baptist principle is what Is known as
believer's baptism, the limitation of baptism to those who
"actually profess repentance towards God, faith in and
obedience to our Lord Jesus"; that is, those already regen
erated and justified by faith, They absolutely reject infant
baptism, and in this respect separate themselves from entire
historical Christianity; and they do not hesitate to rebap-
tlse those who have been baptised in infancy, regarding that
as invalid baptism.
Acting on this principle, they do not recognise the Chris
tians of the other Churches of the world, who, except In very
extraordinary cases, have been baptised in infancy, as hav
ing any Christian baptism at all; and, as for centuries all
Christians practically were baptised in infancy, the con
tinuity of baptism was lost and had to be restored by re-
baptism, and so it was restored by John Smyth, who on that
account was called the Se-Baptlst.*
The Baptist position also destroys the historical conti
nuity between circumcision and baptism — the church mem
bership of children and households — making it entirely in
dividual. The historical continuity of the Church is thus
destroyed. * y. H. M. Dexter, The True Story of John Smyth, the Se-Baptist, 1881.

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 403
(2) This position compels the Baptists to abandon the con
sensus of Christianity that baptism is efficacious; and It is
reduced to a mere sign. The grace of regeneration, faith,
and justification have already been received; therefore there
can be no efficacy In baptism itself, no conferring and seal
ing the grace of regeneration. Accordingly, the Westmin
ster terms, seal, offer, exhibit, and confer, are omitted.
(3) The Baptists assert that "Immersion, or dipping of
the person in water. Is necessary to the due administration
of this ordinance." They reject all other modes of baptism,
and in this respect go against the consensus of the Christian
world and even the primitive Baptists themselves, who In
the time of the Reformation as Anabaptists did not prac
tise immersion. Even the earliest English Baptists did not.
Immersion was first introduced into England as necessary
among the Baptists in 1641. They then became divided for
a time between the older Baptists called Aspersi, because
they were but sprinkled, and the newer Immersi, because
they were "overwhelmed In their Rebaptlzatlon." *
Gradually, however, the English Baptists became Im-
mersionists. But they thereby again separated themselves
from the consensus of Christianity; for whUe the Christian
Church always recognised various modes of baptism as
vahd, yet the usual method in the West was pouring or
sprinkling. (4) The modern Baptists claim liberty of conscience as
one of their special principles. But they have no special
claim to it. The Westminster Assembly has a chapter on
Liberty of Conscience; the Baptist Confession simply omits
Section 4, but adds nothing to the chapter. Section 4 is as
foUows :
"And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty
which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but
mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretense
of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exer-
* Ryves, Mercurius Rusticus, 1646, xvi, 224; cf. Dexter, John Smyth,
p. 52.

404 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
cise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of
God. And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such
practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known prin
ciples of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversa
tion, or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or prac
tices, as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or
maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which
Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to
account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by
the power of the Civil Magistrate. " (20«.)
This puts certain limitations to liberty of conscience in the
resisting or refusing of submission to civil or ecclesiastical au
thority, especially In matters of doctrine or institution. The
Westminster divines recognised the right of resistance when
conscience truly requires it; but what they reject is a "pre
tence of Christian liberty," which would be " destructive to
the external peace and order which Christ hath estabhshed
in the Church."
In fact. Baptists have not shown themselves any more
tolerant than other Christians. There must be some re
strictions upon liberty of opinion and practice, as all aUow.
I do not see that the restriction can be much better stated
than by the Westminster divines; only their restriction needs
to be interpreted. If Interpreted in favour of Presbyterian
ism alone, against all other Christians, it Is certainly an un
reasonable restriction on liberty of conscience.
The question Is, what is the " peace and order which Christ
hath established In the Church?" Is it meant to exclude
from toleration Baptists, Quakers, and the like? It was
undoubtedly so interpreted by divines of the Westminster
Assembly and by the New England Independents. The
Baptists and Quakers never had the chance of external per
secution by civil power, but they did use ecclesiastical cen
sure and persecution just as vigorously as others.
Liberty of conscience as a practical thing has a long his
tory: first toleration had to be won for this or that unpopular
and unrecognised opinion and practice, before a general tol
eration was won at the British revolution in 1688; then the

THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION 405
separation of Church and State was first won by the Ameri
can colonies after the Revolutionary War. Religious equal
ity before the Law has been won in the United States and In
Ireland, but not in England, Scotland, or Wales. Recogni
tion has been only partially gained in the United States and
Great Britain.

CHAPTER IX
THE MODERN CONSENSUS
"We have already seen In Particular Symbolics, that the
tendency In modern times In the Protestant world is toward a
simplification in matters of dogma and institution, either by
revision of the older Symbols, or by looser terms of sub
scription, or the construction of new and simpler Creeds, or
by adherence to the Bible alone as a sufficient standard of
Christian Faith. This general tendency has resulted in
several important undertakings to reumte separated bodies
on the basis of simple doctrinal standards. The most im
portant of these are: (1) the union of the Lutheran and Re
formed Churches of Germany as Evangelical Churches In
1817 and subsequent years; (2) the foundation of the Evan
gelical Alliance in 1846, and (3) the issue of the Chicago-
Lambeth platform for the reumon of Christendom in 1888.
§ 1. The Lutheran and Reformed Churches of the greater
part of Germany united in 1817 and the years that followed, on
the common basis of the principles of the Reformation and the
consensus of Historic Christianity.
The people of the Continent were worn out by the wars of
Napoleon, and tired of the Infidelity and Atheism which
spread all over Europe as a result of the French Revolu
tion. The rally in Russia, Germany, and Austria to expel
the invader was stimulated not only by the rebirth of pa
triotism, but also by a revival of religious and moral earnest
ness. This manifested itself in the Holy Alliance estab
lished by the three great sovereigns, the Czar of Russia of
the Greek Church, the Emperor of Austria of the Roman
406

THE MODERN CONSENSUS 407
Church, and the King of Prussia of the Reformed Church, to
which most other sovereigns also conformed. These resolved
to maintain the principles of the Christian religion In their
realms, and to tolerate the adherents of other Churches than
their own. If only the Pope had taken the same position, a
wide-spread movement for the reunion of Christendom might
have begun.
The people of Germany were influenced more than those
of other nations in this regard. They had suffered more
than others in the Napoleonic wars, and had also become
weary of the long three-cornered contest between Scholasti
cism, Pietism, and Rationalism, and were ready to foUow
competent leaders in religious revival and reform. Schleier
macher became their great leader, the father of modern Ger
man theology. He recalled theologians and the people to
the fundamental religious principle of vital umon and com
munion with God, and rallied theologians about a Christo-
centric Theology. It cannot be said that in all respects he
was faithful either to historic Christianity or to historic
Protestantism, but he did propose a platform upon which
to rebuild a shattered Christiamty. Schleiermacher was
also a strong advocate of the umon of the German Protestant
Churches. The three-hundredth anniversary of the Theses
of Luther recalled the German people to the fundamental
principles of the Reformation. Some, like Harms, revived
sectarian Lutheranism; but the majority of the Germans
thought it a fitting occasion to do away with the conflicts of
the past and to unite German Protestantism In one Evan-
gehcal Church, in which there should be the recognition of
the right of Calvlmstic and Lutheran, Melanchthonian and
Zwinglian opimons. Unfortunately an effort to attain uni
formity of worship, especially In Prussia, brought about con
flicts. These disturbed the union but did not destroy It.
§ 2. The Evangelical Alliance, composed of unofficial rep
resentatives of most Protestant Churches, adopted a doctrinal
basis in 1846, which was regarded as the irreducible minimum

408 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
of concord in historic Christianity of the ancient, mediceval,
and Protestant Churches.
The Evangelical Alliance is a voluntary association of
Christians of various evangelical denominations In different
countries. The proposal was first made at a conference in
Glasgow and renewed at Liverpool in 1845. The organi
sation was made in London in 1846 by representative
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Method
ists, Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed, Moravians, and others
who could subscribe to the Evangelical consensus, which
was agreed upon as follows:
"(1) The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy
Scriptures. " (2) The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation
of the Holy Scriptures.
"(3) The Unity of the Godhead, and the Trinity of the persons
therein. " (4) The utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the Fall.
"(5) The incarnation of the Son of God, His work of atonement for
the sins of mankind, and His mediatorial intercession and reign.
" (6) The justification of the sinner by faith alone.
" (7) The work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctifica
tion of the sinner.
"(8) The immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the
judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal
blessedness of the righteous, and the eternal punishment of the wicked.
"(9) The divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the obh-
gation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper." Branch Alliances were formed in the chief countries of the
world, each one being entirely independent of the others.
General meetings have been held at London 1851, Paris
1855, Beriin 1857, Geneva 1861, Amsterdam 1867, New
York 1873, Basel 1879, Copenhagen 1884, Florence 1891,
London 1896 and 1907.
The Evangelical Alliance was distinctly Protestant. Ro
man Catholics, Greeks, and Orientals, and also ministers in
the Church of England and other State Churches who were

THE MODERN CONSENSUS 409
mediaeval in their tendencies, could not participate. On the
other hand, Quakers, Universalists, and other minor Chris
tian sects who could not subscribe to the platform In all
respects were also excluded.
The Evangelical AUiance has lost its importance in great
measure because of the organisation of great International
denominational bodies, such as the Lambeth Convention of
the Episcopal Churches, 1867; the Alliance of Reformed
Churches of the Presbyterian order, 1875; the Ecumenical
Conference of Methodism, 1881 ; the International Council of
the Congregational Churches, 1891; the Baptist World Con
gress, 1905; all of which, like the Evangelical Alliance, are
destitute of ecclesiastical power but have great influence
upon the Christian Churches which they represent.
§ 3. The Chicago-Lambeth Conference proposes as a basis
for the reunion of Christendom the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles'
and Nicene Creeds, the two Sacraments, and the historic Epis
copate. In 1886 the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal
Church issued a Declaration of the terms "essential to the
restoration of unity among the divided branches of Chris
tendom." These were subsequently, after a slight revision,
adopted by the Lambeth Conference, representing the
Church of England and her daughters, in 1888, as follows:
"That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles sup
ply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made toward
Home Reunion: (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa
ments, as 'containing all things necessary to salvation,' and as being
the rule and ultimate standard of faith. (6) The Apostles' Creed as
the baptismal symbol, and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement
of the Christian faith, (c) The two sacraments ordained by Christ
Himself— Baptism and the Supper of the Lord— ministered with un-
faihng use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained
by Him. {d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods
of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples
called of God into the unity of His Church.
"That this Conference earnestly requests the constituted authorities

410 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
of the various branches of our communion, acting, so far as may be, in
concert with one another, to make it known that they hold themselves
in readiness to enter into brotherly conference (such as that which has
already been proposed by the Church in the United States of America)
with representatives of other Christian communions in the English-
speaking races, in order to consider what steps can be taken either
toward corporate Reunion or toward such relations as may prepare the
way for fuller organic unity hereafter.
"That this Conference recommends as of great importance, in tend
ing to bring about Reunion, the dissemination of information respect
ing the standards of doctrine and the formularies in use in the Anglican
Church; and recommends that information be disseminated, on the
other hand, respecting the authoritative standards of doctrine, worship,
and government adopted by the other bodies of Christians into which
the English-speaking races are divided." *
These terms of union proposed: (1) as the standard of
Faith and Order, the Holy Scriptures. All Churches agree to
this. (2) They offer as a doctrinal basis what is contained
in the fundamental Symbols, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds;
to which all existing Christian Churches adhere. (3) As to
Institutions of Worship, they propose the two Sacraments,
which all Christian Churches celebrate in strict accord with
the proposal. (4) The Historic Episcopate is given as the
institution of Church government, adapted, however, to
circumstances and localities without any theory as to its
historic origin or succession. It would have been wiser if
the term historic ministry had been used; for the term as It
stands seems to emphasise the episcopate, and to Ignore the
presbyterate and diaconate. Undoubtedly, this was not de
signed. The episcopate was mentioned because It does not
at present exist In some bodies which would be welcomed In
the reunion, and It was just this that the Convention deemed
it important to emphasise. It Is the only term to which all
existing Churches do not at present conform. However, the
most of those Churches which have not the historic episco
pate at present have no theoretical objection to it; for it
has had its place in the history of Lutheran and Presbyterian
* V. Briggs, Whither? pp. 262-3.

THE MODERN CONSENSUS 411
Churches and now exists in some of them; and it can be
readily adapted to Congregational as well as to the Presby
terian and Consistorial systems.
It is not proposed that any Church should abandon its
own Symbols, but that, while retaining these and interpreting
them In its own way, each Church should enter into a more
comprehensive union with all other Christian Churches on
the basis of the fundamental Faith and Institutions of
Christianity. Historic Christianity, as it exists at present, may be di
vided into three groups: the Greek and Oriental, the Roman
Catholic, and the Protestant. The Greek and Oriental
Churches hold to the fundamental Faith of the Church as
expressed In the Ecumenical Symbols. The tendency of the
Protestant group is to simplify or abandon the symbols of
the Reformation and of the seventeenth century in the direc
tion of the ecumenical Symbols. The Roman Catholic
Church adheres firmly to all the ecumenical Councils of that
Church, and all the symbolic definitions of doctrine down to
and including those of the Vatican Council, and Is ready to
make additional symbolical definitions whenever it may seem
necessary or Important.
Christian Symbolics seems to have brought us to a situa
tion in which the reunion of Christ's Church is impossible
so far as Faith is concerned.
If we were to make an historical and comparative study of
Christian Institutions, the difficulty would not be lessened,
but rather increased.
It should be said in behalf of the Roman Catholic position,
that all the doctrines of Faith defined by that Church are
important doctrines which ought to be defined; and If the
definitions were such that the Christian world could agree
to them, the concord would be an inestimable blessing. The
question arises whether such definitions may be so explained,
or modified by new statements, as to bring about such con
cord. In my opinion this is quite possible. But in the

412 COMPARATIVE SYMBOLICS
meanwhile is the Christian Church to postpone reunion until
such concord has been reached? Is it not evident that con
cord would be more likely in a reunited Church than in
separated bodies, where various external interests tend to
magnify the differences in Faith?
Our study has made it evident that there is a fundamental
Christian Faith expressed in the Ecumenical Creeds, upon
which the three great divisions of Christianity do actually
agree. This constitutes a sufficient platform for reunion.
It is also evident that each of the three divisions has Its own
particular symbols that are dear to it, and which it will not
readily abandon. If the unity may be arranged in a supreme
jurisdiction, on the basis of the fundamental Faith and In
stitutions of the Church, then the subordinate jurisdictions
representing each of the three divisions, and the particular
jurisdictions into which each of these are or may be divided,
may still retain their particular symbols and particular insti
tutions without any interference whatever on the part of the
higher jurisdiction; just as in the American States each has
its own special constitution and jurisdiction, all under the
supreme jurisdiction of the United States, with a constitution
wffich so limits its supreme power as to prevent any intrusion
upon the jurisdiction of the States. What is possible, and
has been actual and useful for more than a century in civil
government. Is just as possible and may be just as useful in
ecclesiastical government. There will still remain questions
of Faith and Institutions concerning which there may be
differences, but as to these every jurisdiction should exercise
the Christian grace of charity.
AU Churches for the sake of unity should adhere faithfully
to the Catholic principle of Vincent of Lerins, " Quod ubique,
quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, " and the irenic
principle of Rupertus Meldenius, "In necessariis unitas, in
non necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

INDEX

INDEX

I. SUBJECTS

Absolution, 162, 299 seg., 327.
Act of supremacy, 160; of uni
formity, 191 seg.
Adiaphora, 187 seg., 354 seg.
Adoptlonism, 127, 130 seg.
Advent, Second, 51, 52, 71, 73 seg.,
88, 97, 137.
Albigenses, 133.
Alhance, Evangelical, 406 seg.
Anabaptists, 141, 167, 170 seg.,
176, 180, 197, 203, 242, 255 seg.,
271, 278, 359, 403.
Annates, 146, 160.
Anomceans, 86.
Answer of Jeremiah, 200 seg.
Antinomianism, 323.
Aphthardocetae, 118.
Apocrypha, 263, 264.
ApoUinarianism, 86, 105 seg., 109.
Arianism, 46, 49, 84 seg., 99, 109,
243, 351, 359.
Arminianism, 12, 208 seg., 219,
244, 319, 327, 360 seg., 383 seq.
Ascension, 42, 52, 68, 70 seg., 88,
285, 353.
Atonement, 137 seq., 142, 162, 164,
267, 292, 310, 330 seg., 335, 357
seq., 360 seq., 373 seq., 383, 385
seq., 393, 408.
Augustinianism, 10, 127 seg., 137,
183, 209 seq., 259, 317 seq., 337
seg., 357, 364, 368, 372, 383.
Authority, divine, 255 seg., 261
seg., 268 seg., 310.
Baptism, 34, 40 seg., 79, 80, 87, 88,
99, 175, 177, 198, 256, 274 seg.,
299 seg., 315 seg., 339, 400 seg.;
of desire, 66, 400 ; of infants, 170,
175, 266, 278, 400 seg.
Baptismal formula, 4, 42 seg., 46,
278 seg., 402.
Black rubric, 296.

Book of Common Prayer, 32, 185,
191 seg., 216, 217, 266, 296, 297,
300 seg.
Burial of Christ, 42, 59 seg., 88.
Callxtines, 188, 198.
Calvinism, 13, 179, 183, 193, 206,
208 seg., 281 seg., 319 seg., 360
seg., 373 seg., 383 seq., 407.
"Cambridge Platform," 14, 220,
399.
Canon Law, 31, 32, 123, 126, 147,
151 seg., 230; of Mass, 185 seg.;
of Scripture, 263 seg.
Catechisms, 11, 37 {v. Symbols).
Ceremonies and rites, 32, 203 seq.,
294 seq., 308 seg., 354 seq.
Christ, 41 seg., 61; divinity of, 49,
50, 55, 60, 83 seg., 99, 105 seg.,
109 seg., 138, 243, 285, 342, 349
seg.; humanity of, 56 seg., 83,
105 seg., 109 seg., 119 seq., 135,
138, 203 seg., 285, 342, 350 seq.;
as King, 71 seg., 86, 88, 97, 139,
141, 331, 333, 408; as Logos, 53,
84, 86, 89, 106, 109, 112 seg.,
120, 135, 350, 352; as Lord, 41
seg., 49 seg., 61, 68, 102 seg.; as
Priest, 71 seg., 134, 139, 141,
331, 333 seg.; as Prophet, 71
seg., 141 ; as Saviour, 4, 42 seq.,
50 seq., 61, 62, 71, 73, 83, 96, 111,
137, 170, 310 seg., 385 seg., 393,
408; as second Adam, 56 seg.,
71, 390 seg.; as Son of God {v.
God).
Christian Scientists, 28, 250.
Church, 6, 44, 71 seg., 77 seg., 140
seg., 177 seg., 220, 255 seq., 333,
357; Apostohoity, Catholicity,
and Sanctity of, 42, 77 seg., 88,
99, 140 seg., 268 seg., 332; unity
of. 77 seg., 88, 99, 134, 140 seg.,

415

416

INDEX

234 seg., 268 seg., 332, 406 seg.;
and state, 144 seg., 159 seg., 223,
235, 257, 260, 412.
Churches, of Reformation, 5 seg.,
10, 199, 121, 242 seg., 252, 411
seg.; Anghcan, 6, 13 seq., 32, 121,
160, 174, 184, 191 seg., 202, 209
seg., 216 seg., 233, 243 seg., 249,
252, 257 seg., 264 seg., 279, 282,
289, 295 seg., 300, 307, 339, 343,
345, 372, 379, 381, 393 seg., 408;
Baptist, 14 seg., 29, 32, 219 seg.,
250, 266, 359, 372, 374, 385, 400
seg., 408 seg.; Bohemian, 184,
197 seg., 244, 408; Congrega
tional, 14, 29, 219 seg., 243, 245,
250, 266, 372, 374, 385, 400 seg.,
408 seg.; Greek and Oriental,
6, 10, 29, 32, 36, 98 seg., 117 seg.,
121, 126, 127, 136, 142 seg., 162
seg., 188, 200 seg., 230, 260, 252
seq., 279, 296 seq., 408, 411 seg.;
Irish, 13, 215 seg., 393, 395;
Lutheran, 6, 11 seg., 121, 202,
205, 250, 262, 257 seg., 278 seg.,
289, 295, 298, 300, 307, 406 seg.;
Methodist, 15, 29, 243 seg., 260,
372, 408 seg.; Presbyterian, 29,
219, 242 seg., 248 seg., 330, 362,
372, 374, 381 seg., 400 seq., 408
seg.; Protestant Episcopal, 29,
250, 396, 408 seq.; Reformed, 6,
12 seg., 121, 173, 184, 193, 197,
201, 202, 208 seg., 245, 250, 252,
267 seq., 264, 278 seg., 282, 296,
298, 307, 338 seg., 346, 349, 362,
370 seg., 406, 408; Roman, 5 seg.,
10 seg., 29, 32 seg., 99, 119, 121,
123 seg., 153 seg., 177, 195, 221
seg., 249 seg., 257 seg., 299 seg.,
310 seg., 408, 411 seg.; Scotch,
32, 174, 209, 216 seq., 243 seg.,
296, 393 seq.
Communication of properties, 116
seq., 349 seg., 383.
Communion in both kinds, 201,
282 seg., 294 seg., 347 seg.; of
saints, 42, 77 seg., 384.
Conference at Altenburg, 204;
Baden, 174; Chicago-Lambeth,
406, 409 seg.; Dresden, 204;
Frankfort, 204; Hagenau, 188;
Leipzig, 207; Lichtenberg, 204;
Marburg, 174 seg., 181, 272, 282;
Naumburg, 204; Ratisbon, 20

seg., 188 seg., 313; Weimar, 338;
Wittenberg, 204; Worms, 188,
318; Zerbst, 204.
Confession, 162, 175, 177, 299, 302
seg., 327.
Confessions of faith {v. Symbols).
Confirmation, 274, 278 seg.
Consensus, 15, 19 seq., 26 seg., 33,
133 seg., 140 seg., 178, 208, 224,
242, 251 seq., 352, 400, 406 seg.
Constitution of Apostles, 36.
Consubstantial, 87 seq., 98, 104,
111 seg.
Consubstantiation, 281 seg.
Contrition, 162, 299, 301 seg.
Conversion (Eucharlstic), 23, 131
seg., 281 seg.
Councils and Sjmods, at Alexan
dria, 110; Amsterdam, 378; An
tloch, 48, 83; Basel, 126, 142,
162, 166; Cambridge, 220;
Carthage, 127; Chalcedon, 6, 8,
83, 87, 101, 106, 109 seg., 124
seg., 131; Constance, 126, 142,
162, 165, 166; Constantinople,
8, 63, 83, 86, 101, 103, 109, 110,
117 seq., 124, 126; Cracow, 197;
Dort, 12, 203, 208 seg., 252, 360
seg., 373 seg., 378 seg., 383 seg.;
Ecumenical, 10 seg., 126 seg.;
Emden, 193; Ephesus, 8, 110,
111, 127; Florence, 6, 10, 126,
132, 136 seq., 142 seg., 162, 154,
188, 251, 295; Frankfort, 127,
130, 131; Jassy, 201; Jerusalem,
200, 201; Kieff, 201; Lateran,
10, 126, 133, 136; Lyons, 126,
136 seg.; Milevius, 127; Ni
caea, 63, 83 seg., 124, 125;
Orange, 10, 127 seg.; Paris, 193;
Petricow, 197; Pisa, 152; Pis
toria, 221; Rome, 10, 127, 131
seg.; Seville, 130; Sens, 135;
Sirmium, 63; Sutri, 123; Thorn,
197; Toledo, 8, 64, 87; Tours,
135; Trent, 14, 16, 134, 169,
185, 196 seg.; 201, 221 seg., 230;
Vatican, 14, 17, 224 seg.; 253,
273,411; Vercelh, 132; Vienne,
126; Vladislav, 197.
Counsels of Perfection, 149, 326.
Creed, 5 seg., 30 seg., 34 seq., 266
seg.; Apostles', 3 seg., 34 seq., 40
seg., 83 seg., 88, 95 seg., 100 seg.,
140, 183, 205, 328, 409 seg.; of

INDEX

417

Aquileia, 40, 63; Athanasian, 6,
34 seg., 50, 64, 94, 97, 98, 100
seg., 109, 136, 206; Chalcedon
ian, 6, 107 seg., Ill seg., 362,
383; Constantinopolitan, 8, 60,
72, 75 seg., 80, 87, 89 seg., 101
seg., 201, 203, 360 seg.; of Cyril,
43, 77 seq., 87 seg., 96 seg.; East
ern, 62, 67, 79 ; of Epiphanius, 76,
77, 87, 89 seg., 96 seg.; of Euse
bius, 72, 76, 85, 88 seg., 96 seg.;
Galhcan, 78; Nicene, 4 seg., 34
seq., 49, 60, 62, 72, 75, 83 seg.,
100 seg., 125, 136, 140, 201, 205,
266, 382, 383, 409 seg.; of Ni
ceta, 81; Roman, 40 seg.; 60
seg., 77 seg., 96; of Venantius
Fortunatus, 64.
Crucifixion of Christ, 42, 52, 59
seg., 88, 132, 137 seg., 286, 292,
364 seg., 391.
Deism, 236 seg., 272.
Didache, 36, 42, 46.
Didascalia, 36.
Diet of Augsburg, 12, 20, 176 seg.,
187, 191, 192; Ratisbon, 188
seg.; Speier, 171 seg.; Worms,
166 seg., 172.
Disciples of Christ, 248, 250.
Docetism, 83.
Doctrines of faith and morals, 14,
22, 29, 30, 33, 223, 229 seg., 252,
273, 274.
Donatlsts, 27.
Dynamists, 48, 83 seg., 99.
Ebionites, 53, 57, 99.
Ecthesis, 119.
Effectual calhng, 313, 317, 370,
377, 383.
Enthronement of Christ, 52, 59, 71
seq., 132, 285.
Epiphany, 74.
Episcopate, historic, 409 seg.
Erastianism, 397.
Eucharist, 20, 33, 87, 116, 126, 127,
131 seg., 139, 174 seg., 181, 183,
201, 203 seg., 266, 271, 274 seg.,
279, 281 seg., 332 seg., 346 seg.,
386 seg., 408 seg.
Eudoxlans, 86.
Eunomians, 86.
Eutychianism, 101, 107, 112 seg.,
351.

Exaltation of Christ, 61, 71, 116,
351 seq., 364.
Faith, tho Christian, 3 seg., 27 seg.,
34 seg., 61, 59, 83 seg., 91, 99,
100 seg., 120, 236, 406 seg.
Filioque, 35, 98, 126, 135, 201,
251.
Flacianism, 337 seg.
Foreknowledge, 357 seq., 360 seg.
Forgiveness of sins, 42 seg., 71, 78
seg., 88, 99, 128, 312 seg., 330
seq., 342, 345, 393.
Freedom, of conscience, 259 seq.,
264, 357, 384, 403 seg., 408, 412;
of wiU, 127 seg., 170, 177, 179,
319 seq., 367, 360 seq., 373 seg.,
383
Friends, 32, 242, 343 {v. Quakers).
Gnosticism, 27, 53, 57, 58, 83, 99.
God, the Father, 4, 41 seq., 60, 56,
61, 68, 72, 76, 84, 87 seg., 102
seg.. Ill, 365; the Son, 4, 41 seg.,
46 seq., 68, 76, 83 seg., 87 seq.,
102 seg.. Ill seg., 130 seq., 311,
365, 393, 408; the Holy Spirit, 4,
41 seq., 52, 58 seg., 71, 72, 75
seq., 83 seg., 96 seg., 102 seg., 106,
126, 135 seg., 140, 258, 275 seg.,
283, 313 seq., 360 seg., 408; the
Trinity, 50, 58, 76 seg., 83 seg.,
94 seq., 100 seg., 116 seg., 130,
136, 175, 243, 256, 285, 382, 408;
the Creator, 41, 44 seg., 61, 87
seg., 226, 382; attributes of,
138 seg., 363, 388 seg.; decree of,
209 seq., 312 seg., 360 seq., 382;
grace of, 127 seq., 207, 261, 267,
275 seg., 310 seg., 319 seq., 332,
342, 360 seq.; majesty of, 137
seg., 162, 349 seq., 383, 388 seq.;
sovereignty of, 50, 129 seg., 137,
209 seq., 360 seg.
God-man, 58 seg., 105 seg., 140.
Good works, 175, 177 seg., 187, 203
seq., 259, 314 seg., 322 seq., 342
seg., 384.
Government, ecclesiastical, 186,
215 seg., 266, 393 seg., 412.
Hades, 81, 385; ascent from, 65
seg., 71; descent into, 42, 60,
63 seg., 75, 203 seg., 328, 363
seg., 391.

418

INDEX

Henoticon, 117, 118.
Henotics, 23.
Hierarchy, 141, 256, 333 seg.
Homoousion, 91 seg.
Humanists, 8, 168 seg., 169 seg.
Humiliation of Christ, 61, 116, 349
seg., 354.
Hypostasis, 93 seg., 103, 111 seg.,
115, 117.
Images, use of, 125, 169, 174, 309.
Immaculate conception, 14, 223
seg.
Immersion, 403.
Incarnation of Christ, 61 seg., 61,
86, 88, 95 seg., 100 seg., 105 seq.,
109 seg., 135, 137 seq., 342, 349
seq., 391 seg., 393, 408.
Independents, 14, 216 seg., 404.
Indulgence, doctrine of, 162 seq.,
165, 303 seg.
Indulgences, sale of, 162 seg., 169,
303.
Infralapsarianism, 209 seg., 373,
379.
Institutions, Christian, 13, 27 seg.,
140 seg., 148, 177 seg., 183, 193,
203, 233 seq., 245, 247 seg., 252,
274 seg., 332, 384, 400 seg., 411.
Interimistic Controversy, 187 seg.
Interims, Augsburg, 187 seg.^ 365;
Leipzig, 190, 356; Ratisbon,
187 seg.
Intermediate state, 64, 67, 81, 305,
322 seg., 327 seg., 335, 385.
Irenics, 20 seg.
Jansenism, 221 seq.
Judgment, of Christ, 42, 52, 65, 73
seg., 81, 88, 97, 177, 385, 408.
Julianists, 115.
Justification, 23, 67, 70, 79, 139,
175, 177 seq., 183, 188, 201, 203
seq., 259 seg., 310 seg., 326 seg.,
336, 341 seg., 346, 369 seg., 383,
391 seg., 403, 408.
Kenosis, 361 seg.
Law, use of, 203 seq., 345 seg.,
384.
Life everlasting, 42, 80 seg., 88, 99,
345.
Literature on: Polemics, 18 seg.;
positive theology, 7 seg., sym

bolics, 4 seg., 11 seg., 24 seg.;
symbols, Anglican, 192 seq.;
Baptist, 220; Congregational,
220; Ecumenical, 36 seg.; Greek,
202; Lutheran, 179 seg., 186,
189 seg., 205 seq.; Reformed
(Continental), 182, 185, 194
seg., 197 seg., 209, 212 seg., 214
seq.; Roman, 196, 222, 225, 232
seq.; Westminster, 217 seq.
Liturgies, 31, 32, 37, 183, 186, 215,
293, 299, 329.
Lollards, 197 seq.
Love, 46, 61, 62, 140, 259, 314 seg.,
326, 342 seg., 363, 388 seg.
Lutheranism, 8, 168 seq., 176 seg.,
407.
Macedonians, 86, 97, 99, 100, 103.
Manichaeism, 337 seq.
Marcelhans, 86.
Marcionites, 361.
Marriage, 154 seq., 174, 177, 187
seg., 201, 274, 306 seg.
Massihans, 128.
Mennonites, 242.
Merit, 310 seg., 335, 339 seg., 343
seg.
Methodism, 242 seg., 302, 317, 321,
371 seg.
Ministry, the Christian, 28, 33,
140 seg., 148, 177, 256 seg., 268
seq., 306, 333 seq., 408 seg.
Miracles, 57 seg., 116, 237 seg.,
288.
Modahsm, 48 seq., 83 seg., 86, 99,
243, 244.
Modernism, 234 seq.
Monarchianism, 46 seg., 83 seg., 92
seg., 99.
Monasticism, 148 seg., 177, 223.
Monophysitism, 6, 105 seq.. Ill
seq., 130 seg., 352.
Monothehtism, 6, 8, 119 seg., 131.
Montanism, 27, 48.
Moravians, 199, 244.
Mormons, 28, 250.
Mysticism, 17, 247, 258.
Nestorianism, 101, 105 seg., 109
seq., 130 seg., 351 seg.
Nihilianism, 126, 136.

Old Catholics, 230 seg., 253.
Order, 233, 270 seg., 274, 305 seg.

INDEX

419

Orders, rehgious, 123, 148, 150,
158 seg., 182 seg., 222 seg., 267
seg.; Oratory of Divine Love,
161, 182; Society of Jesus, 17,
23, 182 seg., 195, 222 seq., 302.
Original Sin, 127 seg., 162, 177,
188, 203 seg., 213, 224 seg., 267,
310, 317 seq., 331, 337 seg., 342,
367 seq., 376 seg., 382, 408.
Pantheism, 45, 225 seg., 246, 272.
Papal infallibility, 14, 229 seg.;
supremacy, 23, 124, 152, 159
seq., 222, 226 seq., 333; tyranny,
144 seq.
Parousia, 73 seg.
Passion of Christ, 42, 60 seg., 88,
292, 342.
Patripassians, 49.
Pelagianism, 127 seg., 310, 337
seg.
Penance, 162, 164, 274, 299 seg.,
327 seq.
Pentecost, 43, 65, 71, 75, 77, 280.
Phihppists, 179, 340, 345, 347,
356.
Philosophy of Aristotle, 6 seg., 91,
134, 154, 236; Plato, 164, 236,
247.
Photinians, 86.
Pietism, 9, 244, 245, 302, 317,
359, 370, 407.
Plymouth Brethren, 250, 321, 337.
Pneumatomachi, 86, 97, 100, 102,
103.
Polemics, 9, 15 seg., 19, 24, 28.
Polytheism, 46, 46, 84, 95.
Predestination, 129, 203 seg., 357
seq., 360 seg.
Pre-existence of Christ, 48, 66, 60,
106, 286.
Presbyterianism, 9, 16, 16, 174,
183, 215 seg., 242 seg., 266, 321,
393 seg.
Priesthood, 133 seg., 141, 149, 266
seg., 332.
Purgatory, 163, 174, 305, 327 seg.,
335
Puritans, 9, 13, 198, 209, 216, 244,
260, 264, 266, 278, 295 seq., 298,
302, 372, 384.
Quakers, 32, 242, 287, 313, 343,
369, 370, 404, 409.

Rationahsm, 225 seg., 245 seg.,
272, 359, 407.
Reason, 225 seg., 236, 247, 265
seg., 271 seg.
Reformation, 6, 7, 11, 16 seq., 20,
31, 32, 37, 122, 126, 129 seg.,
137, 139 seq., 158 seq., 242, 248,
251 seg., 278 seg., 310 seg., 400,
406.
Regeneration, 59 seg., 76, 80, 242,
277 seg., 313 seg., 322, 339, 342,
346, 366 seg., 391, 393, 401 seq.
Remonstrants, 211 seg., 360 seg.
Repentance, 43, 71, 79, 99, 162
seg., 177 seg., 300 seq., 319, 327
seq., 345 seq., 364 seg., 383.
Reservation of the Sacrament, 289,
294 seg.
Responsio, 178 seg., 311, 318.
Resurrection, of Christ, 42, 51 seq.,
62, 66, 67 seg., 88, 237, 284, 337
seq., 349 seq., 363; of man, 42,
44, 59, 67, 80 seg., 88, 99, 101,
327 seg., 385, 408.
Ritschllans, 58.
Sabelhanism, 83 seg., 92, 99, 104,
130.
Sacramentarians, 172 seq.
Sacraments, 8, 28, 66, 128, 133,
140 seg., 170, 177, 201, 220, 252,
258, 268 seg., 274 seq., 327, 347
seg., 354 seq., 385, 408 seg.
Sacrifice, 73, 132, 134, 139 seg.,
170, 174, 186, 289 seg., 330 seg.,
347 seg., 385 seg.
Saints, invocation of, 174, 177
seg., 186 seg., 308 seg., 336; per
severance of, 327, 358, 360 seg.,
371, 384.
Salvation Army, 287, 321.
Sanctification, 313, 328 seg., 335
seg., 346, 383, 408.
Satisfaction, 137 seg., 162, 164,
178, 187, 299, 303 seg., 328, 330
seg., 345, 383, 385 seg.
Saumur, School of, 213 seq., 366
seg., 373 seg.
Scholasticism, 6 seq., 12, 16 seg.,
37, 123, 133 seg., 141, 147 seg.,
154, 169, 164, 169, 183, 224,
247, 288, 294, 337, 362, 359,
389, 407.
Schwenckfeldians, 359.
Scriptures, Holy, 5 seg., 11, 16, 21,

420

INDEX

36 seg., 120, 154, 168 seg., 166
seg., 169 seg., 176 seg., 183, 205,
231, 256 seg., 346, 364 seg., 373
seq., 382, 388, 408 seg.
Semi-Arianism, 86, 99, 104, 112,
242 seg.
Semi-Pelagianism, 127 seg., 310,
337 seg.
Session of Christ, 42, 51, 52, 71
seq., 88.
Severians, 115.
Shema, 44.
Sheol, 64, 385.
Socmians, 139, 242, 271 seg.
Supralapsarlanlsm, 209 seg., 378
seg.
Swedenborgians, 28.
Symbol, term, 4 seg., 10 seg.; of
Fish, 4, 44, 46 seg., 60, 96.
Symbolics, term, 3 seg., 8 seg., 24
seg.; discipline of, 3 seg., 203,
242; comparative, 18 seg., 36,
122, 261 seq.; fundamental, 5
seg., 26 seg., 34 seg.; particular,
10 seg., 26 seg., 121 seg., 251
seg., 274, 337, 373, 382, 408.
Symbols, Ecumenical {v. Creeds);
of Reformation, 158 seg., 200,
202, 254, 320, 411.
Symbols, Greek, 200 seg., 329.
Symbols, Protestant, 11 seg., 29
seg.; Anglican Articles, 5, 13, 15,
191 seg., 216, 243, 264 seg., 292
seg., 315, 326, 328, 331, 383, 386,
396; Westminster, 216 seq., 252;
Catechism, 215 seg., 243; Con
fession, 13 seg., 203, 215 seg.,
237, 276, 313 seg., 321, 361 seq.,
376 seg., 382 seg.; Lesser Sym
bols, 12 seg., 193 seg., 210 seg.,
220, 364, 399 seg. Lutheran, 11,
29; Augsburg Confession, 11
seg., 176 seg., 184, 186 seg., 191,
205 seg., 263, 266, 268, 274, 281,
292, 303, 311 seg., 347, 365, 359;
Apology for, 11, 176 seg., 205,
313,318; Catechisms of Luther,
11 seg., 206, 276, 281; Book of
Concord, 11 seg., 179 seg., 205;
Formula of Concord, 5, ll seg.,
203 seg., 262, 263, 277, 281, 312
seg., 319, 333, 337 seg., 367, 370,
384; Lester Symbols, 11, 174
seg., 185 seq., 204 seq., 282, 333.
Reformed (Continental), 12, 29,

263; Belgic, 12, 193, 270, 318
seg., 321, 325, 332; of Bern, 174,
263, 335; of Dort, 12, 203, 208
seg., 360 seg., 373 seg., 383 seg.;
Gallican, 12, 193, 265, 270, 282
seg., 324, 331 ; Heidelberg, 12, 193
seg., 301 ; / Helvetic, 12, 185, 263,
267, 331; // Helvetic Confes
sion, 12, 194, 196 seg., 263, 278,
374; Helvetic Consensus, 13, 213
seg., 373 seg., 382; Tetrapolitan,
12, 180 seq.; Zwinglian, 169
seg., 180 seg., 263, 331 seg.; Lesser
Symbols, 12, 185, 193 seg., 206
seq.
Symbols, Roman, 29, 221 seg., 253;
Catechism, 195 seg., 275 seg., 284,
304 seg.; Canons of Trent, 14,
195 seg., 263 seg., 270 seg., 278
seg., 310 seg., 338, 340, 386, 400;
of Vatican, 14, 226 seg.
Synergism, 203 seq., 339 seg.
Taborites, 198.
Te Deum, 5, 8.
Theology, comparative, 22, 31;
positive, 6 seg., 16, 22, 37, 169,
183; old and new school, 213
seg., 217 seg., 373 seg., 384.
Theotokos, 109 seg.
Tome of Leo, 107, 111.
Tractarian Movement, 249.
Tradition, 11, 21, 264 seg.
Transubstantiation, 23, 133 seg.,
178, 281 seq., 295, 347 seg.
Typos, 119.
Unction, 274, 280, 308, 327 seg.
Unitarianism, 242, 359, 382, 399.
Universahsm, 213, 364 seq., 377
seg., 409.
Unity, of God, 43 seg., 84 seg., 102
seg., 408; of Christ, 106 seg., 109
seg., 130 seg.; of the Church, 23,
77 seg., 123, 142, 162, 154, 161,
230, 234, 235, 406 seg.
Utraquists, 198.
Verbal Inspiration, 213, 373 seg.,
379 seg.
Virgin Birth, 41, 51 seg., 61, 75, 96,
105 seq.. Ill seg., 132 seg., 237.
Waldensians, 152, 184, 197 seg.,
295.

INDEX

421

Westminster Assembly, 215 seg.,
242, 266, 364, 374, 376 seg., 382
seg.
Words of Institution, 132, 275 seg.,
281 seg.

Works of Supererogation, 323 seg.,
336, 384.
Yahweh, 43 seg., 50, 66, 61.
Zwinghans, 171 seg., 180 seg.

II. NAMES

Abelard, 5, 7, 135, 138.
Acaclus, 117.
.Epinus, 353.
Agatho, 120.
Agricola, 175, 190, 345.
Albertus Magnus, 8, 293.
Alberus, 18.
Alcuin, 131.
Alexander of Alexandria, 84.
Alexander Hales, 6.
Alexander III, 136.
Allen, 30.
Alphen, 194.
Alsted, 9.
Alting, 194.
Ambrose, 37, 40, 42.
Amhng, 206.
Amsdorf, 190, 344.
Amyraut (Amyraldus), 213, 214,
373.
Andreae, J., 18, 200, 204.
Andreae, L., 187.
Andrew of Samosata, 110.
Anselm, 137 seg., 267, 386.
Anton, 206.
Apollinaris, 107, 109.
Aquila, C, 191.
Aquinas, Thomas, 6, 8, 43, 137,
139, 159, 164, 224, 240, 294, 378,
386, 389.
Aristotle, 68, 91, 150, 154, 247.
Arius, 60, 84.
Arminius, 211 seq.
Artemon, 48.
Aspileneta, 18.
Athanasius, 36, 63, 94, 100.
Augusti, 222.
Augustine, 3, 4, 36, 37, 40, 50, 100,
103, 107, 127, 129, 137, 167, 183,
224, 249, 269, 267, 276.
Augustus of Saxony, 204.
Aymon, 194, 214.
Bahr, 4.
Baier, A. H., 26.
Baier, J. W., 38.

Balthasar, 176, 206.
Barclay, 220.
Barlaeus, 212.
Barnaud, 215.
Barneveldt, 211.
Baro, 210.
Barrett, 210.
Barrow, Henry, 394, 399.
Barrow, Isaac, 37.
Barthlet, 18.
Baschet, 196.
Basil, 94, 329.
Bassi, 182.
Baudin, 7.
Baumer, 39.
Baumgarten, 19, 206.
Baur, 25, 113, 246.
Baxter, 21, 244, 374.
Bechmann, 19.
Beck, F. A., 13.
Beck, J. C, 185.
Bellegarde, 222.
Berengarius, 10, 131, 132.
Berg, 21.
Bergius, 208.
Bernard, 137, 138.
Bernhold, 19.
Bernoulh, 39.
Bertram, 186.
Beutel, 190.
Beza, 194, 209, 267, 368.
Bezold, 199.
Bickel, 232.
Biddle, 242.
Bidembach, 204.
Bieck, 190.
Bifield, 37.
Bindley, 39.
Blass, 63.
Blaurock, 170.
Blondel, 378, 379.
Blunt, 193.
Bockel, 13.
Bod, 196.
Bodemann, 13, 25.
Bohl, 197.

422

INDEX

Bomberg, 158.
Bonaventura, 8, 137.
Borromeo, 195.
Bossuet, 18, 23.
Brandt, 194.
Brent, 196.
Brenz, 176, 185 seg., 350.
Bres, Guy de, 193.
Brieger, 176, 189.
Brischar, 196.
Browne, E. H., 192.
Browne, Robert, 394, 399.
Briick, 178.
Bucer, 12, 20, 173 seg., 181, 182,
184, 185, 188, 189, 191, 279, 282,
347.
Buchmann, 26.
Buckley, 196.
Buddeus, 18.
Bugenhagen, 176, 186, 187.
Bull, 37.
Bullinger, 8, 18, 37, 184, 185, 193,
196.
Bungener, 196.
Burckhardt, 185.
Burg, 26.
Burn, 39, 40.
Burnet, 192.
Butler, Charles, 24.
Butler, C. M., 193.
Cajetan, 162, 165.
Calamy, 374, 377, 378.
Calderwood, 194.
Cahnioh, 180.
Calixtus I, 83.
Calixtus, George, 9, 21, 208.
Calovius, 207, 208, 212.
Calvin, 7, 8, 12, 37, 161, 161, 173,
183, 184, 193, 194, 209, 259, 260,
267, 270, 279, 282, 329, 330, 347,
357, 368.
Camerarius, 199.
Cameron, 213.
Campbell, Alexander, 248.
Campbell, Thomas, 248.
Campeggio, 188.
Cano, 159.
Capito, 12, 174, 188.
Cappellus, 213, 214, 380.
Caraffa, 182.
Carcereri, 196.
Cardoni, 232.
Cardwell, 192.
Carleton, George, 379.

Carlstadt, 166, 170, 175, 176.
Carlton, D., 212.
Carpzov, 12.
Carroll, 249.
Cartwright, 9, 394.
Caspari, 38, 40, 78.
Cassander, 20, 21.
Cattenburgh, 212, 213.
Cecconi, 233.
Chahners, 248.
Chandleu, 193.
Chariemagne, 123, 130, 131.
Charles I of England, 216, 393,
395.
Charles II, 192.
Charles V, Emperor, 145.
Charles IX of Sweden, 187.
Chemnitz, 204, 350.
Chiflaet, 196.
Christian Wilham of Brandenburg,
208.
Chytraeus, 180, 204.
Clement of Alexandria, 66.
Clement VII, 146.
Cnoglerus, 6, 37.
Coccius, 9.
Cochlaeus, 176, 178, 181, 187, 189.
Ccelestlne I, 109, 110.
Colet, 159.
Colonia, 222.
Colton, 243.
Comenius, 208, 244.
Conrad, 8.
Constans II, 119.
Constantine, 84.
Constantine Pogonatus, 119, 120.
Cornerus, 204.
Cornford, 193.
Coster, 18.
Courayer, 196.
Covel, 202.
Cranmer, 161, 184, 191, 267.
Creuzer, 4.
Crocius, 208, 379.
Cromwell, 216.
Crosby, 220.
Cruciger, 37.
Crusius, 200.
Cunerus, 18.
Curtis, 28.
Cusanus, 161.
Cyprian, 34, 41, 79.
Cyprian, E. S., 180.
Cyril of Alexandria, 109 seq., 115,
118.

INDEX

Cyril of Jerusalem, 43, 63, 67, 77, 80,
87, 89, 90, 96, 97, 99, 280, 329.
Damasus, 8.
Daniel, E., 193.
Dannenmayer, 19.
Danz, 14, 196.
Davenant, 379.
Davey, 192.
Dehtzsch, 68.
Denzinger, 14, 132, 221, 225.
Deodatus, 196.
Descartes, 236.
De Witte, 194.
Dexter, 220, 394, 402, 403.
Dietehnaier, 202.
Dietenberger, 18.
Dionysius the Areopagite, 4.
DIoscurus, 111.
Dobel, 182.
Doedes, 194.
Dollinger, 196, 232.
Donovan, 196.
Dorner, 113, 116, 139, 349.
Dositheus, 200 seg.
Dowden, 193.
Dubois, 222.
Duchesne, 86.
Dunlop, 194.
Duns Scotus, 139, 224, 389.
Dupanloup, 232.
Du Pin, 18, 196.
Durandus, 5.
Durie, 22.
Ebart, 9.
Eck, 8, 152, 166, 167, 176, 178, 181,
187 seg.
Edward VI, 191, 192.
Edwards, Jonathan, 245, 374, 376.
Egh, 170.
Ellpandus, 130.
Ehzabeth of England, 192, 211,
396.
Elhs, 192.
Emlyn, 242.
Epiphanius, 60, 75, 77, 87, 89 seg.,
96 seg.
Episcopius, 211 seg.
Erasmus, 8, 20, 37, 147, 151, 168,
161, 170, 171, 339.
Ernesti, 5.
Erskine, 244.
Eusebius of Caesarea, 60, 67, 72,
75, 85, 90, 91.

Eusebius of Dorylaeum, 110.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 84.
Eutyches, 109 seg., 117.
Faber, 169, 176, 178, 181.
Fabricius, 19.
Fagius, 191.
Farel, 183, 197.
Fausset, 193.
Fecht, 38.
Fehx of Urgel, 130.
Fels, 182.
Ferdinand I, 20, 189, 198.
Ferdinand II, 198.
Ferdinand V, 159.
Fessler, 232.
Ffoulkes, 39.
Ficker, 180.
Field, 37.
Fisher, 160, 191.
Flacius, 337 seg.
Flavian, 110, 111.
Fletcher, 327.
Fontaine, 222.
Forbes, A. P., 192.
Forbes, John, 21.
Forstemann, 180.
Fossombrone, 182.
Fox, 160.
Francke, 244.
Frank, 206.
Franz, 180.
Frederick I, 244.
Frehnghuysen, 244.
Frere, 193.
Friedberg, 233.
Friedrich, 25, 232, 233.
Froment, 183.
Fromman, 233.
Froude, 196.
Gaberel, 194.
Gaetano da Thiene, 182.
Gairdner, 198.
Gale, 222.
Garrison, 193.
Gasquet, 193.
Gass, 39.
Gee, 193.
George of Saxony, 208.
Gerberon, 222.
Gerdes, 19.
Gernler, 214. •
Giattino, 196.
Gieseler, 113, 161, 165, 171.

424

INDEX

Gillespie, 219, 364.
Gindely, 199.
Gladstone, 233.
Glasius, 213.
Godkin, 195.
Goltz, Von der, 39.
Gomarus, 211, 378.
Gore, 293, 294.
Goschel, K. F., 206
Goschl, J., 196.
Graf, 212.
Granderath, 233.
Gratian, 8.
Gratry, 225.
Grebel, 170.
Green, E. T., 192.
Green, W. H., 380.
Gregory Nazlanzen, 94.
Gregory of Nyssa, 94.
Gregory III, 40.
Gregory VII, 132.
Gropper, 8, 20, 184, 188, 189.
Grotlus, 21, 211, 392.
Guericke, 26.
Guettee, 222.
Gumhch, 26.
Gustavus Vasa, 187.
Gwatkin, 92.
Haag, 215.
Hagenbach, 10, 185.
Hahn, 39.
Hales, 212.
Hahfax, 234.
Hall, Joseph, 379.
Hall, Peter, 209.
Hammond, 38.
Hardwick, 192.
Hardy, 39.
Harms, 407.
Harnack, 39.
Harvey, 5, 38.
Hase, 19, 25.
Hausser, 150, 169.
Heber, 180.
Hedio, 175.
Hefele, 113, 230.
Hegel, 245, 247.
Heidegger, 38, 214.
Hemming, 8, 9.
Henderson, 215.
Henry VIII, 159 seg., 170.
Heppe, 13, 206.
Heraclius, 119.
Hergenrother, 232.

Hering, 207.
Hermann of Cologne, 184, 185,
188
Hermks, 42, 66, 326.
Heruetus, 196.
Heshuslus, 358.
Hessels, 18.
Heurtley, 38.
Heylyn, 37, 212.
Hickman, 212.
Hilary of Aries, 100.
Hilary of Poitiers, 92, 94.
Hildebert of Tours, 7.
Hilgers, 26.
Hinschius, 233.
Hippocrates, 68.
HIppolytus, 52, 66.
Hobbes, 236.
Hodge, A. A, 380.
Hodge, Charles, 374.
Hoe of Hoenegg, 208.
Hofmann, 26.
Hofmeister, 8, 189.
Holsten, 38.
Honoratus, 100.
Honorius, 119, 120, 231.
Hooper, 37.
Hopfner, 208.
Hornejus, 202.
Hort, 39, 87.
Hortleder, 189.
Hosius of Cordova, 84, 92.
Hosius, S., 18.
Hospinian, 206.
Hettinger, 214.
Houssaie, 196.
Huber, 18.
HuUer, 222.
Hiilsemann, 208.
Hume, 238 seg.
Huss, 152, 166, 188, 198, 295.
Hutter, 12, 180, 206.
Ibas, 118.
Ignatius of Antloch, 51, 63, 66, 67,
70, 77.
Ignatius Loyola, 182.
Innocent I, 127.
Irenaeus, 4, 8, 36, 41, 51 seg.,
60, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 75 seg.,
258.
Isselburg, 379.
Ittig, 38, 202.
Ivimey, 220.
Ivo of Chartres, 7.

INDEX

425

Jablonski, 197.
Jacobs, 180.
James, the Apostle, 54, 69, 329.
James I, 192, 394, 395.
Jansen, 221, 222.
Jeremiah of Constantinople, 200.
Jerome of Prague, 198.
John, the Apostle, 51, 70, 280, 286,
291, 363.
John, the Baptist, 56, 58, 59, 66.
John of Antloch, 110, 111, 118.
John of Damascus, 7, 114, 116.
John XXII, 146.
John Scotus Erigena, 132.
Johnston of Warriston, 215.
Jonas, 175, 176.
Josephus, 44.
Jundt, 198.
Justin Martyr, 51 seg., 57, 60, 66,
80.
Justinian, 8, 117, 118.
Kahnis, 259.
Kaiser, 180.
Kant, 245, 247.
Karg, 342.
Karsten, 26.
Kattenbusch, 25, 29, 31, 39, 63.
Keble, 249.
Keim, 182.
Kenrick, 232.
Ketteler, 232.
Kidd, 263.
Kihn, 10, 16.
Kimmel, 202.
King, 38.
Klee, 16.
Klein, 15.
Klener, 14.
Khefoth, 279.
Klingius, 9.
Knaake, 177.
Knox, 193, 194.
Koecher, 180, 194, 196, 206.
KoUner, 16, 26, 179, 181.
Kosthn, 283.
Krauth, 179.
Krispin, 198.
Kromayer, 9.
Kunze, 39.
Labadie, 244.
Laing, 219.
Lamb, 192.
Lambert, 8.

Lanfranc, 132.
Langen, 233.
Lasco, 193.
Lathbury, 193.
Latomus, 189.
Laud, 192, 216, 216, 393.
Launoius, 225.
Laurentius, 209.
Lebeau, 180.
Lechler, 198.
L6ger, 197.
Leibnitz, 22, 236.
Lenfant, 194.
Leo I. 107, 109, 111.
Leo III, 123.
Leo IX, 125.
Leo X, 163, 165.
Leo XIII, 233.
Leo Judae, 170.
Leontius of Byzantium, 114, 116.
Le Plat, 196.
Lessing, 238.
Leydecker, 222.
Leyser, 208.
Lightfoot, 218.
Lisco, 38.
Littledale, 196.
Locke, 236.
Loisy, 234.
Loofs, 26, 29, 31.
Lucar, Cyril, 201, 202.
Lucchesinus, 222.
Lucian, 60.
Ludolph of Saxony, 5.
Luke, 53, 54, 58, 62, 68.
Lumby, 39.
Luther, 5, 8, 11, 12, 37, 147, 161
seg., 166 seg., 161 seg., 180, 183
seg., 187, 189, 198, 203, 204, 208,
266, 262, 267, 268, 271, 272, 274,
278, 281, 283, 299, 303, 305, 313,
316, 318, 320, 327, 337 seq., 341,
343 seq., 363, 367, 368, 407.
Lutzenburgus, 18.
Maccabeus, Judas, 329.
Major, 189, 344.
Malderus, 212.
Manning, 232, 233, 249.
Manutius, 196.
Manz, 170.
Marcellus of Ancyra, 40, 75, 97.
Maret, 232.
Marheinecke, 16, 24, 25.
Maris, 118.

426

INDEX

Marshall, Stephen, 377, 378.
Marshall, W., 198.
Martene, 190.
Martin I, 119.
Martin V, 152.
Martin, C, 233.
Martinius, 379.
Mary the Virgin, 41, 52, 54, 58, 60,
88, 96, 106, 109, 111, 130, 133,
223 seq., 308.
Maskell, 192.
Matthes, 26.
Maximilian II, 198.
Mayer, 196.
McGiffert, 39, 238, 239.
McGlothhn, 220.
McGready, 248.
Melanchthon, 8, 11, 20, 37, 168,
173, 176 seg., 184 seg., 193, 203,
204, 313, 318, 339, 341, 344,
345, 347, 349, 350, 353, 355,
357
Melchizedek, 290, 334.
Meldenius, Rupertus, 21, 412.
Meletlus Syriga, 201, 202.
Melius, 194.
Memnon of Ephesus, 110.
Mendham, 196.
Mensing, 188.
Mentzer, 180.
Menzel, 4.
Mess, 13.
Metrophanes Critopulus, 202.
Meurer, 186.
Meyers, 38.
Michael Caerularlus, 125.
Michalcescu, 202.
Migetius, 130.
Miltitz, Charles v., 165.
Mitchell, 219.
Mogilas, 200 seg.
Mohler, 24, 25, 28, 318, 319.
Molmaeus, P., 212.
Mollnos, Miguel de, 221.
Montfaucon, 38.
More, Sir Thomas, 159 seg., 191.
Moritz of Saxony, 190.
Moriand, 197.
Miicke, 39.
MuUer, C. G., 190.
MuUer, E. F. K., 26, 29.
Miiller, J. J., 180.
Miiller, K., 13, 182.
Musaeus, 206.
Musculus, 204.

Muston, 197.
Myconius, 175, 185.
Nausea, 20, 189.
Neale, 222.
Neander, 25, 113, 257, 258.
Nestorius, 109 seg., 115, 117, 127.
Neuberger, 208.
Neven, 194.
Newman, 249.
Niceta of Remesiana, 37, 78, 81.
Nicholas I, 125, 136.
Nicholas V, 123, 142, 143.
Nicholas, J. S., 220.
Nicolas, M., 38.
Nicolaus of Methone, 139.
Niemeyer, 13.
Nitzsch, 26, 283.
Normann, 202.
Nosgen, 26.
Occhino, Bernardino, 161, 191.
(Ecolampadius, 175, 185.
Oehler, 26.
Olearius, 9.
Olevianus, 193.
Origen, 41, 56, 60, 66, 159.
Osiander, Andreas, 175, 313, 341
seg., 370.
Osiander, Lucas, 18, 204.
Otto, J. C. T., 202.
Palacky, 197.
Paleotto, 196.
Pallavicini, 196.
Palmer, Herbert, 217.
Panzer, 180.
Pareus, 4, 37.
Parker, Matthew, 192.
Passaglia, 225.
Pastor, 187, 188, 189, 313, 318.
Patton, 378, 381.
Patzold, 182.
Paul, thejApostle, 50 seg., 66, 58,59,
61, 62, 66, 68 seg., 79, 81, 124,
129, 166, 167, 164, 269, 280, 285
seg., 290, 291, 353, 376.
Paul of Samosata, 4, 8, 83 seg., 92,
99.
Paulus, C, 9.
Pearson, 37.
Pelagius, 127, 224.
Pelargus, 207.
Peltius, 212.
Perkins, 37, 210, 211.

INDEX

427

Perrin, 197.'
Perrone, 225.
Pescheck 199.
Peter, the Apostle, 43, 47, 50, 51, 55,
62, 64, 65, 69 seg., 81, 124, 162,
156, 229 seg., 269, 280, 285, 353.
Peter Lombard, 7, 136, 294, 342.
Petri, 187.
Pezel, 207.
Pfaff, C. M., 186, 214.
Pfaff, K., 180.
Pfeffinger, 340.
Pflug, Julius von, 20, 188 seg.
Phihp of Hesse, 175.
Philippi, F. A., 26.
Philo, 84.
Photius, 125, 126, 136.
Pichler, A., 202.
Pichler, V., 19.
Pickering, 192.
Pierce, 242.
Pighius, 18, 189.
Pilate, Pontius, 42, 52, 60, 61, 88.
Pipping, 206.
Pirminlus, 40.
Pistorius, 188.
Pitman, 218.
Pius II, 152.
Pius IV, 195.
Pius V, 195.
Pius VII, 223.
Pius IX, 14, 223, 225, 232, 234, 235.
Pius X, 14, 223, 226, 233 seg.
Placeus, 213, 214.
Planck, 24.
Plato, 154, 247.
Phtt, 26, 180.
Polanus, 196.
Praxeas, 49.
Preger, 190.
Pressens6, 233.
Pressius, 198.
Proctor, 193.
Proles, 161.
PuUan, 193.
PuUein, 7.
Pusey, 249.
Quesnel, Paschasius, 221, 222.
Quick, 194.
Quirinus, 232.
Radbertus, Paschasius, 132.
Radchffe, 38.
Rambach, 19, 196.

Ratramnus, 132.
Rausch, 180.
Rauwenhoff, 195.
Rechenberg, 9, 16, 206.
Regenboog, 213.
Reid, 219.
Reinkens, 232.
Renan, 246.
Resch, 63.
Reuchlin, H., 222.
Reuchlin, J., 151, 158
R6villant, 38.
Revius, 194.
Reynolds, 364.
Rhegius, Urbanus, 8, 37.
Ricard, 222.
Richey, 39.
Richter, 196.
Riederer, 9.
Ritschl, 246.
Robertson, 202.
Robinson, 212.
Rogers, 192.
Roget, 194.
Rogge, 213.'
Roskovdny, 225.
Rudelbach, 38, 180.
Rudolph II, 198.
Rufinus, 3, 4, 36, 37, 40, 63, 64, 75.
Rutherford, 212.
Ryves, 403.
Sabelhus, 49, 83, 99.
Sadoleto, 161.
Sainte-Aldegonde, 25.
Salig, 180, 196.
Sahiar, 12, 209.
Samson, 169.
Sanday, 39.
Sanden, 15.
Sarpi, 196.
Sartorius, 25.
Savonarola, 149, 161.
Schaff, 10, 39, 40, 113, 175, 179,
180, 195, 233, 258 seg., 272, 282,
283, 337, 341, 344, 349, 360.
Scheeben, 233.
Sch6ele, 26.
Schelhng, 246.
Schelstrate, 202.
Schirrmacher, 180.
Schleiermacher, 246, 247, 257, 258,
407.
Schmid, 190.
Schmidt, H., 26.

428

INDEX

Schneckenburger, 25.
Schnepf, 187.
Schotel, 194.
Schubert, 19.
Schulte, 196, 232, 233.
Schwab, 38.
Schwane, 131, 132.
Schweizer, 215.
Schwenckfeld, 313.
Scott, 213.
Seaman, 377, 378.
Sfiche, 222.
Selnecker, 204, 206.
Semisch, 39.
Serglus of Constantinople, 119.
Servetus, 184.
Sickel, 196.
Sigismund, 207.
Simeon, 54.
Simson, 243.
Smets, 196.
Smith, H. B., 376.
Smith, Thomas, 202.
Smyth, John, 402.
Soto, Dominico, 159.
Spener, 9, 244.
Speroni, 38.
Spinola, 22.
Spinoza, 236.
Spottiswoode, 194.
Sprott, 193.
Stancaro, 342.
Stanley, 30, 39.
Stapferus, l9.
Staupitz, 151, 161.
Stephen of Austria, 198.
Stephens, A. J., 193.
Stevens, C. E., 193.
Strauss, 246.
Streitwolf, 14.
Strigelius, 9.
Sturm, 174, 175.
Sudhoff, 194.
Suicer, 38.
Swainson, 38.
Swete, 39, 63.
Szalay, 195.
Tafel, 25.
Taverner, 179.
Tennent, 244.
Tentzel, 38.
Tertulhan, 4, 8, 36, 41, 48, 49, 61
seg., 60, 63, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 76,
79, 80, 280.

Tetzel, 162 seg., 303.
Theiner, 196.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 118.
Theodoret, 118.
Theodorus of Caesarea, 118.
Theodosius, 86, 111.
Theodotus, the Currier, 48.
Thomais, the Apostle, 50.
Thomas, L., 197.
Travers, 215, 394.
Tregelles, 222. ¦
Tschackert, 19, 180.
Turmel, 7, 10.
Turrecremata, 225.
Turrettin, 16, 19, 214, 378.
Twesten, 258.
Twisse, 379.
Tyrrel, 234.
Ullathorne, 225.
Ulhnann, 139.
Underbill, 220.
Ursinus, 193, 206.
Ussher, 37, 215, 395, 396.
Uytenbogaert, 211.
Valentia, 18.
Van Wyk, 222.
Varemius, 180.
Vasquez, 18.
Vedel, 212.
Veltwick, 188.
Venantius Fortunatus, 64.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 8, 9, 161,
162, 191, 347, 358.
Veuillot, 232.
Victor, Pope, 48.
Vincent of L6rins, 100, 101, 412.
Vines, 377, 378.
Vinke, 194.
Viret, 183.
Visconti, 196.
Vlttoria, 169.
Vossius, 5, 37.
Walch, C. G. F., 38.
Walch, J. E. I., 38.
Walch, J. G., 8, 171, 173, 187, 189,
206.
Walker, W., 220
Wallis, 37.
Ward, 379.
Warfield, 381.
Warham, 160.
Wateriand, 38.

INDEX

429

Waterworth, 196.
Weber, 180.
Weissenborn, 202.
Wernsdorff, 182.
Wesley, 244, 321, 330.
Wessenberg, 196.
Westphal, 347.
Whitakers, 364.
Whitfield, 244.
Wimpina, 187.
Winer, 24, 25.
Wirgmann, 193.
Witsius, 38.
Witzel, 20.
Wladislaus, 208.
Wolsey, 159, 160.
Wycklif, 152, 188, 197, 295.
Wyttenbach, 19.

Ximenes, 159.
Zaccaria, 182.
Zahn, 39, 53.
Zanchius, 358.
Zeltner, 212.
Zeno, 117.
Zephyrinus, 48.
Zezschwitz, 38.
Zinzendorf, 199, 244.
Zirngiebl, 233.
Zockler, 39, 180.
Zorn, 207.
Zosimus, 127.
ZwingU, 12, 151, 155, 161, 169,
170, 173 seg., 178, 180 seg., 208,
209, 260, 263, 272, 282 seg., 296,
331, 332, 334, 347.

The International Theological Library

ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS

THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. By CHARLES A. BrIGGS, D.D.,
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT. By S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of Hebrew
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
CANON AND TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the Rev. JOHN
Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Lit
erature, College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge, England,
and the Rev. Owen Whitehouse, B.A., Principal and Professor of Hebrew,
Chestnut College, Cambridge, England.
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By Henry Preserved Smith, D.D.,
Librarian, Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By
Francis Brown, D.D., LL.D., D.Litt., President and Professor of
Hebrew, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
THEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Professor of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTA-
MENT. By Rev. James Moefatt, B.D., Minister United Free Church,
Broughty Ferry, Scotland. [Now Ready.
CANON AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By CASPAR ReNE
Gkegoey, D.D., LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the
University of Leipzig. [Now Ready.
THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By WitLiAM Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady
Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.

The International Theological Library

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. By
Arthur C. McGiffert, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theo
logical Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By
Frank C. Porter, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn.
THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By GeoRGE B. SteveNS,
D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New
Haven, Conn. [Now Ready.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. By G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor
of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford.
THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC CHURCH. By ROBERT RaiNEY, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Principal of New College, Edinburgh. [Now Ready.
THE LATIN CHURCH FROM GREGORY THE GREAT TO THE
COUNCIL OF TRENT. [Author to be announced later.
THE GREEK AND EASTERN CHURCHES. By W. F. AdENEY, D.D.,
Principal of Independent College, Manchester. [Now Ready.
THE REFORMATION. By T. M. LiNDSAY, D.D., Principal of the United
Free College, Glasgow. [2 vols. Now Ready.
CHRISTIANITY IN LATIN COUNTRIES SINCE THE COUNCIL OF
TRENT. By Paul Sabatier, D.Litt., Drome, France.
THEOLOGICAL SYMBOLICS. By Chaeles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt.,
sometime Professor of Theological Encyclopasdia and Symbolics, Union
Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By G. P. FiSHER, D.D.,
LL.D., sometime Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS. By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., sometime
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School,
Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. By George Gallaway, D.D., Minister
of United Free Church, Castle Douglas, Scotland.
HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. L China, Japan, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria,
India, Persia, Greece, Rome. By George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Pro
fessor in Harvard University. [Now Ready.
HISTORY OF RELIGIONS. II. Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism.
By George F. Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor in Harvard University.
APOLOGETICS. By A. B. Bruce,D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa
ment Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. By WilLIAmN. ClARKE, D D.,
sometime Professor of Systemadc Theology, Hamilton Theological Semi-
^'^y- [Now Ready.

The International Theological Library

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. By WiLUAM P. Paterson, D.D., Professor
of Divinity, University of Edinburgh.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. By H. R.
Mackintosh, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology, New College, Edinburgh.
[Now Ready.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. By GeoRGE B. STE
VENS, D.D., sometime Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. [Now Ready.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. By WiLLIAM AdaMS
Brown, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological
Seminary, New York.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of Congrega
tional Church, New Haven. [Revised and Enlarged Edition.
THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE WORKING CHURCH. By
Washington Gladden, D.D., Pastor of Congregational Church, Columbus,
Ohio. i-'^''"' Ready.
THE CHRISTIAN PREACHER. By A. E. Garvie, D.D., Principal of
New CoUege, London, England.

Ihe International Critical Commentary

ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES AND AUTHORS
THE OLD TESTAMENT
uENESIS. The Rev. JOHN Skinner, D.D., Principal and Professor of
Old Testament Language and Literature, College of Presbyterian Church
of England, Cambridge, England. [Now Ready.
EXODUS. The Rev. A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
University of Edinburgh.
LEVITICUS. J. F. Stenning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.
NUMBERS. The Rev. G. BUCHANAN Gray, D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Mansfield College, Oxford. [JVbw Ready.
DEUTERONOMY. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Pro
fessor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Nmu Ready.
,)OSHUA. The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D., Principal of tha
University of Aberdeen.
JUDGES. The Rev. Georoe Moore, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Theol
ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [N(rw Ready.
SAMUEL. The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Librarian,' Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
KINGS. The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., D.Litt., LL.D., President
and Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological
Seminary, New York City.
CHRONICLES. The Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of
Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. [Now Ready.
EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. The Rev. L. W. BATTEN, Ph.D., D.D., Pro
fessor of Old Testament Literature, General Theolcgical Seminary, Nevy
York City. [Now Ready.
PSALMS. The Rev. Chas. A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate
Professor of Theological Encyclopaedia and Symbolics, Union Theological
Seminary, New York. [2 vols. Now Ready.
PROVERBS. The Rev. C. H. Toy, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. [Now Ready.
JOB. The Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., D.Litt., Regius Professor of He
brew, Oxford.

The International Critical Commentary

ISAIAH. Chaps. I-XXVII. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D., Pro
fessor of Hebrew, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Now Ready.
I SAI AH . Chaps. XXVIII-XXXDC. The Rev. G. Buchanan Gray, D.D.
Chaps. LX-LXVI. The Rev. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D., Dean of the Theo
logical Faculty of the Victoria University and Professor of Biblical Exegesis
in the University of Manchester, England.
JEREMIAH. The Rev. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Dean of Ely, sometime
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Cambridge, England.
EZEKIEL. The Rev. G. A. Cooke, M.A., Oriel Professor of the Interpre
tation of Holy Scripture, University of Oxford, and the Rev. Charles F.
Burney, D.Litt,, Fellow and Lecturer in Hebrew, St. John's College,
Oxford, DANIEL. The Rev. JoHN P. PETERS, Ph.D., D.D., sometime Professor
of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's
Church, New York City.
AMOS AND HOSEA. W. R. HARPER, Ph.D., LL.D., sometime President
of the University of Chicago, Illinois. [Now Ready.
MICAH, ZEPHANIAH, NAHUM, HABAKKUK, OBADIAH AND JOEL.
Prof. John M. P. Smith, University of Chicago; W. Hayes Ward, D.D.,
LL.D., Editor of The Independent, New York; Prof. Julius A. Bewer,
Union Theological Seminary, New York. [Now Ready.
HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI AND JONAH. Prof. H. G. MiTCHELL,
D.D.; Prof. John M. P. Smith, Ph.D., and Prof. J. A. Bewer, Ph.D.
[Now Ready.
ESTHER. The Rev. L. B. Paton, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, Hart-
ford Theological Seminary. [Now Ready.
ECCLESIASTES. Prof. George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Bibli
cal Literature, Bryn Mawr College, Pa. [Now Ready.
RUTH, SONG OF SONGS AND LAMENTATIONS. Rev. CHARLES A.
Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., sometime Graduate Professor of Theological Ency
clopaedia and Symbohcs, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

THE NEW TESTAMENT
ST. MATTHEW. The Rev. Willoughby C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and
Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. [Now Ready.
ST. MARK. Rev. E. P. Gould, D.D., sometime Professor of New Testa
ment Literature, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia. [Now Ready.
ST. LUKE. The Rev. ALFRED Plummer, D.D., sometime Master of
University College, Durham. [Now Ready.

The International Critical Commentary

ST. JOHN. The Right Rev. John Henry Bernard, D.D., Bishop of
Ossory, Ireland.
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS. The Rev. WiLLIAM SanDAY, D.D.,
LL.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. Wil
loughby C. Allen, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer in Divinity and Hebrew,
Exeter CoUege, Oxford.
ACTS. The Rev. C. H. Turner, D.D., Fellow of Magdalen College,
Oxford, and the Rev. H. N. Bate, M.A., Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of London.
ROMANS. The Rev. WiLLIAM Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev.
A. C. Headlam, M.A., D.D., Principal of King's College, London. [Now Ready.
I. CORINTHIANS. The Right Rev. Arch Robertson, D.D., LL.D.,
Lord Bishop of Exeter, and Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D., late Master of
University College, Durham. [Now Read^.
II. CORINTHIANS. The Rev. Dawson WALKER, D.D., Theological Tutor
in the University of Durham.
GALATIANS. The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D., Professor of New
Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. The Rev. T. K. Abbott, B.D.,
D.Litt., sometime Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity CoUege, Dublin,
now Librarian of the same. [iVow Ready.
PHILIPPIANS AND PHILEMON. The Rev. Marvin R. VinCent,
D.D., Professor of BibUcal Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New
York City. [Now Ready.
THESSALONIANS. The Rev. James E. Frame, M.A., Professor of
BibUcal Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City. [Now Ready.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. The Rev. WALTER LOCK, D.D., Warden
of Keble College and Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
HEBREWS. The Rev. James Moffatt, D.D., Minister United Fref
Church, Broughty Ferry, Scotland.
ST. JAMES. The Rev. James H. Ropes, D.D., Bussey Professor of New
Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
PETER AND JUDE. The Rev. CHARLES BiGG, D.D., sometime Regius
Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
[Now Ready.
THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES. The Rev. E. A. Brooke, B.D., Fellow
and Divinity Lecturer in King's College, Cambridge. [Now Ready.
REVELATION. The Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A., D.D., sometime
Professor of BibUcal Greek in the University of Dublin.

08837 9335